Asia Pac J Manag (2012) 29:285301 DOI 10.

1007/s10490-011-9275-3

Benevolent leadership and follower performance: The mediating role of leadermember exchange (LMX)
Simon C. H. Chan & Wai-ming Mak

Published online: 25 November 2011 # Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Abstract This study examines leadermember exchange (LMX) as a mediator of the relationship between benevolent leadership and follower task performance and extra-role performance. Using a sample of 223 leadermember dyads in a nonprofit organization in the Peoples Republic of China, results indicate that benevolent leadership and LMX are positively related to follower task performance and organizational citizenship behavior towards the organization (OCBO). Findings also support that LMX partially mediates the relationship between benevolent leadership and follower task performance as well as fully mediates the relationship between benevolent leadership and OCBO. Implications for the theory and practice of leadership in Asia are discussed. Keywords Benevolent leadership . Leadermember exchange (LMX) . Nonprofit organizations . Task performance . Extra-role performance Under the umbrella of leadership literature, there are two main contrasting perspectives of leadership research. The first stream of leadership research is based on the leader-focused approach. Existing studies have examined how leadership behaviors influence follower performance (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990). For example, Jung and Avolio (2000) examined the impact of transformational leadership on follower performance through trust in leader. The second leadership stream is based on the relationship-based approach. Previous works have explicitly explained leader-to-follower reciprocal social exchange relationships (Janssen & Van Yperen, 2004; Lam, Huang, & Snape, 2007; Tangirala, Green, & Ramanujam, 2007; Wang, Law, Hackett, Wang, & Chen, 2005). The
S. C. H. Chan (*) : W.-m. Mak Department of Management and Marketing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong e-mail: mssimon@polyu.edu.hk W.-m. Mak e-mail: mswmmak@polyu.edu.hk

286

S.C.H. Chan, W.-m. Mak

dyadic relationship is termed leadermember exchange (LMX) which is defined as the quality of exchange between leader and follower and the degree of emotional support and exchange of valued resources (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Wayne & Green, 1993). Researchers have attempted to respond to the call for a theoretical integration of leadership behaviors and LMX research (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Howell & Hall-Merenda, 1999; Wang et al., 2005). Research on benevolent leadership has received growing interest in Asia as it has generally been considered a desirable leadership style to followers (Farh & Cheng, 2000; Wu, Hsu, & Cheng, 2002). Based on the Confucian tradition, this type of leadership behavior demonstrates individualized, holistic concern for followers personal as well as familial well-being (Farh & Cheng, 2000). A leader expresses benevolence for the return of performance effort from followers (Uhl-Bien & Maslyn, 2005). Several empirical studies have demonstrated the positive impact of benevolent leadership on a variety of follower outcomes, such as job satisfaction, commitment, and performance (Cheng, Huang, & Chou, 2002a; Cheng, Shieh, & Chou, 2002b; Liang, Ling, & Hsieh, 2007). In addition, researchers have identified a need for more studies of LMX in the Asian context (Hui, Law, & Chen, 1999; Lam et al., 2007). LMX is premised on the notion of reciprocity, and in particular guanxi in China, which emphasizes the interpersonal relation between leader and follower (Uhl-Bien & Maslyn, 2003). Despite a substantial body of recent benevolent leadership research (Chen & Kao, 2009; Wang & Cheng, 2010), the explanation of benevolent leadership and LMX on follower performance has not received great attention. Building on social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) and the existing LMX differentiation literature (Erdogan & Bauer, 2010; Liden, Erdogan, Wayne, & Sparrowe, 2006; Nishii & Mayer, 2009), we propose to understand the high or low quality of relationship between benevolent leadership and LMX on follower performance. LMX differentiation defines the degree of variability in the quality of LMX relationships formed within the work groups. The degree of quality exchange may vary from high to low between a leader and different followers. We argue that differentiation may occur on the intention of benevolence of a leader to create different individualized care on followers within the work and non-work domain. As a consequence, we contend that an investigation is important to explain how benevolent leadership and LMX influence follower performance. The main objective of this study examines LMX as the mediator between benevolent leadership and follower performance. This study makes two main contributions. First, this study examines whether LMX serves as a mediator of the relationship between benevolent leadership and follower performance. While past research indicated the full mediation of LMX between transformational leadership and follower performance (e.g., Wang et al., 2005), this study advances the leadership literature by investigating the impact of benevolent leadership and LMX on follower performance. Second, researchers have not taken into account elements of other leadership behaviors, such as benevolent leadership, with the relation-based approach of leadership (i.e., LMX) to explain follower performance in the Chinese context (Hui et al., 1999). To respond to the call for Chinese leadership research, it is essential to understand the antecedents and consequences of LMX in the benevolent leadershipfollower performance relationship (Dvir, Eden, Avolio, & Shamir, 2002; Pellegrini & Scandura, 2008).

