feature that characterizes the vertical interactions within Chinese
organizations.
Based on an extensive review of this body of literature, Farh and
Cheng ( 2000 ) proposed a model of paternalistic leadership (PL), in
which PL was defined as a type of leadership that combines strong and
clear authority with concern, considerateness, and elements of moral
leadership. Since then, a series of empirical studies have been con-
ducted on PL to examine the effects of its dimensions in a variety
of organizational settings across Taiwan and mainland China. Most
of these studies have been published in Chinese books and journals.
The accumulated empirical findings and the need for cross-cultural
scholarly exchange make an integrative review timely and necessary.
The purpose of this chapter is to take stock of progress in this body of
literature and offer suggestions to guide future research.
Paternalistic leadership: its meaning and cultural origin
Silin ( 1976 ) was among the first to note the paternalistic management
style of overseas Chinese owners/managers. In the 1960s, when Taiwan’s
economy was just beginning to take off, Silin conducted an anthropo-
logical study of the management practices at a large private enterprise
in Taiwan. He found that the leadership concepts and behavioral styles
of Taiwanese business owners/managers were markedly different from
those in the United States. He summarized these differences into
several categories of management style, including didactic leadership,
moral leadership, centralized authority, maintaining social distance
with subordinates, keeping intentions ill-defined, and implementing
control tactics. Building on Silin’s ( 1976 ) and others’ works, Redding
( 1990 ) identified paternalism as a key element of ‘‘Chinese capitalism’’
after in-depth interviews with seventy-two owner/managers of overseas
Chinese family businesses. Following the work of Silin ( 1976 )and
Redding ( 1990 ), Westwood ( 1997 ) proposed a model of ‘‘paternalistic
headship’’ for Chinese family businesses. Westwood’s model described
nine stylistic elements of headship: didactic leadership, non-specific
intentions, reputation-building, protection of dominance, political
manipulation, patronage and nepotism, conflict diffusion, aloofness
and social distance, and dialogue ideal, which exist in the general
structural characteristics of centralization, low formalization, harmony-
building, and personalism. Using a psychological approach, Cheng
172 Jiing-lih Farhet al.