A Thematic Analysis of Paternalistic Leadership

ABSTRACT

This review article aims to examine studies about paternalistic leadership (PL) and present an overview of the literatures’ themes. The study examined articles based on their types, practices, institutions, and country distribution. A total of 271 articles were determined suitable for review. Papers were coded sequentially, and subthemes were created inductively rather than by attempting to fit them into a preexisting coding framework. Based on thematic analysis, four key themes emerged: the individual, organizations, leaders, and others. Most of the studies reviewed were empirical and quantitative. As this review article contributes a review of the literature on PL and defines its four top thematic groups, it serves as a guide for future researchers studying PL.

Keywords: Paternalistic leadership, moral leadership, benevolent leadership, authoritarian leadership

INTRODUCTION

According to the strategic management and leadership literature, paternalism is a complicated but exciting notion that may be utilized to understand better leader-follower interactions and the forms, methods, and “techniques” of managing individuals and organizations (Mussolino & Calabrò, 2014). Similarly, Aycan (2006) also states that few management concepts are more intriguing, nuanced, and contentious than paternalism. Debates on paternalism extend back to the time of Aristotle and Confucius when the family was often thought to be the model for organizing and controlling the state (Aycan, 2015). Paternalism fuels debates as it is perceived differently through various cultural lenses over time (Aycan et al., 2013). When viewed through the lenses of power distance and collectivism, paternalistic leadership (PL) is often endorsed. However, when viewed through the lenses of low power distance and individualism, PL is criticized (Aycan et al. 2013; Gelfand et al., 2007). Western literature leans towards viewing PL as akin to authoritarianism. However, research from non-Western cultures such as China, India, Turkey, Mexico, and Japan proposes instead that paternalism reflects a relationship in which subordinates voluntarily reciprocate the care and protection of parental authority by displaying obedience (Chen et al., 2014).

In feudal societies, social rights were long protected by respectable families or dynasties rather than by laws (Aycan, 2001; Redding et al., 1994). As for Western societies, as a result of industrialization, unionization, and the protection of workers’ rights by law, the importance of paternalism has diminished, and it has lost approval (Paker, 2000, as cited in Aycan, 2001). It is a form of leadership that is widely considered unacceptable in Western countries often characterized as educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (Henrich et al., 2010; Hiller et al., 2019). This is noted in the metaphors and explanations of several works (Aycan 2006; Aycan et al. 2013; Chen et al. 2014). For example, Northouse (2013) defines PL as a “benevolent dictatorship” that acts with kindness to achieve its goal. “The sweetest persuasion” (Jackman, 1994, p. 9), “noncoercive exploitation” (Goodell et al., 1985, p. 252), and “legitimated authority” (Padavic & Earnest, 1994, p. 391) are also other characterizations of PL (Aycan, 2006).

The conceptualization of PL in management literature was outlined after examining the leadership behaviors of Chinese family firms functioning in Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Indonesia (Hiller et al. 2019; Redding, 1990; Silin, 1976). In his studies, Silin (1976) discovered that behavioral styles of corporate managers in Taiwan were vastly different from those in the West. Silin used a comparative sociology approach to examine manager-secondary relationships and leadership styles (1976), explaining PL by features such as didactic leadership, moral leadership, centralized authority, maintaining social distance with subordinates, keeping intentions ill-defined, and implementing control tactics (Lau et al., 2019). Interest in PL continued (Cheng, 1995; Redding, 1990; Westwood, 1997; Farh & Cheng, 2000). Redding (1990) proposed that different subordinates have varying degrees of requests for PL (Lau et al., 2019). His study results also showed that PL was valid in different countries (Farh & Cheng, 2000). Cheng (1995) declared that PL in Taiwanese family enterprises is comprised of two significant categories of behavior: Shi-en (grant favors) and li-wei (inspire awe or fear). The concept of Shi-en refers to leadership behaviors that show personal kindness and generosity. Li-wei, on the other hand, consists of leader behaviors that emphasize the leader’s authority and dominance over subordinates. Westwood (1997) found that social cohesion is Chinese society’s most significant value and belief. The first role of the leader is not to allow conflict in society but to prevent conflicts within the organization. PL is a role that combines discipline and authority with fatherly concern and benevolence.

Cheng et al. broadly defined PL as “a fatherlike leadership style in which clear and strong authority is combined with concern and considerateness and elements of moral leadership” (2000). They break down PL into three kinds of leadership: authoritarian, benevolent, and moral. Authoritarian leadership means leaders assert absolute authority and control over subordinates and claim incontestable compliance from dependents. Benevolent leadership expresses the leader’s concern for followers’ personal and family wellbeing in a holistic approach. Moral leadership refers to leader behaviors that cause followers to respect and identify with the leader (Chen & Farh, 2010).

Although PL has been criticized in the Western literature for impeding employee autonomy and empowerment (Göncü Köse et al., 2014), the development of a growing business interest in non-Western cultures has fostered less negative scholarly interest in PL (Dorfman, 1996). This inconsistency is exacerbated by contradictions in empirical research on the impacts of PL (Bedi, 2020). Thus, this article aims to review the literature on PL since the 1970s and to present an overview of the themes that have emerged. This will provide a wide-ranging overview and understanding of the concept of PL. The following research questions were generated to assist the literature review: What is the current focus of research on PL? And how has the PL literature developed over time?

METHODOLOGY

The literature review for this paper took place over three phases (figure 1). First, we employed a comprehensive search strategy to discover all related studies on PL covering the two decades from 2001 to 2020. However, it is vital to note that the focus of this study is on the themes of the literature which emerged, rather than on the process of the systematic literature review itself. We conducted a computerized search in the Web of Science Core Collection database, using the keywords “paternalistic leadership,” “moral leadership,” “benevolent leadership,” and “authoritarian leadership” in the topic field (title, keywords and abstract) to identify related studies. Conference proceedings, books, editorials and research notes were excluded, so that only journal articles remained. There is indecision in the literature about whether PL’s dimensions should be assessed jointly or separately (Bedi, 2020; Lau et al., 2020; Pellegrini & Scandura, 2008). While some studies approach PL as unidimensional, others examine PL as a multidimensional construct (Pellegrini & Scandura, 2008). This study embarked on both approaches to canvas the largest number of studies. The searches resulted in 485 listed articles, which we examined in detail. After eliminating studies from certain disciplines (e.g., politics) whose content did not fit, 271 articles remained.

In the second phase, the papers were coded sequentially, and subthemes were created inductively rather than by attempting to fit them into a preexisting coding framework (Nowell et al., 2017). After coding was performed by each researcher separately, the results were compared. To reach consensus, the two researchers negotiated disagreements and conflicts in the coding process. After the subthemes were determined, the main themes were created in accordance with the management and behavioral sciences. After this stage, thematic top-groups were formed that gathered the main themes. For example, it was determined that “Turnover intention” was a subtheme, “Negative outcomes” was its main theme, and “The individual” was the top-group (figure 2). These themes were visualized through a digital mind mapping method using the Coggle application shown in figure 2.

In the second phase, bibliometric analysis was preferred to determine the profile of studies conducted in PL, which helps the systematic development of scientific knowledge production (Ruhanen et al., 2015). In this sense, certain parameters such as journals, the authors’ institution and country, countries where the research was conducted, research type and methods, to see the progress of PL research were analyzed. Also at this stage, after the independent evaluation of the researchers, comparisons were made in order to reach consensus. In the end, frequency and bibliometric analyses and evaluation were performed based on the parameters.

Figure 1

Systematic Literature Review Process

THEMATIC ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

The thematic analysis mapping, which visualizes the article’s outputs, shows the general outcomes of the research and clarifies categories given in the following sections, is shown on the next page in figure 2.

Figure 2 

Mapping of Thematic Analysis.

THEME ONE: THE INDIVIDUAL

The theme of the individual was the most salient among the four thematic top-groups, accounting for 32.1 percent of the studies. Studies related to the individual primarily consider organizational behavior issues, conducted mainly at the micro-level of analysis, looking at both formal and informal organizations’ effects on employees, the impact of employees back on the organization, and the work environment’s impact on both (Vasu et al., 2017). Accordingly, this top-group theme’s subthemes are listed in descending sequence by the number of studies featuring them. The subthemes are: extra-role behaviors, personal factors, and negative and positive outcomes.