Benevolent leadership and follower performance

287

Theory and hypotheses Benevolent leadership is rooted in Chinas patriarchal tradition (Farh & Cheng, 2000). It has been generally treated as a constructive and most welcome leadership behavior by followers (Cheng et al., 2002a, b; Wu et al., 2002). A benevolent leader devotes energy to take care, show concern, and encourage followers when they encounter problems (Farh & Cheng, 2000). He/she expresses interest in the personal life of followers and takes good care of their family members (Aycan, 2006; Cheng, Chou, & Farh, 2000; Farh & Cheng, 2000; Pellegrini & Scandura, 2006, 2008). Benevolent leadership resembles the individualized consideration dimension of transformational leadership, as benevolence provides individualized care and encouragement to followers in the work domain (Cheng, Chou, Wu, Huang, & Farh, 2004; Farh, Liang, Chou, & Cheng, 2008). A benevolent leader would show good care to followers for their career development, provide opportunities to learn from mistakes, and teach them how to perform better (Wang & Cheng, 2010). In the non-work domain, benevolent leadership works beyond individual care of personal interest in followers by extending to family members. A benevolent leader envisages a unique dyadic relationship with different followers within the same work group which is similar to the notion of LMX differentiation. It implies that benevolence of a leader on followers may vary upon followers contributions and interest. Followers may have unequal quality exchange and benefits of individualized care in the work domain and relation of family welfare in the non-work domain by a benevolent leader. The theoretical model of LMX as a mediator of the relationship between benevolent leadership and follower performance is presented in Figure 1. Benevolent leadership and follower performance Benevolent leadership has been argued as a leadership behavior which incorporates concerns for followers and family well-being, maintenance of prestige, and avoidance of humiliating behavior (Pellegrini & Scandura, 2008; Tsui & Farh, 1997). The role of benevolence has been viewed as an important element of a leader to enhance follower performance. Existing studies have found a positive impact of benevolent leadership on follower performance (e.g., Cheng & Jiang, 2000; Farh & Cheng, 2000; Farh et al., 2008). With regard to follower task performance, it is defined as the completion of tasks and work role required by employees (Williams & Anderson, 1991). A benevolent leader can fulfil a role obligation in front of followers, which helps followers to build a more productive work group (Pellegrini & Scandura, 2008). Followers generally accept their job role by engaging in certain

Task Performance Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Organization Citizenship Behavior towards the Organization (OCBO)

Benevolent Leadership

Figure 1 Research framework

288

S.C.H. Chan, W.-m. Mak

work tasks. As such, benevolent leadership is expected to be positively associated with follower task performance. In addition, the reciprocity of the relationship between a benevolent leader and follower takes the form of genuine gratitude, personal loyalty, or compliance with the leader s requests (Farh & Cheng, 2000; Martinez, 2003). When both benevolent leader and follower respect each party, social harmony exists (Cheng et al., 2002b). In the high-quality exchange relationship, a benevolent leader gives favor to followers and followers reciprocate to offers of expanded responsibilities, such as extra-role performance, which is represented by organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). It is defined as individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization (Organ, 1988: 4). By discretionary, behavior is not an enforceable requirement of the role or the job description (Allen & Rush, 1998). OCB is a type of behavior that takes the initiative to do extra duty, help colleagues, protect organizational resources, and do more than the minimum amount of work (Farh, Earley, & Lin, 1997). In general, the dimensionality of OCB can be divided into organizational citizenship behavior towards the organization (OCBO) and organizational citizenship behavior towards the individual (OCBI) (Lee & Allen, 2002; Williams & Anderson, 1991). However, this study only focuses on the relationship between benevolent leadership and OCBO for two reasons. First, Lee and Allen (2002) and Huang, Iun, Liu, and Gong (2010) argued that OCBO rather than OCBI is more likely to be influenced by leader behavior. OCBO is as an important consequence in leadership behaviors research in the Chinese context. Second, Chen, Tsui, and Farh (2002) suggested that leader-relevant commitment tends to be directly influenced by follower OCBO. Antecedents of different dimensions of OCB may vary which intend to benefit particular parties (Huang et al., 2010). By showing individualized concern to followers, a benevolent leader signals the value of reciprocate effort by followers who are more likely to engage in behaviors that benefit the organization. A positive relationship between benevolent leadership and OCBO is expected. Thus: Hypothesis 1 Benevolent leadership is positively related to follower task performance and OCBO.

LMX and follower performance Empirical studies have indicated that LMX is positively associated with work attitudes, such as job performance (Bauer & Green, 1996; Gerstner & Day, 1997; Kraimer, Wayne, & Jaworski, 2001; Liden, Wayne, & Sparrowe, 2000) and OCB (Anderson & Williams, 1996; Law, Wang, & Hui, 2010). Research on LMX has built on social exchange theory (Blau, 1964); the differentiated and mutually beneficial exchange relationships between leader and follower are evident. Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, and Taylors (2000) cross-sectional study indicated that LMX and work performance were found to have a positive effect. LMX theory explains that leaders form unique relationships with each follower in which high LMX employees receive higher levels of support (Deluga, 1994; Graen, 1976).

Benevolent leadership and follower performance

289

LMX literature has shown considerable support to the wide variety of follower task performance (Kacmar, Witt, Zivnuska, & Gully, 2003; Law et al., 2010). The central premise of LMX theory posits that a leader and follower develop mutual trust, respect, influence, and obligation in their relationship (Graen & Uhl-Bien 1995). Leaders can provide relevant support to followers in order to display a high level of task performance. In high-quality LMX, followers enjoy their task challenge which fit with their work value. The opportunity to experience task challenge allows followers to contribute to the meaningfulness of work in the work context. A benevolent leader will encourage followers to undertake more job responsibilities so as to enhance their task performance. Also, high-quality LMX would take on duties beyond formal job requirements, which exhibits a higher level of extra-role performance than expected. Findings have confirmed that LMX has a positive impact on OCBs (Law et al., 2010). However, the quality of leaderfollower relationship may enhance a difference of perception towards OCBO and OCBI (LePine, Erez, & Johnson, 2002). Although a meta-analysis examined that LMX was more strongly related to individually-focused OCB rather than an organizationally-focused one (Ilies, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007), the nature of the LMXOCB relationship may vary upon potential moderators, such as the inrole perception (Van Dyne, Kamdar, & Joireman, 2008), and supervisors perceived organizational support (Erdogan & Enders, 2007). Lee and Allen (2002) identified a more cognitive-driven approach on the significance of OCBO rather than OCBI. More importantly, studies explained that a leader posts a more direct effect on how followers respond to their organization in the Chinese context (Chen et al., 2002; Huang et al., 2010). Therefore, we replicated the relationship between LMX and follower task performance and OCBO: Hypothesis 2 LMX relates positively to follower task performance and OCBO.

LMX as a mediator In the existing literature, Wang et al. (2005) provided empirical support for the effect of transformational leadership and high-quality LMX relationships on follower task performance and OCB. The quality of LMX was indicated as the mediator between negative affectivity and performance (Hui et al., 1999). Gerstner and Day (1997) examined the relationship between LMX and performance across a wide range of jobs and organizations. Bass (1990) stated that high-quality LMX relationships manifest the development of other leadership behaviors such as benevolent leadership. Although few studies revealed that LMX quality was related to benevolent leadership and follower performance (e.g., Cheng et al., 2002b; Liang et al., 2007), researchers did not provide specific explanation on how LMX with benevolent leadership influence follower performance. A rationale to explain how LMX mediates the relationship between benevolent leadership and follower performance is regarding the quality of a social exchange relationship. According to social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), benevolent leadership provides a broader cultural framework and facilitates conditions in the relationship-building process with followers. The benevolent leader demonstrates as

290

S.C.H. Chan, W.-m. Mak

a coach to correct mistakes, shows tailor-made concern, and guides the career development of followers. Such a leader is particularly effective in eliciting personal relationships from their followers. With the individualized care of a benevolent leader, followers would take initiative to achieve a higher level of performance. The mutual relationship happens from a predominantly transactional exchange into a social exchange as trust, respect, and loyalty are earned. As evidenced by the LMX differentiation literature, a benevolent leader may demonstrate differential effort to support followers differently. He/she tends to form different quality exchange relationships (ranging from high to low) with a few followers so as to satisfy different followers needs. Through engaging in sharing different personal concerns and cares, a benevolent leader may not treat every follower in the same type of exchange pattern. As follower perception of the benevolence implied by a leader may be widespread among them, LMX creates obligations that followers hold respect for the one who takes care and supports them. Followers who have a better relationship with their benevolent leader are likely to pay more effort at work. On the basis of social exchange, it is premised to treat LMX as the mediating role between benevolent leadership and follower task performance and OCBO (Ansari, Hung, & Aafaqi, 2007; Pellegrini, Scandura, & Jayaraman, 2010). Thus, we argue that LMX mediates the relationship between benevolent leadership and follower task performance and OCBO. Hypothesis 3 LMX mediates the relationship between benevolent leadership and follower task performance and OCBO.

Methods Sample and procedures The sample included leadermember dyads from a group of adult members of a non-profit organization in Hong Kong. It is a youth organization with around 70,000 youth members and 30,000 adult members. The leader works with several adult members to plan and organize activities for youth members. Both leader and adult members are volunteers and the leader does not have as much power on the adult members. We used two sets of questionnaires with separate researcher-assigned identification numbers to collect data: one for adult members and one for their immediate leaders. Questionnaires were administered to leaders and members in person (a leader and several adult members separately). We explained the main purpose and collection procedures of the survey to participants. Out of 250 leaderfollower dyads, 223completed questionnaires (223 leader member dyads) were returned. The response rate was 89.2%. We invited respondents and their immediate supervisor to participate in the study. For the members sample, 52% were male. The mean age and organizational tenure were 30.5 and 6.2 years, respectively. The average length of the leadermember relationship was 4.2 years.

