Should we stop using the label of “paternalistic leadership”? Evidence from three Chinese samples

Abstract

PurposeProponents of paternalistic leadership argue that a paternalistic leader is authoritative and at the same time, a benevolent and moral individual, and this style is effective in non-Western societies. However, past empirical studies consistently found that authoritarianism related negatively to benevolence, morality and job outcomes. The authors posit that the original proposed style probably did not exist, or at least not being a dominant style, in modern Chinese business organizations.Design/methodology/approachThe authors collected supervisor–subordinate dyadic data from three independent Chinese sample in Taiwan (N = 305), Hubei (N = 350) and Jiangsu (N = 270) and utilized the latent profile analysis method to test the hypotheses.FindingsFirst, authoritarianism ratings are much lower than ratings of benevolence and morality. Second, none of the identified profiles is high on authoritarianism, benevolence and morality at the same time. Third, leadership style with low authoritarianism, but high on benevolence and morality leads to the best employee outcomes.Originality/valueConceptually, the authors clarify the typical leadership styles that compose of the independent dimensions proposed by paternalistic leadership researchers. Methodologically, the authors showed that using person-centered latent profile analysis method can examine combinations of various leadership dimensions or constructs to examine a leader as a whole person. Practically, understanding a leadership style that composes of different levels of various leadership constructs may better inform managers and leaders how they could effectively influence subordinates.