Effect of Paternalistic Leadership on Job Satisfaction and

Organizational Citizenship Behaviour with Mediating Role of

Leader Member Exchange

Author / Correspondence Author

M. Nawaz Khan
0321-5553421
meher_nwz@yahoo.com
MS (Management Sciences), Riphah International University, Islamabad, Pakistan

Co-Author
Smabia Iftikhar Abbasi
MS (Management Sciences), Riphah International University, Islamabad, Pakistan
 1

ABSTRACT

Purpose. This study has been conducted to explore the relationship between
Paternalistic Leadership, Organizational Citizenship Behaviour and Job Satisfaction with
mediating effect of Leader Member Exchange.

Methodology. For data collection purpose 200 questionnaires were distributed from
which 185 were received back. Same figure were analyzed, from which 155 were found
complete/correct and same figure has been incorporated in this study. Response rate was 77.5
%, and a sufficient sample size was collected for analysis of results. Data obtained from
questionnaires is analyzed using correlation and regression.

Results. Results revealed that Paternalistic Leadership plays a vigorous role in

Organizational Citizenship Behaviour and Job Satisfaction, and Leader Member Exchange
mediates this relation.

Limitations. Small sample size has been faced as limitation. Secondly, our targeted
respondents were middle level employees and executives of different organizations;
availability of time by them was also faced as hindrance for collection of data.

Practical Implications. Through this survey it has been revealed that paternalism in
organization make its employees more reliable and patriotic. If an organization develops its
leadership in a paternalistic way, it can grow rapidly.

Originality. To maximize generalization of this study the primary data used in this
study has been collected from different organizations of different sectors. Keeping in view
the title statement of the study, data has been critically gathered from different level or
positions of these organizations i.e. form top management, middle and tactical management.

Key words. Paternalistic Leadership, Leader Member Exchange, Job

Satisfaction and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour.
 2

INTRODUCTION

A leader with a style of leadership where he guides and control subordinates in a fatherly
mode for their own benefit, and is involved in professional and personal lives in his/her
employees is called paternalistic leader. Safety and other requirements of under commands
are assured to overcome out-group criticism, which, they can only return through loyalty to
their supervisor and his/her in-group, hard work and admiration to the supervisor (Pasa,
Kabasakal & Bodur, 2001; Aycan, 2006; Gelfand, Erez & Aycan, 2007; Pellegrini &
Scandura, 2008).

Research from India, Turkey, China, and Pakistan also suggests that paternalism does not
mean ―authoritarianism‖ but slightly a relationship in which followers enthusiastically
respond the care and safety of caring authority by showing conformity (Aycan et al., 2000;
Pellegrini & Scandura, 2006).

Leadership and followership is an allied model. Leaders cannot exist without followers, nor
can followers exist without leaders. The obedience of the followers is the reflected image of
good leadership. At the same time, organizational success is an outcome of increased
follower capability and efficacy through their leadership influence.

Nonetheless, both leader and subordinate not be able to yield sufficient grip on organizational
matter, so researchers focused on the dyadic relationship between the leader and
subordinates, and frame the Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory.

LMX theory, which was projected initially as ―Vertical Dyadic Linkage‖ theory, at first
focused on the nature of the relations leaders formed with their followers, whereas later find
out that how leader-member relationship (LMX) was related to organizational productivity
and success (Mardanov et al. 2008-b).

Harris, Kenneth, J., Wheeler, Anthony, R., & Kacmar, Michele, K., (2009), in their research,
titled as ―Leader–member exchange and empowerment: Direct and interactive effects on job
satisfaction, turnover intentions, and performance‖ find that LMX positively influences in
organizational behaviour.

Higher quality of LMX between leader and followers, enhance organizational citizenship
behaviors, increase job satisfaction, and greater performance of followers (Duong 2011).

Satisfaction of job is one of the main outcomes of job attitude and it was extensively
researched in the organizational behavior area (Duong 2011). Harris et al (2009) conducted
 3

research based on job satisfaction and find that LMX is surely and significantly related to job
satisfaction. Fisk and Friesen (2012) in their research found that LMX quality strengthen job
satisfaction of employees.

The level of interaction between supervisor and under commands, affect job outcomes such
as job satisfaction of employee (Aycan, 2006; Pellegrini & Scandura, 2008).

A person‘s actuality is a ―good citizen‖ which promotes the environment of welfare and well-
being of the larger collective. Support for this relationship was provided by Hackett, Farh,
Song, and Lapierre (2003), who reported a meta-analytic mean correlation of .32 between
LMX and overall OCB, leading them to conclude that Organizational Citizen Ship Behaviour
plays an important role in the joint social exchange process of LMX.

Past researches show the relation between LMX JS, OCB as well as the impact of PL on JS
and OCB. However, there is a need for comprehensive methodology as well as theoretical
work to make a rigorous and relevant research stream in PL‘s outcomes through LMX. In the
present research we wished to explore the mediating role of Leader Member Exchange
(LMX) between Paternalistic Leadership (PL), Job satisfaction (JS) and Organizational
Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) in Pakistani business environment. The reason behind that only
PL itself is not so much effective for organizational success and employee satisfaction.
Subordinates need proper, regular communication with their leader and they expect attentions
and care even in personal or family matters. This ideal atmosphere and behaviour of leader
will put synergy in work activities which results positively into JS and OCB.

On the basis of our review, we will identify, examine and try to fill the gaps that have yet to
be addressed in previous literature. In the last section, we will try our best to suggest
productive paths for future researchers. We trust that this timely research will serve as a
useful guideline for further inquiries to the emerging body of literature on LMX and
paternalistic leadership.
 4

A REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Paternalistic Leadership
Today business world is getting global more rapidly opposing with more sophisticated
challengers than before. As obligation of globalization, the boundaries and borders of
business world are wiped and people from different cultures come much closer to each other.
Increasing and maintaining the performance and organizational effectiveness in these diverse
cultures is one of the most important tasks of leaders.

Paternalistic leader is one who creates positive relationship between him and his
subordinates. According to (Aycan, 2006), Webster‘s (1975) defines paternalistic leader as
―the principle or system of governing on a country, group consisting on employees, etc in a
manner suggesting a father‘s relationship with the family‖. As per this definition the
paternalistic leader performs in such a way as to create a family atmosphere at the
workplace, establishes close and individualized relationships with his or her subordinates,
and involves in non-work activities with his or her followers.

According to Aycan, (2001, 2006) and Padavic & Earnest (1994) paternalistic leadership
takes care of employees like a father and is involved in every aspect of their lives, in
return, the subordinates are expected to be loyal, respectful to the superior and respond in
such a way as to consider the workplace as a family place.

Since 2000, research on paternalism as a leadership style has developed five dimensions of
paternalistic evolved (Mather, Aycan, & Kanungo, 1996; Aycan et al., 2000; Cheng, Chou &
Farh, 2000; Pellegrini & Scandura, 2006; Aycan, 2006). The most recent research by Aycan
(2006) has developed five dimensions: (1) creating a family atmosphere at workplace also,
(2) preserve very close relationship with under commands, (3) participating in employees‘
non-work domain, (4) demanding loyalty and admiration in return of his care and guidance,
and (5) maintaining position order and founding authority.

Research conducted on leadership and supposed uncertainty finds that paternalistic leadership
behaviors create humanize and re-moralize at workplace. Hence, it can be stated that one of
paternalist leader dimensions is family atmosphere may results in decrease the tendency of
uncertainty (Ozer, Dogan, & Tinaztepe, 2013).

Paternalistic leaders are often looked upon positively because of their fatherly concern for the
followers and their effort to create a family-like atmosphere. On the other hand, the dark side
 5

of paternalistic leadership is quoted as its possibility to turn into favoritism / nepotism and
providing resources and shelter to only a group of followers, and eliminate others (Kabasakal
and Bodur, 2002). Another dark prospective of paternalism is that paternalistic leader carries
some coercion behaviour as he sometimes makes decision without consent of his under
commands.

McFarlane et al.‘s (1990) study explains that job satisfaction is valuable when looking at
employees and their attitudes toward their jobs and the organization. Examining this study
improves one‘s knowledge about employee attitudes because it differentiates between job
satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviour. For example, an employee can love
his/her job but maybe he dislikes the organization. Measuring these two variables is
important to find out direct and independent relationship between paternalistic leadership and
organization citizenship behaviour.

Paternalistic Leadership and Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction is ―a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of
one‘s job or job experiences‖ defined by (Locke, 1976). Redding (1990) suggested that the
paternalistic approach can increase job satisfaction of the employee. Kohn and Schooler‘s
(1973) study of American workers suggested job satisfaction is closely related to closeness of
supervision and leadership. According to (Aycan, 2006) paternalistic leader creates a healthy
working environment by applying following behavioral strategies at workplace:-
1. Create family environment at workplace, which results in more security for followers.
2. Maintain close relations with under commands.
3. Participate in on the job and off-work activities as well.
4. Expect loyalty and better performance and work outcomes.
5. Maintaining status pyramid and create expertise.
Similarly to contribute in this the research area researchers Gelfand, Erez & Aycan in 2007
findings were further illustrated by a Turkish employee working in New Jersey (an associate
of the first author:-

―When I worked in Istanbul, I felt extremely overwhelmed by my managers‘

interest in my personal life. After four years of working in the U.S., I now find
myself longing for that attention. American managers are disinterested and
distant. They could at least ask me how my children are doing or whether I‘m
 6

planning to have more. I‘m not expecting a detailed discussion about my

personal life, but I feel like managers here only focus on the task and not on
us—the people.‖

Competent Human Resource is one of the major assets of the organization. Human asset is
also a competitive edge of the organization which even cannot be copied. To retain this
competitive edge, job satisfaction of these internal customers is an important factor. For this
purpose leader is need to be act as fatherly for his under commands. Along with above,
paternalistic leaders also motivate followers to transcend their own immediate self-interest
for the success of the organizational mission and vision, and they feel pleasure to doing the
assigned task by their leaders, which syndicate output as job satisfaction. On this base we can
conclude the following hypothesis:-

H1. Paternalistic Leadership has a positive impact on Job Satisfaction.

Paternalistic Leadership and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour

Organizational citizenship behavior ―represents individual behavior that is discretionary, not
straight or clearly recognized by the formal reward system, and in the aggregate helps the
efficient and effective working of the organization‖ (Organ, 1988). Organizational
Citizenship Behavior lubricate the social mechanism of the organization provide the dynamic
environment needed to work through many unexpected likelihoods, it also helps these
internal customers in the organization to manage with the otherwise ideal condition of related
on each other (Hackett et al., 2003). Fischer and colleagues, (2005) proposed that paternalism
with their emphasis on personalized relationships, are expected to lead to higher levels of
general support and specifically, helping behaviors between leader and followers, and finally,
research in Asian contexts found an association between paternalism and organization
citizenship behaviors, (Cheng, Shieh, & Chou, 2002). Researchers Mather, Aycan, &
Kanungo, (1996); Aycan et al., (2000); Cheng, Chou & Farh, (2000); Pellegrini & Scandura,
(2006); Aycan, (2006) have developed following five dimensions of paternalistic leader:-
a. Creating a Family Atmosphere at Workplace

This dimension describes the leader as behaving like a father to his or her
subordinates. For instance, a paternalistic leader is expected to give fatherly/motherly
advice to his or her subordinates in their professional as well as personal lives.

b. Establishing Close & Individualized Relationships with Subordinates

 7

The paternalistic leader is expected to know every subordinate in person (personal

problems, family life, etc.), be genuinely concerned with their welfare, and take a
close interest in their professional as well as personal lives.

c. Getting Involved in the Non-Work Domain-Work Lives

Entails leader behaviors such as attending important events (e.g., wedding and funeral
ceremonies, graduations, etc.) of their subordinates as well as of their immediate
family members; providing help and assistance (e.g., financial) to their subordinates
who are in need; and acting as a mediator between an employee and his or her spouse
when there is a marital problem.

d. Expecting Loyalty

This represents loyalty and commitment expectations of the leaders from their
subordinates. For instance, employees are expected to immediately attend to an
emergency in the company even if this requires them to compromise their private
lives. For a paternalistic leader, loyalty and commitment of the subordinate are the
two most important criterions in evaluating the performance of the subordinate.

e. Maintaining Authority/Status

Involves leader behaviors such as giving importance to status differences (position

ranks) and expecting employees to behave accordingly. The paternalistic leader
believes that he or she knows what is good for the subordinates and their careers. He
or she would also want that none of his or her subordinates doubt his or her authority.

In this study, it is assume that paternalistic leadership holistically, will result in employee‘s
loyal behaviour to the organization. The reason behind this assumption is that, paternalistic
leaders not only guide subordinates to complete tasks, but also encourage them via
individualized consideration, charisma, intellectual stimulation, and inspirational motivation
to strive for accomplishments exceeding expectations. He also posses loyalty towards
subordinates, and in return he also expect loyalty with organization from his subordinates. In
view of above following hypothesis can be concluded:-

H2. Paternalistic Leadership has Positive Impact on Organizational Citizenship

Behaviour.
 8

Leader Member Exchange

LMX theory, which was initially proposed as Vertical Dyadic Linkage theory, at first focused
on the nature of the relations leaders formed with their followers, where later addressed how
leader-member relationship (LMX) was related to organizational effectiveness. Among the
widely researched topics are the quality of leader-member relationship and its effects on job
attitudes like job satisfaction; and it was found that, the quality of LMX in the workplace can
often affect the entire structure and success of the organization (Mardanov et al. 2008-b).

According to LMX theory, effective leadership occurs when leaders and followers maintain a
high quality exchange relationship characterized by a high degree of mutual trust, respect,
and responsibility (Graen and Scandura, 1987; Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995).

As stated above in introduction step that the LMX theory states that leaders form differential
relationships with different subordinates in a workgroup (Graen & Cashman, 1975; Liden &
Graen, 1980), which results in a differentiated workgroup. This differentiated workgroup is
comprised of subordinates with high and low quality of LMX. Further clarification of high
and low LMX is as under:-

a. High Leader Member Exchange

High LMX (in-group) relationships are characterized by support, and trust (Liden &
Graen, 1980), mutual liking, professional respect, contributory behaviors, and mutual
influence (Dienesch & Liden, 1986; Liden & Maslyn, 1998).

b. Low Leader Member Exchange

Low LMX (out-group) relationships are contractual and formal (Dansereau et al.
1975). Stated differently, in-group subordinates are treated as ―trusted subordinates,‖
whereas out-group ones Social Power, Power Distance, and LMX are act essentially
as ―hired hands‖.

In view of above literature we can reach on a conclusion that if leaders are trained to offer the
opportunity to develop a high-quality relationship to all of their subordinates than those
followers who accepted the offer by the leader to develop a high-quality LMX improved their
performance dramatically.
 9

Leader Member Exchange and Job Satisfaction

Harris et al (2009) made research find that LMX is positively and significantly related to job
satisfaction and negatively related to turnover intentions of the employees.

A recent research by Fisk and Friesen (2012) found that LMX quality have a direct positive
impact on employees' levels of job satisfaction.

Positive relationship between job satisfaction and LMX, has been observed in Turkish
samples by (Aycan, 2006; Pellegrini & Scandura, 2006, 2008). In Pellegrini & Scandura
(2006) research Turkish sample found that LMX and job satisfaction were significantly
associated (r = .39, p < 0.01).

In the US, LMX researchers have reported positive outcomes of high-quality relationships for
leaders, followers, and organizations, including higher performance ratings, higher job
satisfaction, greater satisfaction with supervisor, stronger organizational commitment, and
more positive role perceptions (Gerstner and Day, 1997; Liden et al., 1997).

High-level LMX between leader and followers create collectivist culture at work place. A
collectivist culture is a culture in which people tend to view themselves as members of
groups and usually consider the needs of the group to be more important than the needs of
individuals. Collectivists avoid blunt honesty, avoid sensitive issues, and exhibit a self-
effacing humor as ways of preserving social harmony, which results in organizational
success, job satisfaction as well as life satisfaction amongst the employees. These types of
cultures can be found especially in Asia. This study addresses this call, and studies LMX
relationships specifically in Pakistan. On the basis of above literature and concept of
collectivist culture following hypothesis can be derived:-

H3. LMX has positive impact on Job Satisfaction.

Leader Member Exchange and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour

LMX is found to be positively related to important organizational behaviors (Harris et al.
2009). Positive notions and assessments of followers were expected to associate with a high
level quality of LMX with their subordinates, leads to increase in organizational citizenship
behaviors (Duong 2011).
 10

LMX theory argued that the quality of a leader-member dyadic relationship expects more
positive organizational outcomes than the personal traits or behaviors of supervisors
(Mardanov et al. 2008-b).

Research has demonstrated LMX to have a significant influence on outcomes such as task
performance, job satisfaction, and the extent to which workers go beyond their employment
contract, (organizational citizenship behaviors, or OCBs), (Gerstner & Day, 1997).

According to the Maslow Hierarchy of Needs Theory (1943, 1954) basic human needs are
organized into a hierarchy of relative prepotency. The third stage of Maslow‘s hierarchy is
social or belonging. Some of the things that satisfy that need include friendship, family,
social groups, community groups, organizational or work groups. In order to avoid problems
such as loneliness, depression, dissatisfaction, stress, and disgruntle Behaviour, it is important
for people to feel loved and accepted by other people. At that level, the need for emotional
relationships drives human behavior towards society and organization as well. Positive and
constructive relationships between friends, family, colleagues, subordinate, and bosses or
leaders play an important role in life and in organizational success as well. So it is pertinent
to mention that level of participation and demonstration of a leader into members‘ activities is
correlated with level of members‘ attitude toward organization. On the basis of above
literature and Maslow‘s theory following hypothesis can be derived:-

H4. LMX has positive impact on Organizational Citizenship Behaviour.

Paternalistic Leadership and LMX

According to Pellegrini & Scandura (2006), paternalistic leadership behavior and LMX found
to be significantly connected with each other as per their findings (r = 0.59, p < 0.01).

PL and LMX are strongly related to each other and to job satisfaction. As both PL and LMX
are measures of (good) leader-subordinate relations, their correlation is not entirely
unexpected. This corresponds to the findings of Pellegrini & Scandura, (2006), analogy with
paternalistic leadership, having a positive impact on positive employee attitudes towards
organization (Gelfand, Erez & Aycan, 2007).

Modern scholars study Paternalistic leadership as a relationship based approach leadership,

unlike traditional theories in which scholars studied leadership as a function of leaders‘
personal attributes (Gerstner & Day, 1997). Based on this it can be anticipated that leadership
is not an only independent attribute but it is a reliant on relationships with followers.
 11

Leader-Member Exchange Theory exclusively focuses on the Leader-Follower dyad. LMX

leads our thinking towards importance of leadership communication and relationships.
Communication is a medium through which leaders and subordinates develop, grow and
maintain valuable exchanges between them which also beneficial for organization.

As apparent in above discussions, we can conclude that LMX theory is related to positive
organizational outcomes, which means that the effectiveness of PL is strongly related to level
of LMX and we derived the following hypothesis:-

H5. Paternalistic Leadership has positive impact on LMX.

LMX as Mediator between PL, JS and OCB

Researchers have establish the direct relationship between paternalistic leader, JS and OCB
but as well as they attentive that the leader alone would yield insufficient knowledge on the
matter, so researchers focused on the relationship between the leader and subordinates, and
they proposed Leader Member Exchange (LMX) theory.

LMX theory emphasizes the quality level of interaction and relationship between leader and
members and proposes that both contribute to the exchange in developing a high quality
working relationship. In that sense, LMX can be considered as a relational process approach,
since the leader and subordinates are the major participants of the process.

According to the scholar (Chan & Mak, (2012), LMX partially mediates the relationship
between leadership and follower task performance and fully mediates the relationship
between leadership and OCB.

Gerstner and Day (1997) in his research found solid of LMX for overall job satisfaction (P=
.50) Behavioral and emotional exchanges (LMX) between the leader and follower have been
found to be related to numerous positive outcomes, including employee‘s satisfaction with
job satisfaction and with supervision (Gerstner & Day, 1997).

Secondly, according to LMX theory, effective leadership occurs when leaders and followers
maintain a high-quality relationship characterized by mutual trust, respect, and obligation.

In the current study, we propose and test the relationship centered variable (quality of LMX)
as the mediator and try to explicitly link between paternalistic leader and employees‘
attitudes toward their job and organization. By exploring this mediation model, we provide a
test of the potential relational instrument that links paternalistic leader with followers‘ job
 12

attitudes (job satisfaction) and organizational outcome (OCB) so aggregately we can

conclude the following hypothesis:-

H6. LMX mediates the relationship between PL and JS

H7. LMX mediates the relationship between PL and OCB

 13

Research Framework

Job Satisfaction

Paternalistic Leader-Member
Leadership Exchange (LMX)
Organizational
Citizenship
Behavior
 14

Methodology

Population and Sample for Study. The sample consisted of employees working in
five well-established private and public sector organizations located in Pakistan. However, to
make more generalized research some of data has been also collected from university level
students specifically those who are on part jobs.

We used non probabilistic sampling (convenient sampling) method as sampling design.

Samples were drawn from three levels of management including entry level, middle level and
top level employees of targeted organizations. The pertinent information for the study is
collected from primary sources.

The collection of data for this very research is done by using the structured questionnaire. For
this purpose 200 questionnaires were distributed from which 175 were received back. 185
questionnaires were analyzed and from which 152 were found complete/correct and same
figure has been incorporated in this study. Response rate was 76 %, and a sufficient sample
size was collected for analysis of results.

A cover letter explaining the purpose and scope of the study assured respondents of strict
anonymity and that participation in the study was voluntary. To avoid any oversight due to a
non-serious attitude we tried to utilize the time off of employees to fill the questionnaires.
Also the respondents were provided with full explanation of the questionnaire.

The respondents‘ age had a mean of 45.5 years (s.d. 1.206) from which 63.8 percent were
male and 36.2 percent were female. Mean tenure with the organization was 13.4 years (s.d.
1.154). Education levels ranged from high school completion to receiving a Ph.D, with 95.3
percent of the respondents having a university level degree and the remaining 4.7 percent
having school or college level education. The demographics are not used in the present study.
The objective of this demographic info is to show composition of respondents to have a better
understanding about their response and results for present study.

Measurements

In our survey, responses were graded on the Likert scale format, which have answer rang
from 1 to 5 (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree).

In Pakistan, English is a compulsory subject for beginners in schools and medium of

instruction for all university education. Except for entry-level jobs in which almost no
education is required, every job holder in Pakistan can at least read and understand English.
 15

Thus, given the sampling frame, we did not have to translate the questionnaire into the native
language.

Paternalistic Leadership. To measure Paternalistic Leadership (PL) 13 items scale by

(Aycan, 2006) was used. The Cronbach‘s Alpha for this scale was .754. A sample question is
“My manager participates in his/her employees’ special days (e.g., weddings, funerals, etc.)”.

