| Summary: | 碩士 === 元智大學 === 經營管理碩士班(領導學程) === 107 === The past decades have seen increasing interest in the role of paternalistic leadership in the workplace under Chinese culture environment. Paternalistic leadership refers to “the leadership style under the rule of human, manifest a kind of kindness and majesty as a father” which including as authoritarian leadership and benevolent leadership (Farh & Cheng, 2000). The former means “the leadership style focus on authority, strict control, and obey the rule completely to employee”, and the latter means “the leadership style emphasis on individualized consideration, comprehensive care and inspirational motivation to employee” (Farh & Cheng, 2000).
Past researchers have been interested in comparing these two types of leadership in terms of outcomes in various indicators, such as authoritarian leadership will increase positive effect on self determination. (Chou, Chou, Cheng, & Jen, 2010) and decrease the satisfaction about employees to their boss (Cheng et al., 2000), whereas benevolent leadership will increase the trust about employees to their boss (Cheng et al., 2000) and decrease personal privacy when the boss excessive concern to their employees (Farh & Cheng, 2000). However, the linkage between paternalistic leadership and moral ethics is limited. Moreover, recently researchers particularly interesting aim to explore the mediating mechanism to elaborate the model of how and why paternalistic leadership related to final outcomes. Hence, the study explores the relationship between paternalistic leadership and employee outcomes, and proposes two moral ethics of justice and care ethics will act significant mediating roles.
Justice moral ethic is referring as “the actions of principles will obey the rules and morals to judge the legitimacy of the action”. This perspective is suitable for male trait, emphasize on intangible, principles and empathic neutrality attitude as a bystander.” Care moral ethic is referring as “it should not apply universal principles to all people and all situations, because each individual consider the principles above every circumstances, they will have different kind of action in different situations.” As female moral development, moral universalism cannot resolve the problems, should balance every conflicts and interest, find a best resolution” (Gilligan, 1982). The study proposed these two ethics act mediating roles.
The study propose that authoritarian leadership would positive related to employees’ task performance (Hypothesis 1), whereas benevolent leadership would positive related to employees’ work well-being (Hypothesis 2). Further, the study also examine the mediating role of justice moral ethic in the relationship between authoritarian leadership and employees’ task performance (Hypothesis 3), and care moral ethic in the relationship between benevolent leadership, care moral ethic and employees’ work well-being (Hypothesis 4).
We total collected 70 supervisors and 209 subordinates. The purpose of this study is to provide a method that which leadership style is suitable for different subordinates. Not only the subordinates of ethics of justice but also care, both of them can show their strengths on increasing their performance and work well-being.
|
|---|