Extra-role behaviors was supported by 79 articles, with 13.5 percent of all research reviewed fitting within this band. Studies labeled as OCB (Organizational Citizenship Behavior) were eminent, featuring at 6.14 percent of the studies with extra-role behavior subthemes. OCB is a sort of positive employee behavior that contributes to an organization’s social and psychological fabric (Göncü Köse & Metin, 2018). Commitment-labeled studies constitute the majority after OCB, featuring in 3.2 percent of the extra-role behaviors subtheme literature. This implies organizational commitment, which means an individual’s psychological bond with an organization (Chen et al., 2019). Workers who appreciate being treated fairly and with esteem develop more enthusiastic relations with their organizations (Khuwaja et al., 2020).

Commitment to one’s supervisor, which is derived from organizational commitment, is also one of the most critical psychological constructs in organizational behavior (Cheng et al., 2015). The individual act of transferring knowledge to someone else as a sharing behavior is another label in the extra-role behaviors subtheme. Studies express that PL might promote employee breakthrough behaviors across cultures (Lee et al., 2018).

Organizational identification is another label that refers to employees’ self-images being reconstituted into the organization’s image and values. Studies with this focus are interested in leaders’ behaviors that affect employees’ level of identification with the organization (Luu & Djurkovic, 2019; Wang et al., 2019) and supervisors’ identity with the leader (Li & Sun, 2015). Lastly, the positive work behaviors label indicates research where a leaders’ positive follower prototype and followers’ positive trait congruence yield to leaders’ trust in those followers, which makes leaders more willing to assign additional roles and followers (Wang & Peng, 2016).

Another prominent theme band related to PL is negative outcomes, pointing to studies showing undesirable individual issues affecting organizational outputs. The negative outcome subtheme includes: burnout, which is explained in a supervisor-subordinate solidarity model (Kelly & MacDonald, 2016); counterwork behaviors, discussed in the context of negative deviance behaviors (Zheng et al., 2020a); and procrastination at work (Göncü Köse & Metin, 2018) which may cause individual and organizational losses; cynicism (Jiang et al., 2017; Durmaz et al., 2020); turnover intention, which meant an attitudinal orientation or a cognitive manifestation of the behavioral decision to quit (Liao et al., 2017; Ugurluoglu et al., 2018; Göncü-Köse & Metin, 2019); work stress (Briker et al., 2021), and workplace bullying (Cerit, 2013; Bayramoğlu & Toksoy, 2017).

Personal factors as gender, age, education, social background, profession, experience, character, and overall behavior patterns (Grotkamp et al., 2012) as another main-theme band provide a base on how PL affects individuals. This band contains decision making, gender, interpersonal relationships, motivation, psychological capital, psychological contract, psychological safety, self-efficacy, and work-family studies. As an example of the decision-making subtheme, Cansoy et al. (2020) examined the participation of subordinates in the decision-making process and PL relationship. Chen et al. (2015) researched the CEO PL style and the top management team’s decision effectiveness relationship. While Salminen-Karlsson (2015) focused on how PL handles gender issues in an organization, Nayir et al. (2020) questioned leaders’ genders and leadership style in terms of leader effectiveness. Wang et al. (2013) studied how PL interacts with leaders’ genders to influence subsidiary performance. Regarding interpersonal relationships, researchers focused on guanxi, which many reviewers comment on as an essential aspect of interpersonal relationships (Smith et al., 2012) and trust relationships engaged in different foci in the organization (Wasti et al., 2011). The motivation subtheme comes to the forefront mostly with intrinsic motivation studies (Zhou et al., 2020; Xia et al., 2021), employee motivation (Al Altheeb, 2020), and public service motivation (Tuan, 2018).

Psychological capital, a higher-order construct combining self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience, is another subtheme (Guo et al., 2018; Chang et al., 2019; Karakitapoglu-Aygun et al., 2020). Psychological safety refers to people’s feelings and judgments regarding the repercussions of interpersonal risk-taking at work, and it has been observed that it is generally employed as a mediating or moderating factor in studies (Duan et al., 2018; Wu et al., 2020). The self-efficacy subtheme, which refers to the individual’s belief that he or she has the necessary qualifications to perform the job or task (Duan et al., 2018), also contains organization-based self-esteem, which means the extent to which members of an organization believe they may meet their needs by participating in roles inside the organization (Chan et al., 2013). As the final subtheme, work-family studies highlighted the relationships of PL with work-family conflict and work-family enrichment. It was explained that PL decreases work-family conflict and is positively related to work-family enrichment (Oge et al., 2018; Wu et al., 2020).

The final main theme, positive outcomes, highlights the studies on individuals’ job performance (Ugurluoglu et al., 2018), job satisfaction (Ertureten et al., 2013), and wellbeing (Hawass, 2017) as a consequence of the PL behaviors in organizations. Those studies found that executives evading managerial practices merely affirmed their power and authority (Kelly & MacDonald, 2016; Ugurluoglu et al., 2018; Siddique et al., 2020).

THEME TWO: LEADERS

The second thematic top-group was “leader” themes that comprise the main subthemes: leader behaviors, leadership types, and PL. In total, 135 papers accounted had this theme, or 23.04 percent of the total studies reviewed. The studies related to the “leaders” theme focus on PL compare it with other leadership styles, behaviors, attitudes and conceptualizations.

The subtheme of leader behavior includes abusive supervision, Leader Member Exchange (LMX), and leader behaviors as subtheme bands. Interactive effects of leadership style on abusive supervision (Aryee et al. 2007; Kiazad et al., 2010) and narcissistic personality traits (Sudha & Shahnawaz, 2020) are often concerns of the research in the abusive supervision subtheme. Researchers mainly focus on authoritarian leadership in those studies, a subdimension of PL. In the leadership behaviors subtheme, researchers compare PL with other leadership behaviors in terms of effectiveness (Lau et al., 2019; Arun et al., 2020), for example as transformational leadership (TL) (Zhang et al., 2011), and tried to assess leadership behavior by gender (Nayir et al., 2020). LMX is a prominent subtheme, with 20 articles and a 3.41 percent share. This ratio is hardly surprising, given that the LMX theory proposes that subordinates make personal commitments to their direct bosses in exchange for personal support from these supervisors (Gu et al., 2015), recalling PL.

The leadership types subtheme contains expatriate leadership, participative leadership, TL, and other leadership types. Expatriate leadership studies focus on managers working in a different cultural context (Salminen-Karlsson, 2015; Lin et al., 2018). Participative and TL subthemes are studies related to how PL prototype converges with and diverges from them (Aycan et al., 2013). In these studies, TL and PL studies are conspicuousness at 3.24 percent. Others approaches in the leadership type subtheme include studies discussing leadership as academic (Xu, 2011), adaptive (Seah & Hsieh, 2015), ambidextrous (Hou & Peng, 2019), and ‘business leadership’ (Zhang et al., 2014).

As the final main subtheme, PL involves authoritarian leadership, benevolent leadership, moral leadership, Confucian values, and conceptualization and theorizing, featuring at a rate of 9.6 percent. Because researchers discussed PL as a unidimensional and multidimensional construct (Pellegrini & Scandura, 2008; Nazir et al., 2021), subdimensions of PL were also identified as subthemes in their own right. In those studies, while benevolent and moral leadership positively correlated with diverse outputs such as team cohesion (Chen, 2013), trust in the organization and supervisor (Chia-Wu et al., 2017), work performance (Wu, 2012), employee creativity (Gu et al., 2015), and OCB (Tang & Naumann, 2015), authoritarian leadership negatively correlated with task performance, OCB (Chan et al., 2013) and employee voice behavior (Li & Sun 2015). However, according to studies, authoritarian leadership can positively impact only very authority-oriented subordinates (Cheng et al., 2004). When leaders provide obvious signals of prospective sanctions for non-compliance by displaying low leader benevolence, and when employees are strongly dependent on the leaders for vital work resources, authoritarian leadership impedes employees’ interpersonal deviant conduct (Zheng et al., 2020a). Bodla et al. indicate that the subordinate displays a maximum of OCB toward supervisors at a modest level of authoritarian leadership (2019). At this level, authoritarian leadership may be perceived as having good intentions, and as a result, subordinates may exhibit obedience to authority, resulting in a high OCB to supervisors. PL is cited as one of the few ways of expressing Confucian values in the business world (Luechapattanaporn & Wongsurawat, 2016) and this conceptualization and theorizing of leadership theories (Hernandez et al., 2011) are other minor subthemes.

THEME THREE: ORGANIZATIONS

The third thematic top-group, consisting of subthemes related to “organizations”, has been divided into three main subtheme bands: intellectual capital, organizational issues, and the workplace environment. In total, 166 papers accounted for 28.3% of the studies reviewed. This top-group theme handles organizational level issues that address relatively large groups of employees, which are critical in social and behavioral science.

The first main theme, intellectual capital, which is the whole of an organization’s intangible and knowledge-related resources used to produce value, involves diversity management, empowerment, and human resources subthemes. Vito & Sethi (2020) expressed that poor diversity management negatively influences employees’ health, job satisfaction, and retention during periods of significant organizational change. For them, paternalism is an essential cultural element in the study of equality and diversity (Vito & Sethi, 2020). PL is evaluated as a potential catalyst of psychological empowerment in empowerment subtheme studies, defined as an internal drive to complete activities (Wu, 2012). Generally, empowerment was an intermediary and moderating role in the studies, such as in relationships between PL and voice behavior (Lin et al., 2015), subordinates’ objective performance (Chan, 2017), innovative behavior (Dedahanov et al., 2019), and pro-social rule-breaking (Tu & Luo, 2020).

HR is another subtheme of intellectual capital and studies show that CEOs’ benevolent leadership is positively related to HPWS. Moreover, employees’ psychological empowerment and customer service behaviors mediate the effects of CEO leadership and HPWS on small and medium enterprises’ performance (Chumphong & Potipiroon, 2019). Perceived HRM strength (Jia et al., 2020), pay equity (Chai et al., 2020), perceived job security (Wang et al., 2019) are other topics related to the HR subtheme.

Organizational issues is the second subtheme and involves communication, crisis management, family business, firm performance, organizational capabilities, organizational change, organizational development, team-level studies, and TQM subthemes in the study. In the communication subtheme, (Goh & Lii, 2017) attempted to capture the current state of use of the Chinese polite pronoun in the formal Chinese corporate setting. Kheswa (2015) claims working with authoritarian managers is a hindrance as there is no productive communication. Wang et al. propose that top Chinese company leaders should improve the relationship between supervisors and subordinates (2010).

In the crisis management lower subtheme, Gao & Alas (2012) focused on the three key factors of the crisis management process: communication, leadership, and strategy. The authors determined that the crisis ensued due to poor communication and poor crisis strategic planning, caused by authoritarian leadership in the organization. Langhof & Guldenberg (2019) compare authoritarian leadership, which is described as an ideal leadership style in crisis management literature, with servant leadership. Seah & Hsieh (2015) focus on firm turnaround by expressing that leadership can help align and engage employees’ efforts with their firms’ turnaround objectives. Another subtheme is family businesses that researchers conducted studies with small Chinese family enterprises to back up the widely held idea that PL is a fundamental feature of Chinese organizations. In those studies, researchers focused mainly on psychological ownership (Erkutlu, 2018), and the owner-manager relationship (Zhu et al., 2013).

In the firm performance lower subtheme, researchers generally investigated firm performance with TL and PL (Huang et al. 2015; Widyanti et al., 2020). In another subtheme, organizational capabilities studies assert that leaders and organizations have to develop capabilities to benefit from a diverse workforce (Sharma, 2016). Leaders must first be willing and able to alter their leadership style to reflect the needs of their changing business settings in the (Seah & Hsieh, 2015). In the organizational development lower subtheme, researchers are interested in developmental leadership, which is authoritarianism and benevolence, two seemingly paradoxical leadership approaches (Wang, 2018). Chai et al.’s (2020) research has shown a moderating effect of PL in the relationship between developmental opportunities and organizational commitment. The team-level subtheme studies has the most articles featured in it of all the subthemes, with 14 articles, accounting for 2.39 percent of the organizational issues subtheme band. Studies focused on topics such as team performance (Huang & Lin, 2020), team commitment (Li et al., 2018), team cohesion (Chen, 2013), team identification (Cheng & Wang, 2015), team innovative behavior (Gumusluoglu et al., 2017), etc. Lastly, the TQM subtheme includes studies that research the relationship between leadership variables and quality culture (Maguad & Krone, 2009; Ilies et al., 2017).

The workplace environment, which affects employee morale, productivity, and engagement, constitutes the last main theme. It consists of collectivity, ethics, mobbing, organizational culture, organizational justice, organizational support, organizational trust, role ambiguity, safety behavior, and voice behavior subthemes. The collectivity subtheme involves studies interested in collective efficiency, which refers to a team’s belief in its capability to perform a task (Chen et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2011), studies on how benevolent leadership increases the collective performance of small and medium enterprises (Karakas & Sarigollu, 2013), and studies related to the collective self-concept and PL (He et al., 2019).

In another subtheme, ethics, researchers focus on understanding how leaders contribute as agents of positive change in organizations and ask how ethics can support business to avoid failures and improve organizational excellence (Maguad & Krone, 2009). Leadership was stated as critical in developing an ethical climate (Cheng & Wang, 2015). Researchers set out with the idea that the benevolent and moral dimensions of PL can be the driving force in creating an ethical working environment (Otken & Cenkci, 2012). In this subtheme, studies also investigated the influence of PL on followers’ unethical behaviors (Rui & Xinqi, 2020; Shaw et al., 2020). In the mobbing subtheme, studies focus on the relationship between mobbing and leadership styles and the moderating role of cultural values (Ertureten et al., 2013; Durmaz et al., 2020). Studies in the organizational culture subtheme generally concentration on either the effect of leadership by comparing PL with other leadership styles (Widyanti et al., 2020) or the effect of organizational culture on leadership (Akanji et al., 2020). Studies in the organizational justice subtheme focus on interactional and procedural justice in general and consider these as moderators or mediators (Aryee et al. 2007; Gumusluoglu et al., 2020). The organizational support subtheme generally involves studies on as perceived leadership support and perceived organizational support which are mostly tackled as mediating variables (Wu, 2012; Giray & Sahin, 2014). The organizational trust subtheme studies features 19 articles, accounting for 3.24 percent of the workplace environment main-theme band. In those studies, Wasti et al. (2011) investigates trust relationships directed at various organizational foci (supervisor, peer, and subordinate) in two different countries, Turkey and China. Du et al. (2020) researched the impact of authoritarian leadership on employees’ active support for organizational change. The negative effects of authoritarian leadership vanished when cognitive trust in the leader was high. Legood et al. (2021)’s meta-analysis focuses on the mediating role of trust in the relationship between PL and OCB. Wan et al. (2020) asserts that trust in a leader plays a partial mediating role between PL and behavioral integration. Bai et al. (2019) query the effect of PL on employees’ affective trust in their direct leaders.

Researchers stated that while moral leadership positively impacted employees’ affective trust in their direct leaders, authoritarian leadership had a negative impact on employees’ affective trust in their direct leaders. According to Lau et al. (2019), the trust of subordinates is crucial for paternalistic leaders to be perceived as effective leaders. Tian & Sanchez (2017) found that affective trust mediated the interaction of benevolence and authoritarianism on employee innovative behavior and knowledge sharing. Rawat & Lyndon (2016) research the effect of PL on subordinate trust in the Indian context.

Studies involving role conflict, role clarity, and, in general, uncertainty about what actions to take to fulfill a role are determined as another subtheme: role ambiguity. In those studies, researchers focus mainly on authoritarian leadership (Chen et al., 2017; Zhang & Xie, 2017). In the safety behavior subtheme, studies generally address the negative effect of PL on risk perception of safety motivation and behavior and in-role and extra-role safety behaviors (Chen 2015; Xia et al. 2020). The voice behaviors subtheme studies features 18 articles, accounting for 3.07 percent of the workplace environment main-theme band. In those studies, while moral and benevolent leadership were related positively to voice behavior, authoritative leadership played a negative role in influencing employee voice behavior. Hence, researchers posit that leaders should treat individuals fairly, strengthen the interpersonal relationship between supervisors and subordinates, and use their authorized power in the best interests of their employees to achieve fruitful organizational outputs through employees’ voices (Lin et al., 2015; Dedahanov et al., 2016; Liu & Liu, 2017).

THEME FOUR: OTHERS

The fourth and last thematic top-group, which consists of the ‘other’ themes, has been divided into three main-theme bands: culture, innovation, and sectoral themes. In total, 97 papers accounted for 16.55 percent of the studies reviewed for this article. The studies related to the ‘other’ themes mostly aim to generally understand PL and its cultural texture, try to interpret it in different sectors, and approach it in relation to innovation.

The first main subtheme band is culture. Researchers state that to understand PL, which is a paradoxical and complex construct, its cultural influences have to be first understood. In this context, it is expected that different cultures may endorse PL in different ways (Mansur et al., 2017). Hence, cross-cultural comparisons of PL focus on deepening and understanding the construct and its generalizability across cultures (Aycan et al. 2013; Wang et al., 2013). Those studies are included in the cross-cultural studies subtheme. In the culture subtheme, studies are generally interested in philosophical traditions and cultural values rather than focusing on cultural comparison at the national level (Wang et al., 2012; Arslan & Yener, 2020).

Innovation, the second main subtheme band, contains creativity, innovation, and innovative work behavior subthemes. The innovation subtheme band features 30 articles, accounting for 5.12 percent of the studies. This rate in the innovation main theme can be interpreted as a need for more studies in this area. In the creativity subtheme, studies generally focused on PL and employee creativity. In those studies, much of the research demonstrates the positive relationship between moral (Gu et al. 2015; Dedahanov et al., 2016) and benevolent leadership (Wang & Cheng, 2010) and employee creativity, while authoritarian leadership is seen as negative (Zhang et al. 2011; Guo et al., 2018). However, some studies also state that authoritarian leadership can positively influence creativity (Gu et al., 2020). In the second subtheme, innovation, studies generally state that PL may enrich, motivate, and create frameworks for innovation (Nunn & Avella, 2015). In a general manner, studies indicate that PL positively influences open service innovation (Ahmed et al., 2018) and exploitative and exploratory innovation (Hou et al., 2019). The third and last lower subtheme, innovative work behavior, involves studies employing mediating or moderating factors such as empowerment and voice behavior. Generally, PL is positively related to employee innovative work behavior. Researchers state that leaders should encourage voice behavior and empower organization members to enhance the positive effects of PL on innovative employee behaviors (Gumusluoglu et al., 2017; Dedahanov et al., 2019).

Finally, the third and last main subtheme band includes education, healthcare, military, and sports lower subthemes. In the education subtheme, studies examine leadership styles in relationships among principals, teachers, and students, as to whether they enhance education quality (Lai et al., 2017; Peng, 2015; Truong & Hallinger, 2017). In those studies, generally, while moral and benevolent leadership show positive relationships with various factors, such as commitment and job satisfaction, authoritarian leadership shows the opposite (Shi et al., 2020; Zheng et al., 2020). In the healthcare subtheme, studies mainly focus on the importance of leadership in terms of the medical profession, leadership, and empowerment in healthcare organizations (Saultz, 2007; Humphreys et al., 2014), in addition to the ‘workaholism’ and ‘technostress’ of employees during pandemic conditions (Spagnoli et al., 2020). Studies in the military subtheme analyze the qualified truth that the army is an authoritarian organization (Brænder and Holsting 2020; Chou et al., 2015). The last subtheme, sports, involves studies related to PL and sportspersonship, athlete’s burnout, and the cohesiveness of the sports team (Chen, 2013; Lu & Hsu, 2015; Chang et al., 2019). As in previous theme studies, the difference between benevolent and authoritarian leadership produces similar results.

ANALYSIS OF THE REVIEW 

Figure 3 depicts the number of articles published each year. Between 2001 and 2020, 271 articles on PL were published on the web of science. It is noteworthy that there has been a gradual increase in the number of studies since 2008.

Figure 3 

Articles published between 2001-2020 on PL by year.

Table 1 displays articles differentiated by whether they are conceptual or empirical and used qualitative or quantitative methods. We determined that 251 articles (93 percent) were empirical. The number of conceptual articles is 20 (7 percent). When the articles were distributed according to their methods, 201 (74 percent) of the 271 articles used quantitative research methods, while 39 (14 percent) used qualitative research methods. Mixed methods were used in 11 (four percent) of the articles.

Table 1 

Research type and methods of publications, based on the authors’ review.

Table 2 presents the distribution of publications in the last ten years by the journals with the highest number of publications on PL. It should be noted that the total column gives the number of publications in all years, including 2001-2020, not just the last ten years. Based on the research done thus far, it can be predicted that PL, which is common in eastern cultures, will continue to attract attention globally.

Table 2 

List of the most frequently published journals on PL over the years, based on the authors’ review.

The Journal of Business Ethics has published the most articles, with 15 publications relating to this area. The Frontiers in Psychology, Management and Organization Review, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, and Leadership Quarterly follow, with 11 publications. Table 3 shows the universities and the number of researchers with the highest participation in PL-related research. The Renmin University of China and National Taiwan University are leading universities with 17 researchers each, and 14 researchers are at Swinburne University of Technology.

Table 3 

List of the Universities with the most researchers, based on the authors’ review.

The number of researchers from numerous countries can be seen in table 4. These countries have been determined based on the researchers’ universities in the last ten years. Although there are researchers in other countries also, this table focuses on the countries with the most PL researchers. Moreover, it should be noted that the total column gives the number of researchers in all years, including 2001-2020, not just the last ten years. The majority of the researchers who studied PL-related research were found in China, the USA, Taiwan, and Turkey, respectively.

Table 4 

Annual distribution of researchers by country, based on the authors’ review.

Table 5 illustrates the studies conducted in different countries. In countries where surveys on PL are carried out, China ranks first, Taiwan second, and Turkey third. Although there are other countries that have conducted studies about PL, this table focuses on the countries with the most. Moreover, it should be noted that the total column gives the number of searches in all years, including 2001-2020, not just the last ten years.

Table 5

The distribution of countries in which PL studies are conducted by years, based on the authors’ review.

DISCUSSION

Since its inception in 1976, the term PL has become an exciting and contentious topic in the literature on leadership because of different cultural views of societies. While it evokes unfavorable perceptions in Western contexts, it is positively perceived in non-Western cultures (Aycan, 2006). A large body of literature has emerged to investigate, conceptualize, and develop the field. In this context, this research undertook a thematic analysis of the prominent social sciences literature on PL. Accordingly, in addition to identifying the current focus on PL, the development of the information production process in the field of PL was analyzed.

The Web of Science Core Collection was taken as a data source, and 271 articles were evaluated as being within the scope of the study and provided an outline of the themes that emerged. Those publications have been classified according to their year of publication, journal, author, research institution, country, and focused subjects. When examined, it can be said that 2008 was the year publications really started increasing. After the articles were evaluated according to their type, out of 271 articles, 251 were empirical and 20 were conceptual studies. Regarding methodology, 201 were quantitative, 39 were qualitative, and 11 were hybrid studies. Twenty more studies were not classified methodologically since they are purely conceptual. According to these results, most articles on PL are empirical and quantitative. As expected, universities with the most researchers studying PL belong to China and Taiwan. However, Swinburne University in Australia had 14 and the University of Washington in the USA had nine researchers. When PL is evaluated based on the number of researchers and the research country, China, Taiwan, the USA, and Turkey come first.

Based on the thematic analysis, individuals, organizations, leaders, and others top titled main themes were identified as the most prevalent and investigated areas in the PL literature. The ‘individual’ theme, is the largest top-group theme. OCB-labeled studies related to PL are eminent in extra-role behavior subthemes under the individual theme.

In the second-largest top theme of organizations, voice behavior, organizational trust, and team-level studies come to the front. Those studies counsel that leaders should treat employees fairly, strengthen supervisor-subordinate relationships, and use their authorized power to gather expected fruitful organizational outputs in their employees’ best interests (Lin et al. 2015; Zhang et al., 2015; Liu & Liu, 2017). In the third-largest top theme leaders, researchers mainly focused on TL, authoritarian leadership, and LMX. The driving force to conduct studies of leadership and cultural contexts came from thinking that Western concepts and leadership techniques might not be appropriate in non-Western countries. Moreover, the resemblance of PL and TL also caused researchers to give prominence to the concept (e.g., Suryani et al., 2012).