Leader Member Exchange. To measure Leader Member Exchange (LMX), 6 items, scale
developed by Graen, Novak & Sommerkamp, (1982) was used. The Cronbach‘s Alpha for
this scale was .696. A Sample question is “My supervisor understands my problems and
needs”.

Job Satisfaction. Job Satisfaction was measured with 5 items scale developed by
Brayfield and Rothe‘s (1951). The Cronbach‘s Alpha for this scale was .746. Two sample
questions are as under:-

1. “I like my job better than the average worker does”.

2. “I definitely dislike my job (reverse coded)”.

Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Organizational Citizenship Behavior, was

measured with 6 items, scale developed by Lee and Allen (2002) & Motowidlo and Van
Scotter (1994). The Cronbach‘s Alpha for this scale was .771. One of question from scale is
“I express loyalty toward the organization”.
 16

Table # 1: Descriptive Statistics & Correlation

Std
Variable Mean 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Deviation
1. Gender 1.36 .482 1
2. Education 3.95 .852 .063 1
3. Age 2.45 1.206 -.030 -.125 1
4. Experience 1.89 1.154 .026 -.100 .545** 1
5. Organization 1.39 .489 .103 .161* -.072 -.204* 1
6. Paternalistic Leadership 3.2323 .52609 -.221** .131 .076 .051 -.127 1 (.754)
7. Leader-member Exchange 3.4254 .53287 -.161* .003 .145 .220** -.079 .624** 1 (.696)
8. Job satisfaction 3.8487 .68937 -.073 -.050 .036 .190* -.080 .188* .445** 1 (.746)

9. Organizational Citizenship Behavior 3.8472 .51766 -.110 .078 .071 .035 .006 .157 .374** .544** 1 (.771)
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Alpha reliability of each variable is shown in parenthesis ( ).
Total Sample Size, n=152
 17

Correlation Analysis

Table 1 shows that there is strong relationship between Paternalistic Leadership and Leader
Member Exchange, mediator at r=.624, p≤.01**). Paternalistic Leadership has also strong
relationship with dependent variables i.e. Job Satisfaction (r=.188, p≤.05*) and with
Organization Citizenship Behaviour (r=.157, (ns) as the value of p is ≥ 0.05). PL has also
positive correlation with Leader Member Exchange (r=.624**, p≤.01). Similarly Leader
Member Exchange has strong relationship with dependent variables i.e. Job Satisfaction
(r=.445, p≤.01**) and with Organization Citizenship Behaviour (r=.374, p≤.01**). Our all
hypothetical variables are correlated with each other, which also shows acceptance of overall
research model.
 18

Table 2: Hierarchical / Mediation Regression Analysis

Predictors LMX JS OCB
Β R 2
∆R2
Β R2
∆R 2
β R2 ∆R2
Main Effect: PL
Step I:

Control Variables .076 .037 ----

Step II:
PL .616*** .426 .350*** .244* .071 .034* .154* .025 .025*
Mediation : LMX
Step 1:

Control Variables .037 ----

Step II:
LMX .550*** .209 .172 .363*** .140 .140***
Step III:
PL -.170 .219 .010 -.124 .150 .010

* p ≤ 0.10, ** p ≤ 0.05, *** p ≤ 0.001

PL=Paternalistic Leadership, LMX=Leader-Member Exchange, JS=Job Satisfaction, and OCB=Organizational Citizenship Behaviour

Control Variables for LMX are experience & gender

Control Variables for JS are experience & education

No Control Variables for OCB

 19

Regression and Hypothesis Analysis

H1: Paternalistic Leadership has a positive impact on Job Satisfaction.

Results of the regression analysis show that the paternalistic leadership has a significant
relationship with Job Satisfaction having β value of .244* at significance level at value of
p=021*) and fulfill the requirements that p should be ≤0.05, which is acceptable range. The
control variables regressed at first place to check the relationships between these two variables
are education and experience. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.

H2: Paternalistic Leadership has a positive impact on Organizational Citizenship Behaviour.

The regression analysis shows that the paternalistic leadership has a β value of .154* at a
significant level of p= .05, which fulfills the condition p ≤ 0.05. There was no control variable
in this relationship. Therefore, this above stated hypothesis is accepted.

H3: LMX has a positive impact on Job Satisfaction.

The hypothesis is accepted based on the β value of .550*** and ∆R2 is .172 at the significance
level of .000, p ≤ 0.001, which means that with an increase in LMX there will be an increase in
Job Satisfaction. The control variables regressed with this relationship are, experience and
education.

H4: LMX has positive impact on Organizational Citizenship Behaviour.

The hypothesis is accepted based on the β value of .363** and ∆R2 is .140 at the significance
level of .000, p ≤ 0.001, which means that with an increase in LMX there will be an increase in
OCB. Thus the above stated hypothesis is accepted. None of the control variables is taken into
consideration while regressing the relationship for analysis.

H5: Paternalistic Leadership has positive impact on LMX.

According to the regression analysis, it is indicated that with β =.616*** and ∆R2 is .350 at the
significance level of .000, p≤0.001, which falls within the acceptable range it is stated that the
above stated hypothesis is accepted. The variables controlled are education and gender.

H6: LMX mediates the relationship between PL and JS

Through pre conditions of meditator we identified that the relationship that we have assumed is
possible, so we moved towards mediating effect of LMX.
 20

The above hypothesis is supported because as per the pre-conditions explained by Barron &
Kenny, 1986. The stated relationship fulfills the criterion significance of relationship of
independent variable with dependent variable, independent variable with mediator and
mediator with dependent variable and the fourth step of mediation after treating control
variables, has got the β value of .170, which is insignificant at p value of .173 (ns), which is
p>.05. On the basis of this analysis it is concluded that LMX fully mediates the relationship
between PL and JS, so above hypothesis is accepted.