Benevolent leadership and follower performance

291

Measures The items on the constructs of LMX, follower task performance, and OCBO in the questionnaire were originally in English. Two academics were involved in the translation process; all items were translated from English to Chinese by the first bilingual academic; and a back translation from Chinese to English by another bilingual academic ensured the degree of accuracy (Brislin, Lonner, & Thorndike, 1973; Cohen & Cohen, 1983). Benevolent leadership The dimensions of benevolent leadership were measured using Cheng et al.s (2000) scale. Followers were asked to rate the leadership style of their immediate supervisors with 11 items on benevolent leadership (1 = strongly disagree; 6 = strongly agree). Sample items for benevolent leadership included My leader is like a family member when he/she gets along with us, My leader devotes all his/her energy to taking care of me, and Beyond work relations, my leader expresses concern about my daily life. The Cronbachs alpha coefficient of benevolent leadership was .88. Leadermember exchange (LMX) LMX was measured by a 7-item LMX scale from Liden, Wayne, and Stillwell (1993), Scandura and Graen (1984), and Scandura, Graen, and Novak (1986). Sample items were I have enough confidence in my leader that I would defend and justify his/her decision if he/she were not present to do so (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree) and How well does your leader understand your job demands and needs (1 = not a bit; 5 = a great deal). The Cronbachs alpha was .77. Follower task performance Follower task performance was measured by a 5-item scale from Williams and Anderson (1991) (1 = never; 7 = always). The immediate supervisors were asked to assess their followers performance using this scale. Sample items were He/she adequately completes assigned duties and He/she fulfills responsibilities specified in the job description. The Cronbachs alpha coefficient was .90. Organizational citizenship behavior towards the organization (OCBO) OCBO was measured by the 8-item scale developed by Lee and Allen (2002). OCBO is the pro-social behavior towards the organization. Sample items were Offers ideas to improve the functioning of the organization, Keeps up with developments in the organization, and Defends the organization when other employees criticize it. Immediate leaders were asked to rate the adult members on a 7point scale (1 = never, 7 = always). The Cronbachs alpha coefficients for OCBO were .82. Control variables Consistent with prior studies of LMX, gender, education level, age, organization tenure, and leaderfollower dyad tenure to follower task performance and OCBO were controlled (Bauer & Green, 1996; Liden et al., 1993; Maslyn & Uhl-Bien, 2001), which were self-reported.

292

S.C.H. Chan, W.-m. Mak

Results Preliminary analyses In order to examine the distinction between benevolent leadership and LMX, three preliminary tests were conducted. First, a dimension-level confirmatory factor analysis was conducted including all the variables used in this study. The dimensions of LMX and benevolent leadership as its indicators were also included. We conducted a confirmatory factor analysis to evaluate the discriminant validity of benevolent leadership, LMX, follower task performance, and OCBO using AMOS. The results suggested that the hypothesized four-factor model (CFI = .97, GFI = .95, RMSEA = .07) achieved a good fit with a change in chi-square ( 2 = 132.10, df = 5, p < .001). The model also achieved a better fit compared with the single-factor model (CFI = .64, GFI = .75, RMSEA = .24), with a change in chi-square ( 2 = 323.34, df = 6, p < .001). The second test of the distinctiveness of benevolent leadership and LMX involved comparing the correlations between each of these variables with task performance and OCBO. Results indicated that the correlations between benevolent leadership and follower task performance ( = .37, p < .01) and OCBO ( = .24, p < .01) were different from the correlations between LMX and follower task performance ( = .41, p < .01) and OCBO ( = .38, p < .01). As the results indicated the two correlations were unequal (Cohen & Cohen, 1983) discriminant validity was found. Third, in a test of the distinctiveness of benevolent leadership and LMX as suggested by Wang et al. (2005), we entered benevolent leadership into a regression model to predict task performance and OCBO. LMX was entered in a second step, looking for a significant change in the variance explained. If the change in R2 of the model after entering LMX were significant, it would imply that LMX explained additional variance in the dependent variables, beyond what benevolent leadership explained. The results indicated that there was a significant change in R2 of the model after entering LMX; the results were significant between benevolent leadership and follower task performance ( R2 = .12, p < .001) and OCBO ( R2 = .11, p < .001). As a result, all the three tests indicated that benevolent leadership and LMX were distinctive from each other. The means, standard deviations, and zero-order Pearson correlations of all the key variables are presented in Table 1. Tests of hypotheses Hierarchical multiple regression was conducted to test the hypotheses by using SPSS. Hypothesis 1 predicts that benevolent leadership is positively related to follower task performance and OCBO. After all the control variables were entered, we regressed the independent variable (benevolent leadership) in Model 2. Results indicate that benevolent leadership is positively related to task performance ( = .34, p < .001) and OCBO ( = .21, p < .01), as shown in Model 2 of Table 2. Hypothesis 1 is supported.

Table 1 Means, standard deviations, correlations, and reliabilities of measures. 1 .24** .10 .21** .02 .04 .06 .30** .18** .03 .07 .15* .04 .25** .20** .17* .01 .03 .14* .16** .12 .05 .39** .23** .88 .37** .24** .41** .90 .68** .41** .82 .38** .77 .09 .11 .14* .06 .17** .03 .23** 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Variables

Mean

s.d.

1. Gender

.48

.51

2. Age

30.54

8.20

Benevolent leadership and follower performance

3. Education

3.31

.76

4. Organization tenure

6.24

4.83

5. Dyad tenure

4.16

2.57

6. Benevolent leadership

4.52

.76

7. Task performance

5.80

.77

8. OCBO

5.55

.85

9. LMX

4.32

.46

N = 223; The correlation coefficients are significant at * p < .05, ** p < .01.

Reliability coefficients appear along the diagonal.

OCBO Organizational citizenship behavior towards the organization; LMX Leadermember exchange.

293

294

Table 2 Tests of benevolent leadership, leadermember exchange, and followers performance. OCBO Model 3 Model 4 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Variables Model 2

LMX

Task performance

Model 1

Control variables .14* .28*** .12 .02 .20** .09 .12 .01 .05 .22*** .36*** 223 6 .27 .10 .12 .29 6 7 .33 .06 223 223 .27*** 223 5 .10 .10 223 6 .14 .04 .00 .34*** .06 .09 .09 .10 .29*** .28** .19** .17* .01 .22** .03 .21** .35*** 223 6 .21 .11 .13* .11 .06 .03 .00 .17** .03 .17** .06 .00 .17** .03 .18** .05 .08 .31*** 223 7 .22 .08

Gender

.11

.18**

Age

.02

.31***

Education

.05

.11

Organization tenure

.12

.09

Dyad tenure

.04

.07

Independent variable

Benevolent leadership

.40***

Mediating variable

LMX

223

223

Df

R2

.20

.17

.15

.17

OCBO Organizational citizenship behavior towards the organization; LMX Leadermember exchange.

S.C.H. Chan, W.-m. Mak

* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

Benevolent leadership and follower performance

295

Hypothesis 2 predicts that LMX relates positively to follower task performance and OCBO. After entering all the control variables, results indicate that LMX is positively related to follower task performance ( = .36, p < .001) and OCBO ( = .35, p < .001) as shown in Model 3 of Table 2. Hypothesis 2 is supported. Hypothesis 3 predicts that LMX mediates the relationship between benevolent leadership and follower task performance and OCBO. In examining the test of a mediation model, we followed the three steps by Baron and Kenny (1986). At first, the independent variable (benevolent leadership) should be significantly related to the mediating variable (LMX). Second, the independent variable (benevolent leadership) should be significantly related to the dependent variables (follower task performance and OCBO). Third, the mediating variable (LMX) should be related to the dependent variables (follower task performance and OCBO) with the independent variable (benevolent leadership) controlled for in the model. If the beta weight of the independent variable (benevolent leadership) is still significant in the last step, partial mediation is present. If the beta weight of the independent variable (benevolent leadership) is not significant, full mediation is present. After we entered all the control variables, the results indicate that benevolent leadership is significant to LMX ( = .40, p < .001), thus the first requirement for mediation is fulfilled. Lending to the support of Hypothesis 1, the results indicate that benevolent leadership is positively related to follower task performance ( = .34, p < 0.01) and OCBO ( = .21, p < .01), as shown in Model 2 of Table 2, which fulfils the second requirement for mediation. Given that the first two pre-conditions for mediation are supported (Baron & Kenny, 1986), LMX is significant with the relationship between benevolent leadership to follower task performance ( = .27, p < .001) and OCBO ( = .31, p < .001), as indicated in Model 4 of Table 2. We then conducted the Sobel test (Sobel, 1982) to further assess the mediating effect of LMX on the relationship between benevolent leadership and follower task performance and OCBO. Results indicate that LMX significantly mediates the links between benevolent leadership and follower task performance, and OCBO (z = 3.72, p < .001; z = 3.76, p < .001, respectively). Consistently, the results confirm the hypothesis that LMX is the mediator of the relationships between benevolent leadership and follower task performance and OCBO. Thus, Hypothesis 3 is supported.

Discussion This study examined the relationship among benevolent leadership, LMX, follower task performance, and OCBO. The results indicate that benevolent leadership is positively associated with LMX, and LMX is significantly associated with follower task performance and OCBO. Consistent with the Western leadership literature (Wang et al., 2005), LMX is significant in mediating the relationship between benevolent leadership and follower performance. In accordance with social exchange theory, the results are motivated to explain a positive connection of follower individualized care and support from a benevolent leader on LMX and follower performance.

296

S.C.H. Chan, W.-m. Mak

Theoretical and managerial implications First, the present study reveals that the integration of leader-focused and relationalfocused leadership approach was examined, such that LMX mediates the relationship between benevolent leadership and follower task performance and OCBO. The results provide new insight of LMX theory on the premise that the quality exchange of a benevolent leader differentiate among followers in a Chinese context. Social exchange theory emerges as a benevolent leader to provide more personal meaning to follower task performance. Also, the relationships between benevolent leadership, LMX, and OCBO are supported. One explanation is that a benevolent leader nourishes high-quality social exchange on followers towards organizations. This suggests that a benevolent leader, exhibiting personal concern, care, support, and guidance in both work and non-work domains, may vary for high and low LMX and promotes their work performance. Second, the investigation of how benevolent leadership and LMX influence follower task performance and OCBO would broaden the understanding of leadership research in Asia. Building on the work of Pellegrini and Scandura (2006, 2008), this study extends the cultural traditions of benevolent leadership in paternalistic leadership research. We contribute to benevolent leadership theory by highlighting the fact that leaders benevolence is important for LMX differentiation. Benevolence may play a critical role in enhancing the quality exchange between a leader and followers. Given the high value of relations in a Chinese context, an effective leader expresses benevolence within a personal, dynamic relational exchange context. As benevolent leadership is sensitive to follower contributions, LMX-enhancing leadership strategies should be enforced. The practice of the benevolent style of leadership could help to improve the relationship between a leader and followers. Although some have questioned whether LMX theory is applicable to collectivist cultures such as Mainland China, research studies have shown remarkably consistent results across cultures (Farh & Cheng, 2000; Hui et al., 1999). In a collective society, benevolence is particularly important to generate close relationship between a leader and followers. Chinese employees may initiate LMX with leaders in gaining high benevolence and special care. The need to establish high quality exchange with the leader may be favorable to their work performance. Third, this study contributes to the literature by examining LMX as the mediator between benevolent leadership and follower performance in non-profit organizations (e.g., Caldwell, Farmer, & Fedor, 2008). As the nature of non-profit organizations is to provide services for the benefit of society, organizations, and individuals, it is reasonable to support the impact of leadership behaviors on follower performance in different contexts (De Hoogh et al., 2005; Puffer & Meindl, 1992). A leader should depict his/her individualized benevolence that evokes follower performance. The relationship between leaders and followers is often manifested to exert extra effort on a voluntary basis. This study might help to explore the impact of leadership behaviors and LMX on follower performance in other work settings. Limitations This study has several limitations. First, although we have performed three preliminary tests to identify the difference between benevolent leadership and