In general, authoritarian leadership studies indicate that authoritarian leadership is mainly associated with negative diverse organizational outputs; however, it can also positively impact only very authority-oriented subordinates (Cheng et al., 2004). LMX studies also shine out, given that LMX theory proposes that subordinates make personal commitments to their direct bosses in exchange for personal support from these supervisors (Gu et al., 2015), recalling PL.

In the last top theme of ‘others’, it can be seen that researchers mainly focused on culture and creativity. Studies focused on cultural comparison at the national level of PL (Wang et al., 2012; Arslan & Yener, 2020). The abstruse nature of PL necessitates a better understanding of its cross-cultural implications (Mansur et al., 2017). The majority of studies in the creativity subtheme focused on PL and employee creativity. In general, employee innovative work behavior is positively related to PL. According to the researchers, leaders should encourage voice behavior and empower employees to boost the positive effects of PL on innovative employee behaviors (Gumusluoglu et al., 2017; Dedahanov et al., 2019; Nazir et al., 2021).

In the light of the results, the ratio of innovation themes could be higher. Future studies may consider studying entrepreneurship, especially at the corporate level. Leadership touches our lives in every moment and area. Future studies may also enrich this abstruse concept by studying in different business sectors; thus, researchers can help build consistency. Moreover, there is a need for more qualitative research regarding PL since a majority of research is quantitative. Consequently, there is more opportunity to grow the PL literature and contribute and advance more themes.

REFERENCES

Ahmed, F., M., Naqshbandi, M. M., Kaur, S., & Ng., B. K. (2018). Roles of leadership styles and relationship-based employee governance in open service innovation. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 39(3), 353—74.

Akanji, B., Mordi, C., Ituma, A., Adisa, T. A., & Ajonbadi, H. (2020). The influence of organisational culture on leadership style in higher education institutions. Personnel Review, 49(3), 709—32.

Al Altheeb, S. (2020). Leadership style and employee motivation: a study of Saudi Arabian work environment. Propositos Y Representaciones, 8.

Arslan, A., & Yener, S. (2020). I like my leader; not yours! Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 16, 5—22.

Arun, K., Şen, C., & Okun, O. (2020). How does leadership effectiveness related to the context? paternalistic leadership on non-financial performance within a cultural tightness- looseness model? JEEMS Journal of East European Management Studies, 25(3), 503—29.

Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., Sun, L. Y., & Debrah, Y. A. (2007). Antecedents and outcomes of abusive supervision: test of a trickle-down model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 191—201.

Aycan, Z. (2001). Paternalizm: Yönetim ve Liderlik Anlayışına Ilişkin Üç Görgül Çalışma. Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1(1), 11—31.

Aycan, Z. (2006). Paternalism: Towards Conceptual Refinement and Operationalization. In U. Kim, K-S. Yang, & K-K. Hwang (Eds.), Indigenous and cultural psychology: Understanding people in context (pp. 445–466). Springer Science + Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-28662-4_20

Aycan, Z. (2015). Paternalistic leadership. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.). Encyclopedia of Management (pp. 1—2). John Wiley.

Aycan, Z., Sun, J-M., & Saher, N. (2013). Convergence and divergence of paternalistic leadership : a cross-cultural investigation of prototypes. Journal of International Business Studies, 44(1478–6990), 962—69.

Bai, S., Lu, F., & Liu, D. (2019). Subordinates’ responses to paternalistic leadership according to leader level. Social Behavior and Personality, 47(11), e8430. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.8430

Bayramoğlu, M. M., & Toksoy, D. (2017). Leadership and Bullying in the Forestry Organization of Turkey. BioMed Research International. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/9454682

Bedi, A. (2020). A meta-analytic review of paternalistic leadership. Applied Psychology, 69(3), 960—1008.

Bodla, A. A., Tang, N. Y., Van Dick, R., & Mir, U. R. (2019). Authoritarian leadership, organizational citizenship behavior, and organizational deviance curvilinear relationships. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 40(5), 583—599.

Brænder, M., & Holsting, V. S. (2020). The Power of Experience? Innovative and Authoritative Leadership Values Among Danish Army Cadets. Armed Forces & Society, 48(1), 70—91. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X20951435

Briker, R., Walter, F., & Cole, M. S. (2021). Hurry up! the role of supervisors’ time urgency and self-perceived status for autocratic leadership and subordinates’ wellbeing. Personnel Psychology, 74(1), 55—76.

Cansoy, R., Polatcan, M., & Parlar, H. (2020). Paternalistic school principal behaviours and teachers’ participation in decision making: the intermediary role of teachers’ trust in principals. Research in Educational Administration & Leadership, 5(2), 553–584.

Cerit, Y. (2013). The relationship between paternalistic leadership and bullying behaviours towards classroom teachers. Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri, 13(2), 839—851.

Chai, D. S., Jeong, S., & Joo, B-K. (2020). The multi-level effects of developmental opportunities, pay equity, and paternalistic leadership on organizational commitment. European Journal of Training and Development, 44(4/5), 405—424.

Chan, S. C. H. (2017). Benevolent leadership, perceived supervisory support, and subordinates’ performance the moderating role of psychological empowerment. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 38(7), 897—911.

Chan, S. C. H., Huang, X., Snape, E., & Lam, C. K. (2013). The janus face of paternalistic leaders: authoritarianism, benevolence, subordinates’ organization-based self-esteem, and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(1), 108—128.

Chang, C. M., Huang, H. C., Huang, F. M., & Hsieh, H. H. (2019). A multilevel analysis of coaches’ paternalistic leadership on burnout in taiwanese athletes. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 126(2), 286—304.

Chen, C. C. (2013). How does paternalistic style leadership relate to team cohesiveness in soccer coaching? Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 41(1), 83—94.

Chen, C. C., & Farh, J-L. (2010). Developments in understanding Chinese leadership: Paternalism and its elaborations, moderations, and alternatives. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 599–622). Oxford University Press.

Chen, L., Yang, B., & Jing, R. (2015). Paternalistic leadership, team conflict, and TMT decision effectiveness: interactions in the chinese context. Management and Organization Review, 11(4), 739—762.

Chen, S. C. (2015). How authoritarian leadership affects pilots’ safety behavior? an exploratory study on self-efficacy’s moderating effects. Journal of Aeronautics Astronautics and Aviation, 47(4), 377—383.

Chen, T. T., Li, F. L., & Leung, K. (2017). Whipping into shape: construct definition, measurement, and validation of directive-achieving leadership in chinese culture. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 34(3), 537—563.

Chen, X-P., Eberly, M. B., Chiang, T-J., Farh, J-L., & Cheng, B.-S. (2014). Affective trust in chinese leaders: linking paternalistic leadership to employee performance. Journal of Management, 40(3), 796—819.

Chen, Y., Zhou, X., & Klyver, K. (2019). Collective efficacy: linking paternalistic leadership to organizational commitment. Journal of Business Ethics, 159(2), 587—603.

Cheng, B. S. (1995). Authoritarian values and executive leadership: the case of taiwanese family enterprises. Taiwan’s National Science Council, National Taiwan University.

Cheng, B.-S., Chou, L.F., & Farh, J.-L. (2000). A triad model of paternalistic leadership: the constructs and measurement. Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, 14, 3—64.

Cheng, B‐S., Chou, L-F., Wu, T-Y., Huang, M-P. & Farh, J-L. (2004). Paternalistic leadership and subordinate responses: establishing a leadership model in chinese organizations. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 7(1), 89—117.

Cheng, C-Y., Jiang, D-Y., Cheng, B-S., Riley, J. H., & Jen, C-K. (2015). When do subordinates commit to their supervisors? different effects of perceived supervisor integrity and support on chinese and american employees. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(1), 81—97.

Cheng, M. Y. & Wang, L. (2015). The mediating effect of ethical climate on the relationship between paternalistic leadership and team identification: a team-level analysis in the chinese context. Journal of Business Ethics, 129(3), 639—654.

Chia-Wu, L., Wan-Hsien, H., & Shih, J-B. (2017). Does benevolent leadership always lead to organizational citizenship behavior? The Mediated Moderation Effect of Manipulative Intention and Trust. Tai Da Guan Li Lun Cong, 27(3), 33.

Chou, W-J., Sibley, C. G., Liu, J. H., Lin, T. T., & Cheng, B-S. (2015). Paternalistic leadership profiles: a person-centered approach. Group & Organization Management, 40(5), 685–710.

Chumphong, O., & Potipiroon, W. (2019). High Performance Work Systems and SMEs’ Performance: Does CEOs’ Leadership Matter? The Journal of Behavioral Science, 14(2), 48–65.

Dedahanov, A.T., Bozorov, F. & Sung., S. (2019). Paternalistic leadership and innovative behavior: psychological empowerment as a mediator. Sustainability, 11(6), 1—14.

Dedahanov, A. T., Lee, D. H., Rhee, J., & Yoon, J. (2016). Entrepreneur’s paternalistic leadership style and creativity the mediating role of employee voice. Management Decision, 54(9), 2310—2324.

Dorfman, P. W. (1996). International and cross-cultural leadership research. In B. J. Punnett (Ed.), Handbook for International Management Research (pp. 367-349). Blackwell.

Du, J., Li, N. N., & Luo, Y. J. (2020). Authoritarian Leadership in Organizational Change and Employees’ Active Reactions: Have-to and Willing-to Perspectives. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03076

Duan, J. Y., Bao, C. Z., Huang, C. Y., & Brinsfield, C. T. (2018). Authoritarian leadership and employee silence in China. Journal Of Management & Organization, 24(1), 62—80.

Durmaz, C., Ergeneli, A., & Camgöz, S.M. (2020). Babacan liderlik, yildirma ve örgütsel sinizm ilişkilerinde bireyci ve toplulukçu kültürel değerlerin rolleri. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(3), 631–655.

Erkutlu, H. V. (2018). Benevolent leadership and interpersonal deviant behaviors in higher education. Hacettepe Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi-Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 33(1), 107—124.

Ertureten, A., Cemalcilar, Z., & Aycan, Z. (2013). The relationship of downward mobbing with leadership style and organizational attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics, 116(1), 205—216.

Farh, J-L., & Cheng, B-S. (2000). A cultural analysis of paternalistic leadership in chinese organizations. In. J. T. Li, A. S. Tsui, & E. Weldon (Eds.), Management and Organizations in the Chinese Context (pp. 84–131). Macmillan Press.

Gao, J. H., and Alas, R. (2012). An insight of rui xiang canvas hr crisis (case study). Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, 23(1), 63–69.

Gelfand, M. J., Erez, M., & Aycan, Z. (2007). Cross-cultural organizational behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58(1), 479—514.

Giray, M. D., & Sahin, D. N. (2014). Perceived organizational support as a mediator of the relationship between leadership styles and organizational outcomes. Turk Psikoloji Dergisi, 29(73), 1–17.

Goh, A. P. I. & Lii, P. (2017). Examining leader-follower interactions through the lens of chinese politeness. China Report, 53(3), 331—53.

Goodell, G. E., Aronoff, M. J., Austin, D. J., Cadeliña, R. V., Emmerson, D. K., Hansen, K. T., Loizos, P., Mandal, B. B., Pettigrew, J., Riesebrodt, M., Sinha, A. C., Thuen, T., Van Den Berghe, P. L., & Wiseman, J. A. (1985). Paternalism, Patronage, and Potlatch: The Dynamics of Giving and Being Given To [and Comments and Reply]. Current Anthropology, 26(2), 247—266.

Goncu-Kose, A., & Metin, U. B. (2019). Which leader makes us stay and how? the mediating role of multidimensional work motivation. Turk Psikoloji Dergisi, 34(SI), 46—67.

Göncü Köse, A., Aycan, Z., & Johnson, R. (2014). Effects of paternalistic and transformational leadership on follower outcomes. International Journal of Management and Business, 5, 36—58.

Göncü Köse, A., and Metin, U. B. (2018). Linking leadership style and workplace procrastination: the role of organizational citizenship behavior and turnover intention. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 46(3), 245—262.

Grotkamp, S. L., Cibis, W. M., Nüchtern, E. A. M., Mittelstaedt, G. V., & Seger, W. K. F. (2012). Personal factors in the international classification of functioning, disability and health: prospective evidence. The Australian Journal of Rehabilitation Counselling, 18(1), 1–24.

Gu, Q., Hempel, P. S., & Yu, M. 2020. Tough love and creativity: how authoritarian leadership tempered by benevolence or morality influences employee creativity. British Journal of Management, 31(2), 305—324.

Gu, Q., Tang, T. L-P., & Jiang, W. (2015). Does moral leadership enhance employee creativity? employee identification with leader and leader member exchange (LMX) in the chinese context. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(3), 513—529.

Gumusluoglu, L., Karakitapoglu-Aygun, Z., & Scandura, T. A. (2017). A multilevel examination of benevolent leadership and innovative behavior in r&d contexts: a social identity approach. Journal Of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 24(4), 479–493.

Gumusluoglu, L., Karakitapoğlu-Aygün, Z., & Hu, C. (2020). Angels and Devils?: How Do Benevolent and Authoritarian Leaders Differ in Shaping Ethical Climate via Justice Perceptions across Cultures? Business Ethics: A European Review, 29(2), 388—402.

Guo, L., Decoster, S., Babalola, M. T., De Schutter, L., Garba, O. A., & Riisla, K. (2018). Authoritarian Leadership and Employee Creativity: The moderating role of psychological capital and the mediating role of fear and defensive silence. Journal of Business Research, 92, 219—230.

Hawass, H. H. (2017). Employee feedback orientation: a paternalistic leadership perspective. Management Research Review, 40(12), 1238—1260.

He, G. H., An, R., & Hewlin, P. F. (2019). Paternalistic leadership and employee wellbeing: a moderated mediation model. Chinese Management Studies, 13(3), 645—663.

Henrich, J., Heine, S. J. & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61—83.

Hernandez, M., Eberly, M. B., Avolio, B. J. & Johnson. M. D. (2011). The loci and mechanisms of leadership: exploring a more comprehensive view of leadership theory. Leadership Quarterly, 22(6), 1165–1185.

Hiller, N. J., Sin, H-P., Ponnapalli, A. R., & Ozgen, S. (2019). Benevolence and authority as WEIRDly unfamiliar: a multi-language meta-analysis of paternalistic leadership behaviors from 152 studies. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(1), 165—184.

Hou, B., Hong, J., Zhu, K., Zhou, Y., Bojun, H., Jin, H., Kejia, Z., & Yu, Z. (2019). Paternalistic leadership and innovation: the moderating effect of environmental dynamism. European Journal of Innovation Management, 22(3), 562–582.

Hou, N. & Peng, J. (2019). Authoritarian-benevolent leadership, active implementation and job performance: an investigation on the effectiveness of ambidextrous leadership in the chinese context. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 51(1), 117–127.

Huang, T. Y. & Lin, C-P. (2020). Is paternalistic leadership a double-edged sword for team performance? the mediation of team identification and emotional exhaustion. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 28(2), 207—220.

Huang, X., Xu, E., Chiu, W., Lam, C., & Farh, J. L. (2015). When authoritarian leaders outperform transformational leaders: firm performance in a harsh economic environment. Academy of Management Discoveries, 1(2), 180—200.

Humphreys, J. H., Randolph-Seng, B., Haden, S. S. P., & Novicevic, M. (2014). Integrating libertarian paternalism into paternalistic leadership: the choice architecture of H.J. Heinz. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 22(2), 187—201.

Ilies, L., Salagean, H. C., & Beleiu, I. (2017). The impact of quality culture and leadership on customer relationship in organizations from the romanian metal construction industry. Amfiteatru Economic, 19, 1050—1063.

Jackman, M. R. (1994). The Velvet Glove : Paternalism and conflict in gender, class, and race relations. University of California Press.

Jia, J. F., Zhou, S. Y., Zhang, L., & Jiang, X. X. (2020). Exploring the influence of paternalistic leadership on voice behavior a moderated mediation model. Employee Relations, 42(2), 542–560.

Jiang, H., Chen, Y., Sun, P., & Yang, J. (2017). The Relationship between Authoritarian Leadership and Employees’ Deviant Workplace Behaviors: The Mediating Effects of Psychological Contract Violation and Organizational Cynicism. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00732

Karakas, F., & Sarigollu, E. (2013). The role of leadership in creating virtuous and compassionate organizations: narratives of benevolent leadership in an anatolian tiger. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(4), 663–678.

Karakitapoglu-Aygun, Z., Gumusluoglu, L., & Scandura, T. A. (2020). How do different faces of paternalistic leaders facilitate or impair task and innovative performance? opening the black box. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 27(2), 138–152.

Kelly, S. & MacDonald, P. (2016). A look at leadership styles and workplace solidarity communication. International Journal of Business Communication, 56(3), 432—448.

Kheswa, J. G. (2015). Exploring the impact of ineffective communication on educators’ teaching performance at primary schools. International Journal of Educational Sciences, 11(3), 330—340.

Khuwaja, U., Ahmed, K., Abid, G., & Adeel, A. (2020). Leadership and employee attitudes: The mediating role of perception of organizational politics. Cogent Business & Management, 7(1), 1720066. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1720066

Kiazad, K., Restubog, S. L. D., Zagenczyk, T. J., Kiewitz, C., & Tang, R. L. (2010). In pursuit of power: the role of authoritarian leadership in the relationship between supervisors’ machiavellianism and subordinates’ perceptions of abusive supervisory behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(4), 512—519.

Lai, M. H., Wang, L. J., & Shen, W. (2017). Educational leadership on the chinese mainland: a case study of two secondary schools in beijing. London Review of Education, 15(2), 317–328.

Langhof, J. G., & Guldenberg, S. (2019). Leadership and the significance of formalized organizational structures crazy horse vs custer. Journal of Management History, 25(3), 341–363.

Lau, W. K., Pham, L. N. T., & Nguyen, L. D. (2019). Remapping the construct of paternalistic leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 40(7), 764—776.

Lau, W. K., Li, Z., & Okpara, J. (2020). An examination of three-way interactions of paternalistic leadership in china. Asia Pacific Business Review, 26(1), 32–49.

Lee, J. Y., Jang, S. H., & Lee, S. Y. (2018). Paternalistic leadership and knowledge sharing with outsiders in emerging economies. Personnel Review, 47(5), 1094–1115.

Legood, A., van der Werff, L., Lee, A., & Den Hartog, D. (2021). A meta-analysis of the role of trust in the leadership- performance relationship. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 30(1), 1—22. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2020.1819241

Li, G., Rubenstein, A. L., Lin, W., Wang, M., & Chen, X. (2018). The curvilinear effect of benevolent leadership on team performance: the mediating role of team action processes and the moderating role of team commitment. Personnel Psychology, 71(3), 369–397.

Li, Y. & Sun, J-M. (2015). Traditional chinese leadership and employee voice behavior: a cross-level examination. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(2), 172—189.

Liao, S-H., Widowati, R., Hu, D. C., & Tasman, L. (2017). The mediating effect of psychological contract in the relationships between paternalistic leadership and turnover intention for foreign workers in Taiwan. Asia Pacific Management Review, 22(2), 80—87.

Lin, C. P., Lin, M. Z., & Li, Y. B. (2015). An empirical study on the effect of paternalistic leadership on employees’ voice behaviors -the intermediary role of psychological empowerment. Journal of Interdisciplinary Mathematics, 18(6), 789—810.

Lin, L., Li, P. P., & Roelfsema, H. (2018). The traditional chinese philosophies in inter-cultural leadership: the case of chinese expatriate managers in the Dutch context. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 25(2), 299–336.

Liu, H. J. and Liu, X. B. (2017). Relationship between paternalistic leadership and employee’s voice behavior based on regression analysis. Journal of Discrete Mathematical Sciences & Cryptography, 20(1), 205–215.

Lu, F. J-H., & Hsu, Y. (2015). The interaction between paternalistic leadership and achievement goals in predicting athletes’ sportspersonship. Kinesiology, 47(1), 115—122.

Luechapattanaporn, T., & Wongsurawat, W. (2016). Competitive marketing through confucian values in Malaysia: a case study. Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, 18(2), 162—175.

Luu, T. T., & Djurkovic, N. (2019). Paternalistic leadership and idiosyncratic deals in a healthcare context. Management Decision, 57(3), 621—648.

Maguad, B. A., & Krone, R. M. (2009). Ethics and moral leadership: Quality linkages. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 20(2), 209—222. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783360802623043

Mansur, J., Sobral, F., & Goldszmidt, R. (2017). Shades of paternalistic leadership across cultures. Journal of World Business, 52(5), 702—713.

Mussolino, D., & Calabrò, A. (2014). Paternalistic leadership in family firms: types and implications for intergenerational succession. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 5(2), 197—210.

Nayir, E. D., Gokalp, A., & Bilgic, R. (2020). Perceived leadership effectiveness: understanding the role of subordinate and leader related characteristics. Turk Psikoloji Dergisi, 35(86), 99—118.

Nazir, S., Shafi, A., Asadullah, M. A., Qun, W., & Khadim, S. (2021). Linking paternalistic leadership to follower’s innovative work behavior: the influence of leader–member exchange and employee voice. European Journal of Innovation Management, 24(4), 1354—1378.

Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: theory and practice. 6^th ed. SAGE.

Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017).“Thematic analysis: striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1).

Nunn, S. G. & Avella, J. T. (2015). Does moral leadership conflict with organizational innovation? Journal of Leadership Studies, 9(3), 85—87.

Oge, E., Cetin, M., & Top, S. (2018). The effects of paternalistic leadership on workplace loneliness, work family conflict and work engagement among air traffic controllers in Turkey. Journal of Air Transport Management, 66, 25—35.

Otken, A. B. and Cenkci, T. (2012). The impact of paternalistic leadership on ethical climate: the moderating role of trust in leader. Journal of Business Ethics, 108(4), 525–536.

Padavic, I., & Earnest, W. R. (1994). Paternalism as a component of managerial strategy. The Social Science Journal, 31(4), 389—405.

Paker, C. (2000). Örgütlerde güç ve otorite. In Z. Aycan (Ed.), Türkiye’de yönetim, liderlik ve insan kaynakları uygulamaları (pp. 337-341). Türk Psikologlar Derneği.

Pellegrini, E. K. & Scandura, T. A. (2008). Paternalistic leadership: a review and agenda for future research. Journal of Management, 34(3), 566—593.

Peng, H. (2015). Assessing the quality of research supervision in mainland chinese higher education. Quality in Higher Education, 21(1), 89–100.

Rawat, P. S. & Lyndon, S. (2016). Effect of paternalistic leadership style on subordinate’s trust: an Indian study. Journal of Indian Business Research, 8(4), 264-277.

Redding, G. (1990). The spirit of chinese capitalism.Walter de Gruyter.

Redding, S. G., Norman, A., & Schlander, A. (1994). The nature of individual attachment to the organization: A review of East Asian variations. In H. C. Triandis, M. D. Dunnette, & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology Volume 4 (pp. 647—688). Consulting Psychologists Press.

Ruhanen, L., Weiler, B., Moyle, B. D., & McLennan, C. L. J. (2015). Trends and patterns in sustainable tourism research: a 25-year bibliometric analysis. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 23(4), 517–535.

Rui, J. and Xinqi, L. (2020). Trickle-down effect of benevolent leadership on unethical employee behavior: a cross-level moderated mediation model. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 41(6), 721–740.

Salminen-Karlsson, M. (2015). Expatriate paternalistic leadership and gender relations in small european software firms in India. Culture and Organization, 21(5), 409–426.

Saultz, J. W. (2007). Viewpoint: are we serious about teaching professionalism in medicine? Academic Medicine, 82(6), 1010—1014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.ACM.0000285343.95826.94

Seah, M. & Hsieh, M. H. (2015). Impact of leader adaptability on organizational change and adaptation: the case of savecom communication. Journal of Asia Business Studies, 9(3), 213—231.

Sharma, A. (2016). Managing diversity and equality in the workplace. Cogent Business & Management, 3(1), 1212682.

Shaw, K. H., Tang, N. & Liao, H. Y. (2020). Authoritarian-benevolent leadership, moral disengagement, and follower unethical pro-organizational behavior: an investigation of the effects of ambidextrous leadership. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00590

Shi, X., Yu, Z., & Zheng, X. (2020). Exploring the relationship between paternalistic leadership, teacher commitment, and job satisfaction in chinese schools. Frontiers in Psychology, 11.

Siddique, C. M., Siddique, H. F. & Siddique, S. U. (2020). Linking authoritarian leadership to employee organizational embeddedness, lmx and performance in a high-power distance culture: a mediation-moderated analysis. Journal of Strategy and Management, 13(3), 393—411.

Silin, R. H. (1976). Leadership and Values: The Organization of Large-scale Taiwanese Enterprises. Harvard University Asia Center.

Smith, P. B., Torres, C., Leong, C-H., Budhwar, P., Achoui, M., & Lebedeva, N. (2012). Are indigenous approaches to achieving influence in business organizations distinctive? a comparative study of guanxi, wasta, jeitinho, svyazi and pulling strings. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(2), 333—348.

Spagnoli, P., Molino, M., Molinaro, D., Giancaspro, M. L., Manuti, A., & Ghislieri, C. (2020). Workaholism and technostress during the covid-19 emergency: the crucial role of the leaders on remote working. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.620310

Sudha, K. S. & Shahnawaz, M. G. (2020). Narcissism personality trait and performance: task-oriented leadership and authoritarian styles as mediators. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 41(2), 280—293.

Suryani, A. O., Van de Vijver, F. J. R., Poortinga, Y. H., & Setiadi, B. N. (2012). Indonesian leadership styles: a mixed‐methods approach. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 15(4), 290—303.

Tang, C. Y. & Naumann, S. E. (2015). Paternalistic leadership, subordinate perceived leader-member exchange and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Management & Organization, 21(3), 291–306.

Tian, Q. & Sanchez, J. I. (2017). Does paternalistic leadership promote innovative behavior? the interaction between authoritarianism and benevolence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 47(5), 235—246.

Truong, T. D. & Hallinger, P. (2017). Exploring cultural context and school leadership: conceptualizing an indigenous model of Có Uy School leadership in Vietnam. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 20(5), 539–561.

Tu, C. K. and Luo, B. M. (2020). Paternalistic leadership and pro-social rule breaking: the moderating roles of psychological empowerment and leader-member exchange. Human Systems Management, 39(1), 93—103.

Tuan, L. T. (2018). Behind the influence of job crafting on citizen value co-creation with the public organization: joint effects of paternalistic leadership and public service motivation. Public Management Review, 20(10), 1533—1561.

Ugurluoglu, O., Aldogan, E. U., Turgut, M., & Ozatkan, Y. (2018). The effect of paternalistic leadership on job performance and intention to leave the job. Journal of Health Management, 20(1), 46—55.

Vasu, M. L., Stewart, D. W., & Garson, G. D. (2017). Organizational behavior and public management, revised and expanded. Routledge.

Vito, R., & Sethi, B. (2020). Managing change: role of leadership and diversity management. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 33(7), 1471—1483.

Wan, J., Le, Y., Wang, G., Xia, N., & Liu, X. (2020). Carrot or stick? the impact of paternalistic leadership on the behavioral integration of top management teams in megaprojects. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 13(5), 937–960.

Wang, A-C. (2018). Developmental or exploitative? how chinese leaders integrate authoritarianism and benevolence to cultivate subordinates. Academy of Management Discoveries, 5(3), 291—313.

Wang, A-C., & Cheng, B-S. (2010). When does benevolent leadership lead to creativity? the moderating role of creative role identity and job autonomy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(1), 106—121.

Wang, A-C., Chiang, J. T. J., Tsai, C. Y. Lin, T. T., & Cheng, B. S. (2013). Gender makes the difference: the moderating role of leader gender on the relationship between leadership styles and subordinate performance. Organizational Behavior And Human Decision Processes, 122(2), 101—113.

Wang, C. L., Tee, D. D., & Ahmed, P. K. (2012). Entrepreneurial leadership and context in chinese firms: a tale of two chinese private enterprises. Asia Pacific Business Review, 18(4), 505—530.

Wang, L., Huang, J. X., Chu, M. P., & Wang, X. H. (2010). A multilevel study on antecedents of manager voice in chinese context. Chinese Management Studies, 4(3), 212—230.

Wang, X. & Peng, J. (2016). The Effect of Implicit–Explicit Followership Congruence on Benevolent Leadership: Evidence from Chinese Family Firms. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00812

Wang, Y., Tang, C., Naumann, S. E., & Wang, Y. (2019). Paternalistic leadership and employee creativity: a mediated moderation model. Journal of Management & Organization, 25(1), 137—156.

Wasti, S. A., Tan, H. H., & Erdil, S. E. (2011). Antecedents of trust across foci: a comparative study of Turkey and China. Management and Organization Review, 7(2), 279—302.

Westwood, R. (1997). Harmony and patriarchy: the cultural basis for ‘paternalistic headship’ among the overseas chinese. Organization Studies, 18(3), 445—480.

Widyanti, R., Rajiani, I., Basuki, & Hairul. (2020). Shifting from asian to western model of leadership: the role of organizational culture. Polish Journal of Management Studies, 22(1), 595—610.

Wu, C-Y., Kuo, C-C., Lin, C-W., Hu, W-H., Wu, C-Y., & Cheng, S. (2020). How does benevolent leadership lead to work–family enrichment? The mediating role of positive group affective tone. Stress and Health, 36(4), 496—506.

Wu, M. (2012). Moral leadership and work performance testing the mediating and interaction effects in China. Chinese Management Studies, 6(2), 285–300.

Wu, T-Y., Liu, Y-F, Hua, C-Y., Lo, H-C., & Yeh, Y-J. (2020). Too unsafe to voice? authoritarian leadership and employee voice in chinese organizations. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 58(4), 527—554.

Xia, N., Xie, Q., Hu, X., Wang, X., & Meng, H. (2020). A dual perspective on risk perception and its effect on safety behavior: A moderated mediation model of safety motivation, and supervisor’s and coworkers’ safety climate. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 134, 105350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2019.105350

Xia, Z., Yang, F., & Xu, Q. (2021). Authoritarian–benevolent leadership and its effect on graduate student creativity: the mediating role of intrinsic motivation. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 55(1), 25–38.

Xu, K. (2011). An empirical study of confucianism: measuring chinese academic leadership. Management Communication Quarterly, 25(4), 644—662.

Zhang, A. Y., Tsui, A .S., & Wang, D. X. (2011). Leadership behaviors and group creativity in chinese organizations: the role of group processes. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 851—862.

Zhang, Y., Huai, M. Y., & Xie, Y. H. (2015). Paternalistic leadership and employee voice in china: a dual process model. Leadership Quarterly, 26(1), 25—36.

Zhang, Y. & Xie, Y. H. (2017). Authoritarian leadership and extra-role behaviors: a role-perception perspective. Management and Organization Review, 13(1), 147–166.

Zhang, Z. X., Chen, Z. X., Chen, Y. R., & Ang, S. (2014). Business leadership in the chinese context: trends, findings, & implications. Management and Organization Review, 10(2), 199—221.

Zheng, X., Shi, X., & Liu, Y. (2020). Leading Teachers’ Emotions Like Parents: Relationships Between Paternalistic Leadership, Emotional Labor and Teacher Commitment in China. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00519

Zheng, Y., Huang, X., Graham, L., Redman, T., & Hu, S. (2020a). Deterrence effects: the role of authoritarian leadership in controlling employee workplace deviance. Management and Organization Review, 16(2), 377—404.

Zhou, Q., Mao, J-Y, & Tang, F. (2020). Don’t Be Afraid to Fail Because You Can Learn From It! How Intrinsic Motivation Leads to Enhanced Self-Development and Benevolent Leadership as a Boundary Condition. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00699

Zhu, H., Chen, C. C., Li, X. C., & Zhou, Y. H. (2013). From personal relationship to psychological ownership: the importance of manager-owner relationship closeness in family businesses. Management and Organization Review, 9(2), 295—318.