H7: LMX mediates the relationship between PL and OCB

For the above hypothesis three pre-conditions are fulfilled with mediation at the insignificant
level (p value of .196 which is >.05), and β value is .124 and is at insignificant level of .196,
which is >.05. Therefore, the hypothesis is accepted and proving that LMX is mediating the
relationship between PL and OCB. No control variable was found for OCB.
 21

Discussion

Current study has been conducted on paternalistic leadership style and its impact on
employees‘ job satisfaction and their organizational citizenship behaviour. Another variable i.e.
Leader Member Exchange has been analyze as mediator between independent and dependent
variable.

Overall, our findings suggest that effective leaders express their patronage behaviors within a
personal, dynamic relational exchange context. They fulfill the psychological contract implicit
in their social exchange relationships with followers. They are sensitive to follower
contributions to the exchanges and reciprocate in ways that build follower self-worth and/or
self-concept. We are advocating a socially interactive and dynamic model of leadership, where
the influence of paternalistic leadership on job satisfaction and organizational citizenship
behaviour is through a social exchange between leader and follower.

As per the findings of the survey our first hypothesis (H1) Paternalistic Leadership has a
positive impact on Job Satisfaction is fully supported as it was also supported by Redding
(1990) that the paternalistic approach can enhance job satisfaction of the employee. Similarly
same study conducted on American workers by Kohn and Schooler‘s in 1973 suggested that
job satisfaction is closely related to closeness/patronage behaviour of supervision and
leadership.
Paternalism fosters trust among workers and managers, affective motivation versus economic
motivation, cooperation throughout the organization, group harmony, and lifetime employee
job commitment and satisfaction. Thus the hypothesis was fully supported.

As per literature review and framework we supposed that Paternalistic leadership has positive
influence to increase the level of organizational commitment of under commands, same has
been proved through results. In past same relationship was supported by Hackett et al., (2003)
and their findings and reasons are fully supported that social mechanism by leader of the
organization provide the dynamic environment needed to work through many unexpected
likelihoods, it also helps these internal customers in the organization to manage with the
otherwise ideal condition of related on each other and organizational relations. Thus
Hypothesis 2 (Paternalistic Leadership has positive impact on Organizational Citizenship
Behaviour) is fully supported.
Another meaningful result is that LMX influences job satisfaction level of employees. As per
one of the recent research conducted on LMX and JS found that the level of interaction
 22

between supervisor and under commands, affect job outcomes such as job satisfaction of
employee (Aycan, 2006; Pellegrini & Scandura, 2008). As mentioned above in literature
review that High-level LMX between leader and followers create collectivist culture at work
place, and it is proved through many researches that collectivism leads to high lob satisfaction
among employees. So H3 (LMX has positive impact on Job Satisfaction) is also supported.

Similarly we hypothesized (H4) that LMX has also constructive relationship to enhance the
level of organizational citizenship behaviour amongst the employees. LMX theory argued that
the quality of a leader-member dyadic relationship expects more positive organizational
outcomes (OCB) than the personal traits or behaviors of supervisors (Mardanov et al. 2008b).
Primarily every person in this world needs affection, affiliation, concerns, and attachment as
per third stage of Maslow hierarchy of needs theory and second reason behind this hypothesis
is social learning theory, in which emphasizes that people learn by observing other persons
(models) whom they believe are credible and knowledgeable, so we concluded that through
High LMX employees are motivated towards learning and have positive attitude towards
organization.

Hypothesis 5 (Paternalistic Leadership has positive impact on LMX) is also supported as

Pellegrini & Scandura (2006) concluded that paternalistic leadership behavior and LMX found
to be significantly connected with each other. Similarly regression analysis of this research,
indicates both are the variables are correlated. As stated in literature review, both leader and
subordinate not be able to yield sufficient grip on organizational matter, so through this attempt
we find that relationship between the leader and subordinates, frame the Leader-Member
Exchange (LMX) theory.

High-level LMX between leader and followers create collectivist culture at work place. A
collectivist needs of the group to be more important than the needs of individuals. Collectivists
avoid blunt honesty, avoid sensitive issues, and exhibit a self-effacing humor as ways of
preserving social harmony, which results in organizational success, job satisfaction as well as
life satisfaction amongst the employees as predicted and verified through H6 (LMX mediates
the relationship between PL and JS). As stated above, same relation has been tested by
Pellegrini & Scandura (2006) research Turkish sample found that LMX and job satisfaction
was significantly associated.

Accordingly, Hypothesis 7 (LMX mediates the relationship between PL and OCB) has been
accepted. Same relation has been analyzed through a very recent research by Chan & Mak,
 23

(2012), and concludes that LMX fully mediates the relationship between leadership and OCB.
LMX theory emphasizes the quality level of interaction and relationship between leader and
members and proposes that both contribute to the exchange in developing a high quality
working relationship. In that sense, LMX can be considered as a relational process approach,
since the leader and subordinates are the major participants of the process.
 24

Implications for leaders and Manager

Main purpose of this study was to examine the importance of patronage behaviour of a leader
in organizational success and job satisfaction of employees. Leader Member Exchange has
been proposed as mediator. After concluding results of the study it has been concluded that
paternalistic leadership behaviour plays vital role for job satisfaction and organizational
citizenship behaviour. On the basis of our survey and results, following recommendations are
offered for managers and leaders as well as followers and under commands:-

1. Our findings provide insights into how high-quality leader-member exchange

relationships can be developed.

2. Effectiveness of leadership programs must be aimed at developing the quality of

leader-follower dyadic relationships which can be enhanced by incorporating
training in leadership skills.

3. Similarly training to improve followers‘ behaviour towards leader, LMX and

organizational success may be added to employee development programs and as
well as in strategic plans of the organization.

