Satisfaction with, and trust in, the leader differed significantly
across the five PL types. In both the school and the firm samples, trust
and satisfaction were highest for Type 5 Selfless benefactor, followed
by Type 1 Authentic, then Type 7 Ideological, and finally Type 3
Disciplinarian. Moreover, the residual group where PL types with
low moral character were collapsed also had low levels of trust
and satisfaction. In the firm sample, the residual group had the lowest
satisfaction and trust ratings among all groups. In the school sample,
the residual group had ratings lower than Type 5 Selfless benefactor
and Type 1 Authentic groups but it had ratings somewhat higher than
Type 3 Disciplinarian and about the same level as Type 7 Ideological
leaders.
Summary and Discussion
From Farh and Cheng’s (2000) conceptual framework of PL, we
may classify leaders in Chinese organizations into eight types. From
the distributions of ideal leaders and actual leaders in the private
firm and public school samples, we found four major types of PL
in Chinese organizations in Taiwan, including Type 5 (Selfless bene-
factor), Type 1 (Authentic), Type 3 (Disciplinarian), and Type 7
(Ideological). Note that all four types of PL leaders have high per-
ceived moral character, but differ from each other in the extent to
which they exhibit authoritarianism and benevolence. In selecting
ideal leaders, employees eschewed PL types with low moral character,
regardless of the leader’s benevolence and authoritarianism. In actual
leader distribution, less than 15 percent of the leaders were perceived
as having low moral character in both the school and the firm samples.
In terms of followers’ trust and satisfaction with the leader, leaders
with low moral character received significantly lower ratings than
their counterparts with high moral character (especially in the firm
sample). These results suggest that moral character is a necessary
condition for emerging leaders in Chinese organizations. This is
understandable. In a culture with high power distance and high par-
ticularism, such as China, followers tend to depend on the leaders
far more so than in egalitarian, universalistic societies such as the
USA. Without self-imposed moral restraints by the leader, authoritar-
ian and benevolent leadership styles could easily slip into manipulative
tactics that serve only the goals of the leader at the expense of the
followers.
Paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations 191