Collective Efficacy: Linking Paternalistic Leadership to Organizational Commitment
Based on social cognitive theory, we theorize that collective efficacy plays a mediating role in the relationship between paternalistic leadership and organizational commitment and that this mediating role depends on team cohesion. The empirical results from a study of 238 employees from 52 teams at manufacturing companies show that benevolent leadership and moral leadership, both components of paternalistic leadership, are positively related to organizational commitment and further that collective efficacy mediates the moral leadership–organizational commitment relationship. We did not find a relationship between authoritarian leadership and organizational commitment. Besides, it was found that team cohesion negatively moderates the relationship between moral leadership and collective efficacy and positively moderates the relationship between collective efficacy and organizational commitment. Explanations and directions for future research are discussed.
KeywordsAuthoritarian leadership Benevolent leadership Moral leadership Paternalistic leadership Collective efficacy Organizational commitment
We would like to thank Henry Lassen, Poul Rind Christensen, Ming Qian, and Junguo Shi for feedback on prior versions of the article. We also thank Section Editor Alexander Newman, the anonymous JBE reviewers and Scott Gordon for their valuable comments and advice.
This study was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (71672084).
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
Author Ying Chen declares that she has no conflict of interest. Author Xiaohu Zhou declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author Kim Klyver declares that he has no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
- Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
- Cheng, B. S., Chou, L. F., & Farh, J. L. (2000). A triad model of paternalistic leadership: The constructs and mea- surement. Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, 14, 3–64.Google Scholar
- Cheng, B., Huang, M., & Chou, L. (2002). Paternalistic leadership and its effectiveness: Evidence from Chinese organizational teams. Journal of Psychology in Chinese Societies (Hong Kong), 3(1), 85–112.Google Scholar
- Chiu, C., & Yang, C. (1987). Chinese subjects’ dilemmas: Humility and cognitive laziness as problems in using rating scales. Bulletin of the Hong Kong Psychological Society, 18, 39–50.Google Scholar
- Farh, J., Cheng, B., Chou, L., & Chu, X. (2006). Authority and benevolence: Employees’ responses to paternalistic leadership in China. In A. S. Tsui, Y. Bian, & L. Cheng (Eds.), China’s domestic private firms: Multidisciplinary perspectives on management and performance (pp. 230–260). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
- Goddard, R. D., & Salloum, S. J. (2012). Collective efficacy beliefs, organizational excellence, and leadership. In G. M. Spreitzer & K. S. Cameron (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship (pp. 642–650). https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199734610.013.0048.
- Lindsley, D. H., Brass, D. J., & Thomas, J. B. (1995). Efficacy-performing spirals: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 645–678.Google Scholar
- Newman, A., Kiazad, K., Miao, Q., & Cooper, B. (2014). Examining the cognitive and affective trust-based mechanisms underlying the relationship between ethical leadership and organisational citizenship: A case of the head leading the heart? Journal of Business Ethics, 123(1), 113–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Shaw, M. E. (1981). Group dynamics: The psychology of small group behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar