TOPIC:

Paternalistic Leadership: A Review and Agenda for Future Research

AIM

To understand the concept of Paternalistic Leadership, its essentials and various criticisms involved in it.

SEQUENCE
Zeeshan Sohail Introduction & Brief Review Maj. Hamood Is Cultural context a boundary condition Osman Qadir Mapping the Domain & Three Dimensions of Paternalistic Leadership Ejaz Ahmed The Correlation of theses dimensions Waqas Asif Measurement in Paternalistic Leadership Research & Main Findings Hasan Paracha Theoretical Issues & Conclusion

INTRODUCTION BY

ZEESHAN SOHAIL

INTRODUCTION

What is Paternalistic Leadership? How its Different from other leaderships? Some flaws in Paternalistic Leadership to consider

BRIEF REVIEW

Research on paternalistic leadership has increasingly flourished within the past two decades, but paternalism as a management concept dates back to the early works of Max Weber, who conceptualized paternalism as one form of legitimated authority. Paternalism indicates that managers take a personal interest in workers off-the-job lives and attempt to promote workers personal welfare. Westwood (1997) suggested that paternalistic leadership is effective in the Chinese business context because it meets the twin requirements (compliance and harmony) of successful leadership.

The traditional father-child relationship on which the term is based was one in which the father authoritatively dictated all the behaviors and significant life decisions of his children within a moral framework that credited the father with an unquestionable understanding of the needs and best interests of his children. Research suggests that paternalism is an effective leadership style in many non-Western cultures. However, in the Western context, paternalistic leadership has been equated with authoritarianism. In paternalistic leadership, the main focus is on employees welfare; a leaders care and protection are genuine and employees show loyalty out of respect and appreciation for the leaders benevolence.

IS CULTURAL CONTEXT A BOUNDARY CONDITION

BY

MAJ. HAMOOD

IS CULTURAL CONTEXT A BOUNDARY CONDITION?

United States reported higher paternalistic practices than employees in Canada, Germany, and Israel (Aycan et al., 2000). In an earlier study, Mathur, Aycan, and Kanungo (1996) found Indian employees to be very high on paternalistic values, and they found no significant differences between the public and private sectors. Studies conducted by Martinez (2003, In a recent cross-cultural study, employees in China, Pakistan, India, Turkey, and the 2005) further suggest Mexican employees to have very high paternalistic values, because paternalism fits the Mexican cultural values of respect for hierarchical relations and strong family and personal relationships (Morris & Pavett,1992).

In addition to strong, traditional family norms, the legal structure also influences paternalistic practices. In Mexico, a society with no welfare or employment benefits, if an employee is fired, his or her salary is the firms responsibility for at least 3 months (Martin& Dorfman, 1998). In a similar cultural setting, in Turkey, when an employee is fired, a lump-sum severance payment must be made, calculated as the employees monthly salary multiplied by his or her years of service. Furthermore, if a female employee resigns within 1 year of getting married and claims that her husband does not want her to work, she is also entitled to the same severance pay, which clearly shows the patriarchal nature of the family structure and how family norms affect business organizations.

In these types of societies, the legal structure enforces a patriarchal employee-employer relationship by requiring that the responsibility for employees welfare be shared by their families and by their employers (Martinez & Dorfman, 1998). Research suggests that Japanese employees also place a highly positive value on paternalism. Uhl-Bien et al. (1990) stated that company paternalism is central to the effective functioning of the Japanese system and that the right type of worker in Japan would be some- one with strong beliefs in company paternalism. Research suggests that Japanese employees also place a highly positive value on paternalism. Uhl-Bien et al. (1990) stated that company paternalism is central to the effective functioning of the Japanese system and that the right type of worker in Japan would be someone with strong beliefs in company paternalism.

In addition to Malaysia, research from Turkey suggests that paternalistic leadership may be an effective management tool in the Middle Eastern business context (Pellegrini & Scandura, 2006).

The traditional Turkish business context reflects high power distance and collectivistic values (Hofstede, 2001; House et al., 2004) which makes paternalistic leader- ship a viable management strategy. Collectivists place a premium on maintaining relation- ships and place more emphasis on obligation and loyalty (Sullivan, Mitchell, & Uhl-Bien, 2003).
The importance of obligation and loyalty in personal exchange relationships fits well with the dynamics of paternalistic relationships. In collectivistic societies, personal relationships are highly valued, and employees expect frequent contact (Hofstede, 2001).

Paternalistic leadership has a positive impact on employees attitudes in collectivistic cultures (Gelfand et al., 2007) because the care, support, and protection provided by paternalistic leaders may address employees need for frequent contact and close personal relationships. In addition to increasing research evidence from Latin America, the Middle East, and Pacific Asia regarding the effectiveness of paternalistic leadership, recent research from the United States suggests that paternalism may work in the North American business context as well. In a recent empirical study, Pellegrini, Scandura, and Jayaraman (2007) found paternalistic treatment to significantly and positively influence employees organizational commitment in the North American context. Ansari et al. (2004) suggested that the crux of the issue is not the match between style and geographic location. Rather, the answer lies in the fit between the style of a leader and that of his or her followers, and it may be that in the United States, subordinates with certain values, such as a high need for affiliation or high respect for authority, may desire paternalism and be more productive under paternalistic leadership.

MAPPING THE DOMAIN & THREE DIMENSIONS OF PATERNALISTIC LEADERSHIP

BY

OSMAN QADIR

MAPPING THE DOMAIN OF PATERNALISTIC LEADERSHIP

Conflicting perspective on paternalistic leadership

Conflict dont stem from perceptual differences amongst western and non western scholars but due to lack of sufficient construct clarity
Different researchers have focus on different domain

Bien and Maslyn focus on Authoritarianism

Pellegrini and Scandura focused on Benevolenece Farh, Cheng in 2000 and Aycan in 2006 studied mainly
All cited Paternalism or Paternalisitic Leadership as their construct of interest

THREE DIMENSIONS OF PATERNALISTIC LEADERSHIP

Authoritarianism

refers to leader behaviors that assert authority and control and demand unquestioning obedience from subordinates. Under authoritarian leadership, subordinates comply and abide by leaders requests without dissent.

Benevolence

refers to leader behaviors that demonstrate individualized, holistic concern for subordinates personal and family wellbeing. In return, subordinates feel grateful and obliged to repay when the situation allows.

The third dimension, Morality: depicts leader behaviors that demonstrate superior personal virtues (e.g., does not abuse authority for personal gain, acts as an exemplar in personal and work conduct), which lead subordinates to respect and identify with the leader. On the basis of these dimensions, Farh and Cheng defined paternalistic leadership as a style that combines strong discipline and authority with fatherly benevolence and moral integrity (2000: 94).

THE CORRELATION OF THESE DIMENSIONS

BY

EJAZ AHMED

The Correlation of these Dimensions:

Recent empirical studies conducted in East Asia found authoritarianism to correlate negatively with the other two dimensions, (benevolence and morality) and was also negatively associated with subordinate outcomes, such as team members commitment to and satisfaction with team leaders. On the basis of two dimensions (i.e., behavior and underlying intent), Aycan developed a 2 2 matrix describing four distinct styles of leadership: benevolent paternalism, exploitative paternalism, authoritarian approach, and authoritative approach. The overt leader behavior shared by benevolent and exploitative paternalism is care and nurturance.

Disagreements regarding Paternalism:

In authoritarian management, a leader exploits rewards and punishments to make subordinates comply. Subordinates know that the rules are for their benefit and respect the leaders decisions and willingly comply with the rules (Aycan, 2006). For example, Uhl-Bien and Maslyn suggested that the type of obligation created by paternalism is one of indebtness and oppression

Disagreements regarding Paternalism:

On the other hand, we suggest that Martinez focused on benevolent paternalism when she suggested that paternalistic leaders supportive actions move the employment relationship into boundaries that are not typical of most employment relationships (i.e., personal loans, high degree of personal interest).

As a result, leaders possess subtle control over employees responsiveness to flexibility in work schedules, overtime hours, and other dimensions of the employment relationship.

MEASUREMENT IN PATERNALISTIC LEADERSHIP RESEARCH & MAIN FINDINGS BY

WAQAS ASIF

MEASUREMENT IN PATERNALISTIC LEADERSHIP RESEARCH:

We have specifically been concerned about measurement quality in paternalistic leadership research, and in fact, we have become convinced that the disparity among authors as well as conflicting and un interpretable findings stem from the fact that substantive paternalistic leadership research began before measurement quality was adequately investigated.

We suggest that an accepted measure of either benevolent or exploitative paternalistic leadership has not yet emerged.
For example, Cheng et al. (2000) conceptualized paternalistic leadership as a three-dimensional construct involving benevolence (i.e., holistic concern for subordinates well-being), morality (i.e., demonstrating superior personal virtues), and authoritarianism (i.e., authority and control over subordinates).

MAIN FINDINGS IN PATERNALISTIC LEADERSHIP RESEARCH:

Much of the early empirical research on paternalistic leadership studied paternalism as a unidimensional construct. These studies found paternalistic leadership to be positively related to numerous outcome variables, such as LMX, job satisfaction, obligation, and goal setting (Aycan et al., 1999; Uhl-Bien et al., 1990). Although management scholars are increasingly enthusiastic about paternalistic leadership research, researchers have only recently focused attention on the development (i.e., antecedents) of these relationships.

However, more research is needed to uncover antecedents separately for leaders and subordinates to better understand the dynamics of paternalistic relationships, because different variables may be differentially important for leaders and followers.
Also, research that examines the longitudinal development of paternalistic relations over time is needed to better understand the dynamics of these developmental relationships.

THEORETICAL ISSUES & CONCLUSION

BY

MUHAMMAD HASAN PARACHA

THEORETICAL ISSUES

The literature on paternalistic leadership reveals an emerging and fascinating new area for research. Paternalism may change over time. Research will be needed to measure perceptions of paternalism from both supervisors and subordinates given this trend in leadership research (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).

CONCLUSION

The literature on paternalistic leadership reveals an emerging and fascinating new area for research. Summarizing the currently available alternative measures of paternalism, noting that care must be taken in the selection of a measure and that the measure used should be aligned with the substantive purpose of the research.