Benevolent leadership and follower performance

297

LMX, followers rated both benevolent leadership and LMX, and leaders rated on follower performance, giving rise to concerns about possible common source bias. This study was designed to collect data in a cross-sectional study. As the leadership behaviors and performance constructs may change over time, it limits the extent to which causality can be inferred. Future research should collect data of benevolent leadership behaviors, LMX, and follower objective performance by using multi-methods and longitudinal research designs. Second, the data were collected from a Chinese sample, which may raise concerns about the generalizability of the findings, that is, the extent to which our results will generalize to other cultural groups. Future research should replicate the investigation in different cultural contexts. Third, this study examines the relationship among benevolent leadership, LMX and follower task performance and OCBO. The current study finds that LMX posts an important role between benevolent leadership and follower performance. There is still a research gap to strengthen the mediating mechanisms of benevolent leadership. Future research should further extend the mediating mechanism of benevolent leadership on follower outcomes (Pellegrini & Scandura, 2008). Last but not least, the raw data were collected only in a non-profit organization. Although we provide a wider application in non-profit organizations which have examined the leadership effect, the extension of leadership theory cannot fully be generalized in the business sector. Future research should extend the proposed benevolent leadership and LMX model in other work contexts (Farh, Leong, & Law, 1998). Directions for future research Benevolent leadership research is still in its development stage, and many aspects of the developmental relationship in Asian leadership theories remain unexplored (Bhagat, McDevitt, & McDevitt, 2010; Ismail & Ford, 2010). It presents directions for future empirical research. First, we have examined the impact of benevolent leadership behavior on LMX and performance, but other consequences need to be examined. For example, Wang and Cheng (2010) demonstrated the moderating role of creative role identity and job autonomy between benevolent leadership and creativity. It is interesting to further determine the attributes of benevolent leadership in the Asian context (Fu & Tsui, 2003). Future research should further examine the impact of benevolent leadership on positive outcomes, such as employee voice and job security, and negative outcomes, such as negative affect (Pellegrini & Scandura, 2008). Second, despite the predominant pattern of benevolent leadership studies are promising, there are many unanswered questions regarding the psychological mechanisms of such leadership behavior, such as organizational justice (Colquitt, 2001). It should be noted that benevolent leadership may create followers feelings of favouritism or injustice due to LMX differentiation (Erdogan & Bauer, 2010). Followers under a benevolent leader on the other hand receiving individualized concern may perceive that they have a good relationship with their leaders, triggering their positive perception on interactional justice. It is worthwhile for researchers to address other relevant variables that would potentially mediate the relationship between benevolent leadership and followers outcomes (Lau, Liu, & Fu, 2007).

298

S.C.H. Chan, W.-m. Mak

Third, as the culture in China is characterized by high power distance and collectivism (Ahlstrom, Chen, & Yeh, 2010; Hofstede, 2001), Chinese followers are likely to be more responsive to a benevolent leader. In contrast, benevolence of a leader may not always be positively received by employees in low power distance and high individualism. The effects of benevolent leadership therefore are not expected to be consistent across different situations (Wang & Cheng, 2010). As such, the cultural dimensions may play an important role in how followers react to benevolent leadership. Future research should explore such potential moderators of the benevolent leadershipperformance link.

Conclusion To conclude, this study provides useful insights into the effects of benevolent leadership and LMX on follower task performance and OCBO. This study adds to the literature by integrating benevolent leadership behavior and LMX on follower performance. Additionally, LMX partially mediates the relationship between benevolent leadership and follower task performance and fully mediates the relationship between benevolent leadership and OCBO.

References
Ahlstrom, D., Chen, S.-j, & Yeh, K. S. 2010. Managing in ethnic Chinese communities: Culture, institutions, and context. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 27(3): 341354. Allen, T. D., & Rush, M. C. 1998. The effects of organizational citizenship on performance judgments: A field study and a laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 247260. Anderson, S. E., & Williams, L. J. 1996. Interpersonal, job, and individual factors related to helping processes at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(3): 282296. Ansari, M. A., Hung, D. K. M., & Aafaqi, R. 2007. Leader-member exchange and attitudinal outcomes: Role of procedural justice climate. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 28(8): 690709. Aycan, Z. 2006. Paternalism: Towards conceptual refinement and operationalization. In K. S. Yang, K. K. Hwang & U. Kim (Eds.). Indigenous and cultural psychology: Understanding people in context: 445 466. New York: Springer. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, F. A. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6: 11731182. Bass, B. M. 1990. Bass and Stogdills handbook of leadership, theory, and research and managerial application, 3rd ed. New York: Free Press. Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. 1996. Development of leader-member exchange: A longitudinal test. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 15381567. Bhagat, R. S., McDevitt, A. S., & McDevitt, I. 2010. On improving the robustness of Asian management theories: Theoretical anchors in the era of globalization. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 27(1): 179192. Blau, P. M. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York: Jossey-Bass. Brislin, R., Lonner, W. J., & Thorndike, R. 1973. Cross-cultural research methods. New York: Wiley. Caldwell, S. D., Farmer, S. M., & Fedor, D. B. 2008. The influence of age on volunteer contributions in a nonprofit organization. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29: 311333. Chen, H. Y., & Kao, S. R. 2009. Chinese paternalistic leadership and non-Chinese subordinates psychological health. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(12): 25332546.

