The Effect of Paternalistic Leadership on Employee Voice Behavior: The Study of the Mediating Role of OBSE. Yu-jia XIAO and An-cheng PAN *

Transcription

1 2017 3rd International Conference on Humanity and Social Science (ICHSS 2017) ISBN: The Effect of Paternalistic Leadership on Employee Voice Behavior: The Study of the Mediating Role of OBSE Yu-jia XIAO and An-cheng PAN * Faculty of Management and Economics, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, China *Corresponding author Keywords: Paternalistic leadership, Voice behavior, OBSE. Abstract. As the research on the relationship between leadership behavior and employee voice behavior has generally been viewed from Western context (e.g., transformational leadership), few existing studies is rooted in Chinese culture. We investigated how the three components of paternalistic leadership, namely benevolence, moral and authoritarianism, influenced employee voice behavior through their impacts on organization-based self-esteem (OBSE). Using a sample of 347 employees, our results showed that three components of paternalistic leadership were most strongly related to o OBSE and subsequent voice. Benevolent leadership and moral leadership have significant positive influences on OBSE and employee voice behavior, while authoritarian leadership has a negative one. Also, OBSE was positively related to employee voice. Further, OBSE mediates the positive relationship between paternalistic leadership and subordinate voice. Introduction In uncertain environment, more and more organizations have realized that employee voice is critical to organizational development. Most of the research on employee voice has also been at the individual level of analysis, such as individual attitudes, dispositions and perceptions [1]. A full understanding of voice behavior, however, also requires insight into the effect of leadership on employee voice [2-4]. China has long been influenced by Confucianism, and differs from western countries on the cultural values. The value orientation of Chinese people remained silent, coupled with the risk of voice behavior itself, to some extent, inhibit employee voice. Paternalistic leadership was presented by Farh and Cheng, is perceived as manipulative and authoritative leadership, it has essential implications in Chinese society [5]. However, the research on the relationship between leadership behavior and employee voice behavior is dominated by Western context, such as transformational leadership [2], not refer to the Chinese culture. The purpose of this study was therefore to address findings about paternalistic leadership as an influence on subordinates voice from the perspective of OBSE. Discussing on the influence on voice behavior from the paternalistic leadership and its mechanisms has a very important practical and theoretical significance in Chinese context. Literature Review and Hypotheses Paternalistic Leadership and Employee Voice Despite different descriptions, more research typically defines paternalistic leadership as a style that combines strong discipline and authority with fatherly benevolence [5]. Farh and Cheng have identify three constituent elements of paternalistic leadership (PL), including benevolence, moral and authoritarianism leadership [5]. Voice, defined as one of extra-role behavior that emphasizes expression of ideas, suggestions, concerns, or opinions intended to improve organizational or unit functioning [5]. Combined with the feature of the Chinese context, Liang and Farh proposed a two-dimensional voice behavior [6]. Promotive voice consists of attempts to propose new ideas/opinions for improving the overall functioning of the work unit or organization. Prohibitive 89

2 voice refers to a series of behavior that speaking up about dysfunctional aspects of work, such as inefficient procedures, rules etc. Theoretically, leadership behavior affects subordinates voice for two primary reasons [1]. First, leaders are important person to voice process, because they are able to solve the problem. Second, leaders have the authority to administer rewards and punishments, and control subordinates pay and promotions. Thus, when leaders are willing to listen to advices, their subordinates may enhance the motivation to speak up. Otherwise, subordinates may regard potential risks of voice as outweighing perceived benefits. Benevolence leaders demonstrate concern for subordinates personal and family well-being. In order, subordinates may speak up existing problems in the organization, and propose some suggestions to return the care and support of leaders. Moral leaders demonstrate superior personal virtues, which lead subordinates to respect and identify with the leader. If the advices are beneficial to the development of the organization, they will praise subordinates or provide other rewards fairly. Authoritarianism leaders assert their authority and require absolute obedience from their subordinates [4]. In fact, such leadership conveys two signals to subordinates. First, leaders with autocratic style are likely to not adopt subordinates advice. This means organizational problem proposed by subordinates is difficult to solve. Second, subordinates voice challenge the authority of the leaders, may pay a greater potential cost (e g. criticism, demotion, etc.). After all, most employees lack the courage to challenge managers who have signaled unwillingness to accept input from below, so they are likely not to make suggestions and advices. We predict: Hypothesis 1a: Benevolence leadership has positive effects on employee voice. Hypothesis 1b: Moral leadership has positive effects on employee voice. Hypothesis 1c: Authoritarianism leadership has negative effects on employee voice. Paternalistic Leadership and OBSE According to self-concept-based theory [7], self-esteem is defined as the individual's self-evaluation of its ability, including the sense of competence, power and achievement. Pierce and Gardner developed the concept of organization-based self-esteem (OBSE), which can be defined as the perceived self-value that individuals have of themselves as organizational members acting within an organizational context [8]. Subordinates self-concept cognition is significantly influenced by leaders behavior and evaluation [8]. The benevolent leaders sees their subordinates as "in-group members", trustworthy and willing to empower them. Typical benevolent leadership also includes leaders encouraging them when they encounter problems, and trying to understand the cause of performance problems, which enhance subordinates' self-perception of their importance, effectiveness, and worthiness. Moral leaders are fair and impartial in their work, and become a model of learning by subordinates [4]. Over time, subordinates will have a sense of self-identity, and then strengthen the level of OBSE. Authoritarian supervisors, on the other hand, who impose strict controls, procedures and rules, imply that they distrust the ability of their subordinates [4]. In consequence, subordinates may internalize their incompetence into their own self-concept. We predict: Hypothesis 2a: Benevolence leadership has positive effects on subordinates OBSE. Hypothesis 2b: Moral leadership has positive effects on subordinates OBSE. Hypothesis 2c: Authoritarianism leadership has negative effects on subordinates OBSE. The Mediating Role of OBSE As discussed above, leader behavior signals ability and performance of subordinate in the context of workgroups. Subordinates with high levels of OBSE come to believe that they are significant, worthy and valuable to the organization, have strong motivation to maintain a self-image and contribute to the organization [7]. That is, leadership affects subordinates behavior through its influence on self-concept. In fact, benevolence and morality may express concern about subordinate s personal life and their work, represent the identification and support toward subordinates work, and then strengthens their self-esteem. Subordinates with high OBSE perceive that they play a valuable role in 90

3 the organization; such a positive self-concept is likely to engender positive work attitudes and motivate employees to engage in behaviors that enhance their organizational worth (e.g. voice behavior). On the contrary, authoritarian leadership may undermine subordinates sense of competence and self-evaluation. Subordinates with low OBSE are more likely to reduce their positive behavior and be unwilling to exhibit behaviors beneficial to the organization. Although some studies have explored the relationship between leadership and employee's voice, there is few studies focus on paternalistic leadership. Hence, we hypothesized: Hypothesis 3a: OBSE mediates the positive relationship between benevolence leadership and subordinate voice. Hypothesis 3b: OBSE mediates the positive relationship between moral leadership and subordinate voice. Hypothesis 3c: OBSE mediates the negative relationship between authoritarianism leadership and subordinate voice. Analysis and Results Sample and Procedure We collected survey data from employees from private enterprises in China. A total of 347 employees participated (88.52% response rate). Their average age was less than 35 years old; 47.55% were male, 83.58% had at least a bachelor s degree; % respondents had 5 years or less working experience. Measures (1) Paternalistic leadership (PL). A scale developed by Cheng et al. [9] was used to paternalistic leadership, including benevolent leadership, moral leadership and authoritarian leadership. Scale of PL had good internal consistency and great validity. (2) Organization-based self-esteem (OBSE). OBSE was assessed using scale taken from Pierce and Gardner [9]. Organization-based self-esteem first-order confirmatory factor analysis shown that model had good fitting effect. (3) Voice behavior (VB). We measured subordinates voice behavior using an 11-item scale developed by Liang and Farh [6]. The reliability and validity of scale meet research requirements. Table 1 presents variables reliability and validity. Measurement Index Table 1. Model fit statistics, reliability and convergence (N=347). Reliability Cronbach's α Coefficient Composite Reliability Convergence BL ML AL Fitting Index: χ 2 /df=2.623; GFI=0.829 CFI=0.904; NFI=0.855; IFI=0.905; RMSEA=0.068 OBSE Fitting Index: χ 2 /df=3.933; GFI=0.946; CFI=0.957; NFI=0.944; IFI=0.958; RMSEA=0.092 Prohibitive Voice Promotive Voice Fitting Index: χ 2 /df=3.252; GFI=0.931; CFI=0.958; NFI=0.941; IFI=0.959; RMSEA=0.081 Notes: BL: Benevolent Leadership, ML: Moral Leadership, AL: Authoritarian Leadership Descriptive Statistics Table 2 presents the means, standard deviations, and zero-order Pearson correlations of all key variables. The relationship among variables had preliminary support and validation. 91

