According to Section 7.2.2, formal hierarchical differentiation and Confucian ethics on hierarchical Guanxi relationships lead to the development of Paternalistic Leadership consisting of benevolent, moral and authoritarian leadership in the thee case studies. The Paternalistic Leadership interplaying with formal role coordination mechanism creates doubled-edged effects on manager-subordinate coordination in the case studies. There are some similarities and differences among the findings across the cases, as indicated in Table 8.5.
Comparison Case I Case II Case III
Positive outcomes
Similarities:
Benevolent and moral leadership promotes employee commitment and management support. Authoritarian leadership leads to employee obedience.
Differences: Strong benevolent leadership leads to employee loyalty. Limited authoritarian leadership facilitates employee participation. Formal role mechanism enforces the relational obligations of Paternalistic Leadership. Limited authoritarian leadership facilitates cross-hierarchical dialogue. Negative outcomes Similarities: None Differences: Strong benevolent leadership causes difficulty in deal with problematic performance. Strong authoritarian leadership hinders employee participation. Negative organisational outcomes are curbed by formal role mechanism.
Negative organisational outcomes are curbed by formal role mechanism.
Table 8.5 Cross-case comparison: effects of Paternalistic Leadership
All three case studies indicate that Paternalistic Leadership strengthens employee commitment and management support through benevolent and moral leadership and prompts employee obedience through authoritarian leadership. In the minority Family-like Guanxi between managers and subordinates, the effect of Paternalistic Leadership on
153
employee commitment is particularly strong due to strong interpersonal affection and relational obligations. Therefore, Paternalistic Leadership supports formal role coordination mechanism in manager-subordinate coordination in all three organisations.
In comparison, in Case Study I, strong benevolent leadership leads to the loyalty of employees but difficulty in disciplining or dismissing under-performing employees. Case Study II and Case Study III do not have such difficulty because the effective formal performance management system and strong organisational culture and values have prioritised organisational obligations and values in the two organisations. Moreover, while strong authoritarian leadership in Case Study I results in centralised decision making, the limited emphasis on authoritarian leadership in Case Study II and Case Study III facilitates cross-hierarchical open dialogue and employee participation. These differences suggest that the implementation of formal role coordination mechanism in Case Study II and Case Study III has prevented the problem of benevolent leadership in dealing with problematic performance and the problem of authoritarian leadership hindering cross-hierarchical open dialogue and employee participation. In addition, in Case Study II, formal promotion and performance criteria for the managers enforce the relational obligations of the managers in benevolent and moral leadership, strengthening the benefits of Paternalistic Leadership.
The above findings support and extend the existing literature on the double-edged effects of Paternalistic Leadership in Chinese organisations. First, while many quantitative studies identify the effects of Paternalistic Leadership on employee loyalty and commitment (Mejia et al., 2018; Wong, 2017; Wong et al., 2003), the case studies explain empirically that these outcomes are produced due to the relational obligations and affective social exchange between Chinese managers and subordinates under Confucian ethics. Second, while existing literature has not sufficiently addressed how hierarchical social exchange takes place in various mixes of expressive and instrumental ties (Luo et al., 2016), the case studies illustrate the relatively strong employee commitment in close Family-like Guanxi between managers and subordinates due to their strong interpersonal affection and relational obligations. Third, whereas the existing literature focuses on the outcomes of Paternalistic Leadership on employee behaviour (Section 2.3.3), the case studies show the effects of Paternalistic Leadership on management behaviour such as management support. Last, the case studies increase the understanding of the negative effects of Paternalistic Leadership. While many scholars focus on the positive outcomes of benevolent and moral leadership (such as Davidson et al., 2017; Weng, 2014; Smith et al., 2014), Case Study I indicates how benevolent leadership causes difficulty in dealing with under-performing employees with formal organisational rules. Whilst Davidson et al. (2017) and Chen et al. (2011) posit that authoritarian leadership are sometimes negatively associated with employee voice, Case Study I explains empirically how strong
154
authoritarian leadership hinders cross-hierarchical open dialogue and employee participation.
In addition, the three case studies create new knowledge on the evolution of Paternalistic Leadership in Chinese organisations due to the implementation of a Western job role system. While the extant literature has focused on the outcomes of Paternalistic leadership, there is a call for research on its evolution under the dual influence of Confucian traditions and Western management practices in China (Barkema et al., 2015). Case Study II and Case Study III elaborate how the implementation of a Western job role system prevents the problem of benevolent leadership in dealing with problematic performance, and reduces the emphasis on authoritarian leadership and thus its negative impact on cross-hierarchical open dialogue and employee participation. Moreover, Case Study II offers an empirical example that the formal job role system here enhances the relational obligations of Chinese managers in Paternalistic Leadership. Therefore, the case studies increase the understanding of the evolution of Paternalistic Leadership under the dual influences of Chinese Guanxi and Western job role system and how the Western job role system can be used to reduce the negative outcomes of Paternalistic Leadership and strengthen its benefits.