Benevolent leadership and follower performance

299

Chen, Z. X., Tsui, A. S., & Farh, J.-L. 2002. Loyalty to supervisor vs. organizational commitment: Relationships to employee performance in China. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75: 339356. Cheng, B.-S., Chou, L.-F., & Farh, J.-L. 2000. A triad model of paternalistic leadership: The constructs and measurement. Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, 14: 364 (in Chinese). Cheng, B.-S., Chou, L.-F., Wu, T.-Y., Huang, M.-P., & Farh, J.-L. 2004. Paternalistic leadership and subordinate responses: Establishing a leadership model in Chinese organizations. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 7: 89117. Cheng, B.-S., Huang, M.-P., & Chou, L.-F. 2002a. Paternalistic leadership and its effectiveness: Evidence from Chinese organizational teams. Journal of Psychology in Chinese Societies, 3: 85112. Cheng, B.-S., & Jiang, D.-Y. 2000. Supervisory loyalty in Chinese business enterprises: The relative effects of emic and imposed-etic constructs on employee effectiveness. Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, 14: 65114 (in Chinese). Cheng, B.-S., Shieh, P. Y., & Chou, L.-F. 2002b. The principals leadership, leader-member exchange quality, and the teachers extra-role behavior: The effects of transformational and paternalistic leadership. Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, 17: 105161 (in Chinese). Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. 1983. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd ed. Hillsdale: Erlbaum. Colquitt, J. A. 2001. On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of the measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 286400. De Hoogh, A. H. B., Den Hartog, D. N., Koopman, P. L., Thierry, H., Van den Berg, P. T., Van der Weide, J. G., & Wilderom, C. P. M. 2005. Leader motives, charismatic leadership, and subordinates work attitude in the profit and voluntary sector. The Leadership Quarterly, 16: 1738. Deluga, R. J. 1994. Supervisor trust building, leader-member exchange and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67: 315326. Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. 2002. Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 735744. Erdogan, B., & Bauer, T. N. 2010. Differentiated leader-member exchanges: The buffering role of justice climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 6: 11041120. Erdogan, B., & Enders, J. 2007. Support from the top: Supervisors perceived organizational support as a moderator of leader-member exchange to satisfaction and performance relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2): 321330. Farh, J.-L., & Cheng, X.-P. 2000. The paternalistic leadership of Chinese organization: An analysis of culture perspective. Local Psychology Research, 13: 154. Farh, J.-L., Earley, P. C., & Lin, S.-C. 1997. Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice and organizational citizenship behaviour in Chinese society. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 421444. Farh, J.-L., Leong, F. T. L., & Law, K. S. 1998. On the cross-cultural validity of Hollands model of vocational choices in Hong Kong. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 52: 425440. Farh, J.-L., Liang, J., Chou, L.-F., & Cheng, B.-S. 2008. Paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations: Research progress and future research directions. In C. C. Chen & Y. T. Lee (Eds.). Business leadership in China: Philosophies, theories, and practices: 171205. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fu, P. P., & Tsui, A. S. 2003. Utilizing printed media to understand desired leadership attributes in the Peoples Republic of China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 20(4): 423446. Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. 1997. Meta-analysis review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlation and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 827844. Graen, G. B. 1976. Role making processes within complex organization. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.). Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology: 12011245. Chicago: Rand-McNally. Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. 1995. Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6: 219247. Hofstede, G. H. 2001. Cultures consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Howell, J. M., & Hall-Merenda, K. E. 1999. The ties that bind: The impact of leader-member exchange, transformational and transactional leadership, and distance on predicting follower performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(5): 680694.

300

S.C.H. Chan, W.-m. Mak

Huang, X., Iun, J., Liu, A., & Gong, Y. 2010. Does participative leadership enhance work performance by inducing empowerment and trust? The differential effects on managerial and non-managerial subordinates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31: 122143. Hui, C., Law, K. S., & Chen, Z. X. 1999. A structural equation model of the effects of negative affectivity, leader-member exchange, and perceived job mobility on in-role and extra-role performance: A Chinese case. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 77: 321. Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. 2007. Leader-member exchange and citizenship beahviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 269277. Ismail, K. M., & Ford, D. L., Jr. 2010. Organizational leadership in Central Asia and the Caucasus: Research considerations and directions. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 27(2): 321340. Janssen, O., & Van Yperen, N. W. 2004. Employees goal orientations, the quality of leader-member exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3): 368384. Jung, D., & Avolio, B. 2000. Opening the black box: An experimental investigation of the mediating effects of trust and value congruence on transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21: 949964. Kacmar, K. M., Witt, L. A., Zivnuska, S., & Gully, S. M. 2003. The interactive effect of leader-member exchange and communication frequency on performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 764772. Kraimer, M. L., Wayne, S. J., & Jaworski, R. A. 2001. Sources of support and expatriate performance: The mediating role of expatriate adjustment. Personnel Psychology, 54: 71100. Lam, W., Huang, X., & Snape, E. 2007. Feedback-seeking behavior and leader-member exchange: Do supervisor-attributed motives matter?. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2): 348363. Lau, D. C., Liu, J., & Fu, P. P. 2007. Feeling trusted by business leaders in China: Antecedents and the mediating role of value congruence. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 24(3): 321340. Law, K. S., Wang, H., & Hui, C. 2010. Currencies of exchange and global LMX: How they affect employee task performance and extra-role performance. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 27(4): 625646. Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. 2002. Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1): 131142. LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. 2002. The nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 5265. Liang, S. K., Ling, H. C., & Hsieh, S. Y. 2007. The mediating effects of leader-member exchange quality to influence the relationships between paternalistic leadership and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of American Academy of Business, 10(2): 127137. Liden, R. C., Erdogan, B., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. 2006. Leader-member exchange, differentiation, and task interdependance: Implications for individual and group performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27: 723746. Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. 2000. An examination of the mediating role of psychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal relationships, and work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3): 407416. Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. 1993. A longitudinal study on the early development of leadermember exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 662674. Martinez, P. G. 2003. Paternalism as a positive form of leader-subordinate exchange: Evidence from Mexico. Journal of Iberoamerican Academic of Management, 1: 227242. Maslyn, J. M., & Uhl-Bien, M. 2001. Leader-member exchange and its dimensions: Effects of self-effort and others effort on relationship quality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 697708. Masterson, S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. 2000. Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4): 738748. Nishii, L. H., & Mayer, D. M. 2009. Do inclusive leaders help to reduce turnover in diverse groups? The moderating role of leader-member exchange in the diversity to turnover relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6): 14121426. Organ, D. W. 1988. Organizational citizenship behaviour: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Pellegrini, E. K., & Scandura, T. A. 2006. Leader-member exchange (LMX), paternalism and delegation in the Turkish business culture: An empirical investigation. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(2): 264279.

Benevolent leadership and follower performance

301

Pellegrini, E. K., & Scandura, T. A. 2008. Paternalistic leadership: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Management, 34(3): 566593. Pellegrini, E. K., Scandura, T. A., & Jayaraman, V. 2010. Cross-cultural generalizability of paternalistic leadership: An expansion of leader-member exchange theory. Group & Organization Management, 35 (4): 391420. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. 1990. Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship beahviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1: 107142. Puffer, S. M., & Meindl, J. R. 1992. The congruence of motives and incentives in a voluntary organization. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13: 425434. Scandura, T. A., & Graen, G. B. 1984. Moderating effects of initial leader-member exchange status on the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69: 428436. Scandura, T. A., Graen, G. B., & Novak, M. A. 1986. When managers decide not to decide autocratically: An investigation of leader-member exchange and decision influence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(4): 579584. Sobel, M. E. 1982. Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.). Sociological methodology: 290312. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Tangirala, S., Green, S. G., & Ramanujam, R. 2007. In the shadow of the bosss boss: Effects of supervisors upward exchange relationships on employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2): 309320. Tsui, A. S., & Farh, J.-L. 1997. Where guanxi matters: Relational demography and guanxi in the Chinese context. Work and Occupations, 24: 5679. Uhl-Bien, M., & Maslyn, M. 2003. Reciprocity in manager-subordinate relationships: Components, configurations, and outcomes. Journal of Management, 29: 511532. Uhl-Bien, M., & Maslyn, M. 2005. Paternalism as a form of leadership: Differentiating paternalism from leader-member exchange. Paper presented at the 65th Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Honolulu, Hawaii, August. Van Dyne, L., Kamdar, D., & Joireman, J. 2008. In-role perceptions buffer the negative impact of low LMX on helping and enhance the positive impact of high LMX on voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 11951207. Wang, A.-C., & Cheng, B.-S. 2010. When does benevolent leadership lead to creativity? The moderating role of creative role identity and job autonomy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(1): 106121. Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., & Chen, Z. X. 2005. Leader-member exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and followers performance and organizational citizenship behaivor. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3): 420432. Wayne, S. J., & Green, S. A. 1993. The effects of leader-member exchange on employee citizenship and impression management behavior. Human Relations, 46: 14131440. Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. 1991. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3): 601617. Wu, T.-Y., Hsu, W.-L., & Cheng, B.-S. 2002. Expressing or suppressing anger: Subordinates anger responses to supervisors authoritarian behaviors in a Taiwan enterprise. Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, 18: 349 (in Chinese).

Simon C. H. Chan (PhD, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University) is a teaching fellow in the Department of Management and Marketing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. He received his PhD, M Phil, and BA (Hons) in Organizational Behavior/Human Resources Management from The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. He has published research papers in International Journal of Human Resources Management, Information System Journal, Personnel Review, and International Journal of Innovation and Learning. His main research interests focus mainly on leadership and organizational behavior. Wai-ming Mak (DBA, University of Hull) is an assistant professor in the Department of Management and Marketing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. He attained his MA in management learning at Lancaster University. He has conducted research on developing competent managers and building learning organizations.