4. LMX-enhancing strategies should be part of leadership development programs.

 25

Limitation of Current Study and Directions for Future Research

Our review suggests that empirical research on paternalistic leadership has been relatively
limited in scope and offers few consistent findings and that many aspects of this developmental
relationship remain unexplored as my best search. Thus, paternalistic leadership presents
tremendous opportunities for future empirical research. Below, we address some
methodological and theoretical issues in the current literature and discuss a number of fruitful
directions for future research.

1. In this research we just studied and conclude the patronage behaviour of leader and, but
on the other hand we did not show our concern with behaviour and attitude of followers
or under commands. Future study may be conducted on leader and followers behaviour
as well.

2. This study has been conducted on sample collected from both public and private sector
organizations. Separate collected sample i.e. only from public or only from private
sector may differ the results.

3. During this study it has been viewed that some variables like psychological
empowerment or decision making power of under commands can be incorporated as
moderator in this research model.
 26

References

Aycan, Z. (2001). Human resource management in Turkey: Current issues and future
challenges. International Journal of Manpower, 22 (3), 252-260.

Aycan, Z. (2006). Paternalism: Towards conceptual refinement and operationalization. In

Yang, K. K. Hwang, & U. Kim (Eds.). Scientific Advances in Indigenous
Psychologies: Empirical, Philosophical, and Cultural Contributions: 445-466.

Aycan, Z., Kanungo, R. N., & Sinha, J.B.P. (1999). Organizational culture and human
resource management practices: The model of culture fit. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 30(4), 501-516.

Aycan, Z., Kanungo, R., Mendonca, M., Yu, K., Deller, J., Stahl, G., & Kurshid, A. (2000).
Impact of culture on human resource management practices: A 10 country
comparison. Applied Psychology, 49(1), 192-221.

Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H.F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 35, 307–311.

Chan , S. H., & Mak, W. (2012). Benevolent leadership and follower performance The
mediating role of leader–member exchange (LMX). Asia Pacific Journal of
Management, 285–301.

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

Cheng, B., L. F. Chou, Tsung Yu Wu, M. Huang and J. Farh: (2004). ‗Paternalistic
Leadership and Subordinate Responses: Establishing a Leadership Model in Chinese
Organizations‘, Asian Journal of Social Psychology 7(1), 89–117.

Duong, Julie, (2011), Leaders‘ conceptions and evaluations of followers as antecedents of

leadership style, leader-member exchange, and employee outcomes, Unpublished
doctoral thesis, doi: 10.10061/j.sbpro.2012.03.225

Fischer, R., Redford, P., Ferreira, M. C., Harb, C. & Leal-Assmar, E. M. (2005).
Organizational behavior across cultures: Theoretical and methodological issues for
developing multi-level frameworks involving culture. International Journal of Cross-
Cultural Management. 5(1), 27-48
 27

Fisk, Glenda, M., & Friesen Jared, P. (2012), Perceptions of leader emotion regulation and
LMX as predictors of followers' job satisfaction and organizational citizenship
behaviors, The Leadership Quarterly.(23) 1-12.

Gelfand, M. J., Erez, M. & Aycan, Z. (2007). Cross-Cultural organizational behavior.

Annual Review of Psychology, 58(1), 479-514.

Gerstner, C. R. & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of Leader-Member-Exchange

theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 827-
844.

Graen, G.B. and Scandura, T.A. (1987) ‗Towards a Psychology of Dyadic Organizing‘, in
L.L. Cummings, B.M. Staw, (eds.) Research on Organizational Behavior, 9: 175–
208.

Graen, G.B. and Uhl-Bien, M. (1995) ‗Relationship-based approach to leadership:

development of leader–member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25
years: applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective‘, The Leadership Quarterly
6(2): 219–247.

Graen, G.B., Novak, M., & Sommerkamp, P. (1982). The effects of leader-member exchange
and job design on productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 109-131.

Hackett, R. D., Farh, J.-L., Song, L. J., & Lapierre, L. M. (2003). LMX and organizational
citizenship behavior: Examining the links within and across Western and Chinese
samples. In G. Graen (Ed.), Dealing with diversity: LMX leadership The series, 1:
219– 263.

Harris, Kenneth, J., Wheeler, Anthony, R., & Kacmar, Michele, K., (2009), ―Leader–member
exchange and empowerment: Direct and interactive effects on job satisfaction,
turnover intentions, and performance‖. The Leadership Quarterly, 20: 371-382.

Kabasakal, H. and Bodur, M. (2002) ‗Arabic cluster: a bridge between east and west‘,
Journal of World Business 37(1): 40–54.

Kohn, M. and Schooler, C. (1973). Occupational experience and psychological

functioning: An assessment of reciprocal effects. American Sociological Review,
38,97118.
 28

Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance:
The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 131-142.

Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.),
Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology: 1297–1343.

Mardanov, Ismatilla, T., Maertz, Carl,. P., & Sterrett, Jack. L., (2008), ―Leader-member
exchange and job satisfaction‖, Journal of Leadership Studies, 2 (2): 63-82.

Maslow, A.M. (1970). Motivation and personality.

Mather, P., Aycan, Z. & Kanungo, R. N. (1996). Work cultures in Indian organizations: A
comparison between public and private sector. Psychology and Developing Societies,
8(2), 199-223

Mather, P., Aycan, Z. & Kanungo, R. N. (1996). Work cultures in Indian organizations: A
comparison between public and private sector. Psychology and Developing Societies, 8 (2),
199-223.

McFarlane Shore, L., Newton, L. A. & Thornton, G. C. (1990). Job and organizational
attitudes in relation to employee behavioral intention. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 11: 57-67.

Meglino, B. M., Ravlin, E. C., & Adkins, C. L. (1991). Value congruence and satisfaction
with a leader: An examination of the role of interaction. Human Relations, 44: 481–
495

Organ, D.W. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome,
Lexington Books

Ozer, F., Dogan, B., & Tinaztepe, C. (2013). The effect of paternalist leadership on perceived
uncertainty in organizations which had gone through merger or acquisition. Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 99, 164–172.

Padavic, I., & Earnest, W. R. (1994). Paternalism as a component of managerial strategy.

Social Science Journal, 31(4), 389-356.

Paşa, S. F., Kabasakal, H. & Bodur, M. (2001). Society, organizations and leadership in
Turkey. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50(4), 559-589.
 29

Pellegrini, E. K. & Scandura, T. A. (2006). Leader-member exchange (LMX), paternalism,

and delegation in the Turkish business culture: An empirical investigation. Journal of
International Business Studies, 37(2), 264-279.

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

Redding, G. (1990), The Spirit of Chinese Capitalism.

Schriesheim, C. A., Hinkin, T. R., & Podsakoff, P. M. 1991. Can ipsative and single-item
measures produce erroneous results in field studies of French and Raven‘s (1959) five
bases of power? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(1): 106-114.

Uhl-Bien, M., Tierney, P., Graen, G., & Wakabayashi, M. (1990). Company paternalism and
the hidden investment process: Identification of the ―right type‖ for line managers in
leading Japanese organizations. Group and Organization Studies, 15: 414-430

Webster, (1975), Webster‘s dictionary. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster Westwood R

(1997). Harmony and patriarchy: The cultural basis for paternalistic headship among
the overseas Chinese. Organization Studies, 18(3): 445-480
 30

Appendix-(Questionnaire)

MS - Research Questionnaire
Dear Respondent,

I am a MS Scholar at Riphah International University, Islamabad. To expand the scope of my knowledge, I

intend to conduct research on “Paternalistic leadership, its impact on Organizational Citizenship Behaviour
and Job Satisfaction”. In this regard, I have prepared the following questionnaire, and submitted to you
with a request to return it duly answered. I appreciate you for sparing some time from your busy schedule
for this purpose. It may be noted that, on one hand, this research is expected to contribute good insights
aiming at an overall improvement in organizational setup, while on the other hand, your identity will be
kept secret. So, an impartial opinion is likely to make the research work more meaning full and
successful. Your cooperation is highly appreciated. Any input, suggestion by your good-self will be
perceived a matter of encouragement for me.

M. Nawaz Khan
meher_nwz@yahoo.com
0321-5553421
Section-1

Please do not generalize, but tell about what is actually happening Scale

Disagree

Disagree
Strongly

Strongly
Neutral

Agree

Agree
Description/Identification of Survey Item

My manager is interested in every aspect of his/her employees’

1 1 2 3 4 5
lives.
2 My manager creates a family environment in the workplace. 1 2 3 4 5
3 My manager consults his/her employees on job matters. 1 2 3 4 5
My manager is like an elder family member (father/mother, elder
4 1 2 3 4 5
brother/sister) for his employees.
My manager gives advice to his/her employees on different matters
5 1 2 3 4 5
as he is an elder family member.
My Manager makes decisions on behalf of his employees without
6 1 2 3 4 5
asking for their approval.
My manager knows each of his employees intimately (e.g., personal
7 1 2 3 4 5
problems, family life, etc.)
My manager displays emotional reactions in his relations with the
8 1 2 3 4 5
employees, such as joy, grief, anger.
My manager participates in his/her employees’ special days (e.g.,
9 1 2 3 4 5
weddings, funerals, etc.)
My manager tries his/her best to find a way to help his employees
10 whenever they need help on issues outside work (e.g., setting up 1 2 3 4 5
home, paying for children’s tuition).

11 My manager expects his/her employees to be devoted and loyal, in 1 2 3 4 5

 31

return for the attention and concern he shows them.

My manager gives his/her employees a chance to develop

12 1 2 3 4 5
themselves when they display low performance.

My manager believes he/she is the only one who knows what is

13 1 2 3 4 5
best for his employees.

Section-2

1 I usually know where I stand with my supervisor. 1 2 3 4 5

2 My supervisor understands my problems and needs. 1 2 3 4 5

3 My supervisor recognizes my potential. 1 2 3 4 5

Regardless of how much formal authority he/she has built into his/her
4 position, my supervisor would be personally motivated to help me to solve 1 2 3 4 5
problems in my work.

Regardless of the amount of formal authority my leader "bail me out,"

5 1 2 3 4 5
even at his or her own expense, when I really need it.

My supervisor has enough confidence in me and he/she would defend

6 1 2 3 4 5
and justify my decisions if I were not present to do so.

Section-3

I adjust my work schedule in way to create time to facilitate and share the
1 1 2 3 4 5
work load of my colleagues.

2 I help others who have been absent. 1 2 3 4 5

I show genuine concern and courtesy toward coworkers, on workplace as

3 1 2 3 4 5
well as their personal issues.

4 I offer my ideas to improve the functioning of the organization. 1 2 3 4 5

5 I express loyalty toward the organization. 1 2 3 4 5

6 I take actions to protect the organization from potential problems. 1 2 3 4 5

7 I demonstrate concern about the image of the organization. 1 2 3 4 5

I took initiative to troubleshoot and solve problems before requesting help

8 1 2 3 4 5
from a supervisor.

I voluntarily did more than the job requires so that I can help others or
9 1 2 3 4 5
contribute to the overall functioning of the organization.

Section-4

1 I like my job better than the average worker does. 1 2 3 4 5

2 Most days I am enthusiastic about my job. 1 2 3 4 5

3 I definitely dislike my job. 1 2 3 4 5

 32

4 I find real enjoyment in my job. 1 2 3 4 5

5 I am fairly well satisfied with my job. 1 2 3 4 5

Section-5

Your Name: (Optional)

Your gender: 1. Male 2. Female

Your Education: 1. Matric 2. Intermediate 3. Graduation 4. Masters 5. MS/Phil 6. PhD

Your E-mail: (Optional)

Your age (in years, like 40 years)

Your Organization: (Optional)

Your area of specialization: (Optional)

Your job title in this organization: (Optional)

Working experience (in years):

------ Thank You ------