4 Table 2. Correlations of variables (N=347). Variables Benevolent Leadership (0.919) 2.Moral Leadership 0.586*** (0.866) 3.Authoritarian Leadership *** *** (0.930) 4.OBSE 0.461*** 0.382*** *** (0.884) 5.Promotive Voice 0.363*** 0.238*** ** 0.557*** (0.893) 6.Prohibitive Voice 0.377*** 0.231*** *** 0.621*** 0.648*** Note: Values in parentheses on the diagonal are the Cronbach s alpha value of each scale: * ρ<0.1, ** ρ<0.05, *** ρ<0.01 Tests of Hypotheses (0.900 ) (1) Paternalistic leadership and employee voice behavior. Through path analysis of structural equation model, we found that benevolent leadership (β=0.511, ρ<0.01) and moral leadership (β=0.351, ρ<0.01) were positively related to employee voice behavior. And authoritarian leadership ( β =-0.220, ρ <0.01) was negatively related to employee voice behavior. The results support Hypotheses 1a, 1b and 1c. (2) Paternalistic leadership and OBSE. Benevolent leadership (β=0.501, ρ<0.01) and moral leadership (β=0.349, ρ<0.01) had a positive relationship with OBSE. And authoritarian leadership (β=-0.286, ρ<0.01) had significantly negative relationship with OBSE. Hypotheses 2a, 2b and 2c were thus supported. (3) Mediating effect of OBSE. Structural equation model conclude three dimensions of paternalistic leadership, OBSE and employee voice behavior. The standardized path coefficient of benevolent leadership decreased from β=0.511(ρ<0.01) to β=0.240(ρ<0.01) and was still significant. So OBSE had partially mediator effect on the relationship between benevolent leadership and employee voice behavior. Similarly, we tested mediating effect of OBSE on the relationship between moral leadership or authoritarian leadership and employee voice behavior. We found that OBSE had mediator effect on the relationship between moral leadership and voice behavior. This study accepts a complete mediation model. Table 3 show that the standardized path coefficient of authoritarian leadership decreased from β=-0.220(ρ<0.01)to β= and was not significant and overall model was fit. Hypothesis 3a, 3b, 3c was thus partially supported. Structural Model BL OBSE VB BL VB ML OBSE VB ML VB AL OBSE VB AL VB Table 3. Standardized path coefficient of mediation model (N=347). Standardized Path Path C.R. Significance Probability Coefficient OBSE BL *** VB OBSE *** VB BL *** OBSE ML *** VB OBSE *** VB ML * OBSE AL *** VB OBSE *** VB AL Notes: BL: Benevolent Leadership, ML: Moral Leadership, AL: Authoritarian Leadership, VB: Voice Behavior Discussion and Conclusion Paternalistic leadership is found to some extent in developing societies, has been receiving increasing attention in the research literature [4]. Using a sample of 347 employees, our results showed that three components of paternalistic leadership were most strongly related to o OBSE and subsequent voice. Benevolent leadership and moral leadership have significant positive influences on OBSE and 92

5 employee voice behavior, while authoritarian leadership has a negative one. Also, OBSE was positively related to employee voice. Further, OBSE mediates the positive relationship between paternalistic leadership and subordinate voice. As the research on the relationship between leadership behavior and employee voice behavior has generally been viewed from Western context, few existing studies is rooted in Chinese culture. This study further develops our understanding of the antecedent variables of voice, and extends this concept to also understand the effect of Paternalistic leadership on employee voice. Our findings also suggest that subordinate OBSE plays an important role in explaining the effect of Paternalistic leadership on their voice behavior. The result demonstrates that subordinates who perceived identification and understanding of leader (BL or ML) feel more highly valued by the organization (OBSE), and those who feel valued highly (OBSE) are rated as higher level of voice. Similarly, our findings suggest that authoritarian leadership negatively influences employees voice because this leadership style undermines their OBSE. In sum, this study not only develops the mechanism of employee's behavior, but also provides a new perspective for the relevant research carried out in Chinese context. Paternalistic leadership, as a general form of leadership, needs to be reassessed. Leaders should show personal concern, care, support, and guidance toward their subordinates in both work and non-work domains to strengthen subordinates self-esteem and voice behavior. Similarly, leaders could promote features of moral leader by making good demonstration and treating subordinates fairly, to improve subordinates ability and promote to share their advices for development of organization. In addition, considering the negative effect of authoritarianism, leaders should be careful to impose strict controls, procedures and rules, which reduce the emergence of such behaviors. References [1] J. A. LePine, and L. Van Dyne. Predicting Voice Behavior in Work Group, Journal of Applied Psychology, 1998, 83: [2] J. R. Detert, and E. R. Burris, Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open?, Academy of Management Journal, 2007, 50: [3] D. R. Avery, Personality as a predictor of the Value of Voice, The Journal of Psychology, 2003, 137: [4] W. Liu, R. Zhu, and Y. Yang, I warn you because I like you: Voice behavior, employee identifications and transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 2010, 21: [5] J. L. Farth and B. S. Cheng, A cultural analysis of paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations, Management and organizations in the Chinese context, London: Macmillan, [6] J. Liang, C. I. C. Farh, and J. L. Farh, Psychological Antecedents of Promotive and Prohibitive Voice: A Two-wave Examination, Academy of Management Journal, 2012, 55: [7] B. Shamir, R. J. House, and M. B. Arthur, The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory, Organization Science, 1993, 4: [8] J. L. Pierce, and D. G. Gardner, Self-Esteem Within the Work and Organizational Context: A Review of the Organization-Based Self-Esteem Literature, Journal of Management, 2004, 30: [9] B. S. Cheng, L. F. Chou, and J. L. Farh, A triad model of paternalistic leadership: Constructs and measurement, Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, 2000, 14: