The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm

Benevolent
Benevolent leadership, perceived leadership
supervisory support, and
subordinates’ performance
The moderating role of psychological 897
empowerment Received 14 September 2015
Revised 12 December 2016
Simon C.H. Chan 20 April 2017
6 July 2017
Department of Management and Marketing, Accepted 7 July 2017
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the mediating role of perceived supervisory support (PSS)
and the moderating role of psychological empowerment between benevolent leadership and subordinates’
objective performance ( from appraisal report evaluated by immediate supervisors after a year) over time.
Design/methodology/approach – A sample of 312 employees in a manufacturing plant in the People’s
Republic of China was collected. Descriptive statistics and linear regression analyses were used to analyze
the data.
Findings – The results indicated that PSS mediated the relationship between benevolent leadership and
subordinates’ objective performance. This positive relationship of benevolent leadership and subordinates’
performance was stronger when supervisors exhibited higher levels of psychological empowerment.
Research limitations/implications – The main limitation of this study is that the sample was collected
from the administrative staff of a manufacturing plant in China. The results may not be generalized in
different contexts and professions, given the contextually and culturally specific setting.
Practical implications – Benevolent leadership appears to be effective in driving the work performance
of subordinates.
Originality/value – The relationships among benevolent leadership, PSS, and work performance of
subordinates have shown significant explanation.
Keywords Psychological empowerment, Benevolent leadership, Perceived supervisory support,
Subordinates’ performance
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Benevolent leadership has been described as a desirable type of leadership style in the Asian
context, such as in China and Taiwan (Chan and Mak, 2012; Chen et al., 2014; Ghosh, 2015;
Wu et al., 2002). This leadership behavior is generally defined as a leadership type which
demonstrates individualized, holistic concern for personal as well as familial well-being
(Farh and Cheng, 2000). A benevolent leader treats his/her subordinates with kindliness and
favors simultaneously (Cheng, Chou and Farh, 2000), and in return, subordinates pay
respect to their leader ( Jackson and Bak, 1998; Scott et al., 2003).
In the past few years, researchers have paid more attention on the impact of benevolent
leadership on subordinates’ performance (Chan et al., 2013; Pellegrini et al., 2010;
Soylu, 2011). Benevolent leadership is significantly associated with subordinates’ respect
and identification, trust in leader, perceived organization support, and work performance
(Cheng et al., 2003, 2004; Pellegrini and Scandura, 2006; Wu et al., 2012). The research
question of whether benevolent leadership influences subordinates’ performance over time
Leadership & Organization
(Waldman and Avolio, 1986), however, has not received much attention (Pellegrini and Development Journal
Scandura, 2008). This study examines the relationship between benevolent leadership and Vol. 38 No. 7, 2017
pp. 897-911
subordinates’ performance ( from appraisal reports evaluated by immediate supervisors © Emerald Publishing Limited
0143-7739
after a year) by a longitudinal design. DOI 10.1108/LODJ-09-2015-0196
LODJ Despite the promising results of benevolent leadership studies, there are unanswered
38,7 research questions regarding the mediating processes and consequences of benevolent
leadership behaviors (Chan and Mak, 2012; Niu et al., 2009). For example, Chen et al. (2014)
treated affective trust as an important mediator of benevolent leadership and
subordinates’ performance. In a similar vein, benevolent leadership behavior tends to
increase subordinates’ perceived support of a leader, and enhance their work attitudes and
898 performance (Cheng et al., 2004; Cheng, Shieh and Chou, 2002). In accordance with social
exchange theory (Blau, 1964), benevolent leadership is likely to trigger a positive
social exchange between leaders and subordinates. Also, subordinates may reciprocate
their leaders by enhancing their efforts at work. This particular mediating mechanism
provides an explanation for the impact of benevolent leadership on subordinates’ work
performance. Hence, this study examines how benevolent leadership influences the
support of a leader, as represented by perceived supervisory support (PSS) and
subordinates’ performance (Hui and Lee, 2000; McAllister and Bigley, 2002).
Although researchers have paid attention to explain leadership effect of benevolence,
there is a potential area for research to explore the moderating effect of benevolent
leadership on subordinates’ performance (Pellegrini and Scandura, 2006, 2008;
Pellegrini et al., 2010), such as psychological empowerment (e.g. Schriesheim et al., 1999;
Thomas and Velthouse, 1990; Pieterse et al., 2010). Harris et al. (2009) explained
empowerment as the moderator on the relationship between leader-member exchange,
and subordinate outcomes, such as work performance, job satisfaction, and turnover
intention. As such, it is expected that psychological empowerment works well when
benevolence of a leader increases subordinates’ performance. This study examines
whether psychology empowerment moderates the relationship between benevolent
leadership, subordinates’ PSS and work performance.
This study contributes to the literature in threefold. First, there is a substantial
consensus that benevolent leadership is positively associated with subordinates’ work
performance (e.g. Chen et al., 2014; Erben and Güneser, 2008; Farh et al., 2006). By using a
longitudinal design, this study contributes to the literature by examining the impact of
benevolent leadership on subordinates’ performance over time (Pellegrini and
Scandura, 2006, 2008).
Second, drawing from the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), this study explores the
mediating role of benevolent leadership on subordinates’ performance through
the perceived support of their leader, i.e. PSS. This has not been previously considered to
advance the mediating process of benevolent leadership, thus PSS is essential for
understanding for understanding the relationship of benevolent leadership and
subordinates’ performance (Dawley et al., 2008).
Third, this study further extends to the leadership literature by investigating whether
psychological empowerment as a boundary condition between benevolent leadership and
subordinates’ performance (Farh et al., 1987; Pieterse et al., 2010). A benevolent leader who
creates a sense of meaning and inspires hope of subordinates would further enhance their
performance (Karakas and Sarigollu, 2012). The findings are of importance to gain a better
understanding on when psychological empowerment would influence the relationship
between benevolent leadership and subordinates’ performance.
In the following sections, a review on the literature of the relationship among
benevolent leadership, PSS, and subordinates’ performance is discussed. This study then
describes the moderating role of psychological empowerment on the relationship
between benevolent leadership and subordinates’ performance. The methodology
section presents the data collection procedures and statistics analysis. Results are
reported the key findings. Finally, the findings and implications for further research
are discussed.
Theory and hypotheses Benevolent
Benevolent leadership leadership
Benevolence is an indigenous Chinese leadership style which originates from the
three-dimension model of paternalistic leadership (Aycan, 2006; Chou et al., 2015;
Farh and Cheng, 2000; Wang and Cheng, 2010). The other two behaviors in paternalistic
leadership are authoritarianism and morality. According to the Confucian tradition
(Westwood, 1997; Westwood and Chan, 1992), a benevolent leader spends effort in taking 899
care, showing concern, and encouraging employees when they encounter problems
(Farh and Cheng, 2000). Based on the Confucius values of relationalism in China, the close
relationship between leaders and subordinates is expected to exchange favors beyond
instrumental purposes (Hwang, 2000, 2008).
Although majority of the research studies on benevolent leadership are conducted in
China and Taiwan (Chan and Mak, 2012; Wang and Cheng, 2010), literature has shown
samples collected in western context, such as Turkey (Erkutlu and Chafra, 2016), Canada
(Karakas et al., 2013). Benevolent leadership is defined as a leader’s ability to demonstrate
individualized care, and take personal interest and family well-being of subordinates into
account (Wang and Cheng, 2010). A benevolent leader prefers to grant favors to
subordinates who align with the relationalism value of Confucianism. He/she expresses
special concern about subordinates’ personal comfort, encourages subordinates to solve
problems, and takes good care of subordinates’ family members (Tsui and Farh, 1997).
Benevolent leadership greatly contributes to subordinates’ obedience and submission,
which is intended to arouse beyond professional relationships.

The mediating role of PSS

Numerous studies have empirically reported the positive relationship of benevolent
leadership on subordinate psychological responses, such as loyalty, trust in leader, task
performance, and extra-role performance (Cheng et al., 2003; Wu et al., 2012), employee voice
(Zhang et al., 2015) and commitment (Cheng, Huang and Chou, 2002; Cheng and Farh, 2001).
According to Confucianism, a superior should be kind to an inferior, and the inferior should
show gratitude and obedience to the superior (Redding, 1990; Westwood, 1997; Ma and
Tsui, 2015). The motivation of providing holistic care for subordinates’ well-being beyond
employment relations of a benevolent leader was involved. Subordinates would create a
higher level of positive perception and great attention on the role of a leader. A benevolent
leader treats subordinates differently which has potential to strengthen the relationship and
get support from subordinates (Farh and Cheng, 2000; Martinez, 2003). Subordinates are
more willing to demonstrate their abilities and utilize their skills when they have a strong
sense of support from a benevolent leader.
The support of a benevolent leader would encourage subordinates to perform
outstanding tasks. This perceived support of a leader was well represented by the construct
of PSS. PSS is defined as the extent to which a leader values subordinates’ contributions and
care about their well-being (Kottke and Sharafinski, 1988). A leader with benevolence who
provides individualized care in subordinates’ work schedule and personal lives.
Subordinates are favorable of benevolence in order to foster productive work groups,
satisfy the working environment with the leader, and perceived support of their leaders.
Benevolence easily helps to form an emotional bond and encourage warm gratitude toward
both parties (Blau, 1964).
The social exchange theory provides an explanation for the reciprocal relationship
among benevolent leadership, PSS, and subordinates’ performance (Blau, 1964).
Mutual obligations between a benevolent leader and subordinates occur on the basis of
duty fulfillment. A benevolent leader would enhance the work performance of subordinates
by treating them like a family member (Wang and Cheng, 2010). Subordinates with higher
LODJ levels of PSS would expect that they have been well supported by their leader, and
38,7 they eventually tend to reciprocate by performing better at work (Eisenberger et al., 1986).
Taken together:
H1. PSS mediates the relationship between benevolent leadership and subordinates’
performance.

900
The moderating role of psychological empowerment
Studies have stated several potential psychological states as the moderators between
benevolent leadership and subordinates’ performance, such as psychological empowerment
(e.g. Pellegrini and Scandura, 2008). Psychological empowerment is an active orientation
toward an individual’s work role (Koberg et al., 1999; Thomas and Velthouse, 1990). It is a
feeling for subordinates to provide autonomy on their respected work by alleviating
through the characteristics of the work environment (Erdogan and Bauer, 2009). There are
four elements of psychological empowerment: meaning, competence, self-determination, and
impact (Spreitzer, 1995). Meaning refers to the individual’s personal ideals on work
standards. Competence means the capability and knowledge to perform task activities.
Self-determination represents a sense of autonomy, where impact explains the influence on
administrative, operating or strategic work actions (Arnold et al., 2000; Spreitzer, 1995, 1996;
Thomas and Velthouse, 1990).
Existing works have indicated the importance of leadership and LMX and psychological
empowerment on subordinates’ performance (Seibert et al., 2004; Zhong et al., 2011).
The feeling of psychological empowerment is likely to foster a positive relationship between
benevolent leadership, PSS, and performance (Harris et al., 2009). Results supported the
notion that work performances can be enhanced by the effect of psychological
empowerment exhibited by the benevolent leader. Psychologically empowered
subordinates feel increased intrinsic work motivation and this has an impact
on performance (Spreitzer, 1995, 1996; Thomas and Velthouse, 1990). Specifically,
empowered subordinates feel competent when they exercise domain-relevant knowledge,
skills, and abilities.
Psychological empowerment is a motivational state that determines whether PSS
promotes subordinates’ performance. Empowerment stimulates the engagement of work
and enhances work performance. When a benevolent leader is empowered, subordinates
would feel that they have the competence to complete the task. Subordinates are expected to
be competent and this determines its impact on the support of a leader (Spreitzer, 1995).
When the empowerment level is high, benevolent leadership provides a context of comfort
and trustworthiness to subordinates. Highly empowered subordinates feel encouraged by
their benevolent leader to transform their support and performance. On the contrary,
subordinates with a low level of psychological empowerment fail to develop intrinsic work
motivation and performance (Spreitzer, 1996). Subordinates have no intention to interpret
the favorable outcomes of benevolence, which may discourage their participation in the
work process. Thus:
H2. Psychological empowerment moderates the positive relationship between
benevolent leadership and (a) PSS, and (b) work performance, such that the
positive relationship is strongest when psychological empowerment is highest.
The relationship between benevolent leadership influences PSS and work performance of
subordinates has been demonstrated. Aycan (2006) proposed that benevolence fosters a
positive reciprocal exchange between leader and subordinates’ work performance.
Benevolent leadership is more likely related to subordinates’ PSS and will thus lead to
performance decrements when leaders psychologically empower their subordinates.
In contrast, subordinates may be less likely to provoke a supportive process of their Benevolent
benevolent leader if they do not feel psychologically empowered. leadership
To extend this argument, this study contends the mediator of PSS between benevolent
leadership and psychological empowerment on subordinates’ performance. The joint effects
of benevolent leadership and psychological empowerment on subordinates’ performance
may be mediated by PSS. The mediation effect of PSS on the relationship between
benevolent authoritarian leadership and work performance may vary according to whether 901
there are high or low levels of psychological empowerment. This sense of feeling of
subordinates tends to increase the perceived support of a benevolent leader who intended to
exceed a high level of work performance:
H3. PSS mediates the joint effect of benevolent leadership and psychological
empowerment on subordinates’ performance.
Figure 1 depicts the theoretical relationships of benevolent leadership, psychological
empowerment, subordinates’ PSS, and work performance.

Method
Sample and procedure
This study collected data from 312 Chinese employees in Guangdong province of the
People’s Republic of China. The manufacturing plant was founded 20 years ago and
employed approximately 325 administrative staff and 2,500 workers; the plant mainly
manufactured hats and accessories. All the respondents were the administrative staff in a
manufacturing plant mainly responsible for providing administrative and logistic support,
such as data entry. The author obtained access to the manufacturing plant through personal
contact with the human resources manager of the firm. As the participants were all in
voluntary basis without any sort of incentives, the author has obtained permission from top
management to collect the annual appraisal report, supervisor and subordinate rating.
The author visited the site and explained the purposes and the procedures of the survey
to the participants for the data collection. The respondents received a cover letter, a
questionnaire with assigned identification code, and a return envelope. They were asked
about their leader’s benevolent leadership behaviors, PSS, psychological empowerment and
demographic questions. They were instructed to seal the completed questionnaires in the
return envelopes and directly return to the researchers on the site. Each questionnaire was
coded with a researcher-assigned identification number in order to match employees’
responses with their immediate leaders’ evaluations. This procedure was to ensure
confidentiality of the responses.
After a year, the performance data were obtained from ratings by their direct supervisor
in the performance appraisal report from the Administrative and Human Resource
Department. All relevant data were used for academic purpose only. There were 312 usable
questionnaires out of 325 questionnaires returned. The response rate was 94.4 percent.
For the subordinate sample, 65.0 percent were female and 74 percent were secondary school
or above. The mean age and organizational tenure of the subordinates were 28.45 and
2.64 years, respectively.

Psychological
Empowerment

Perceived Supervisory Subordinates’ Work Figure 1.

Benevolent Leadership Research framework
Support (PSS) Performance
LODJ Measures
38,7 Benevolent leadership (the independent variable), PSS (the mediator), and psychological
empowerment (the moderator) were rated by subordinates, while work performance
(the dependent variable) was rated by their immediate supervisors after a year in their
annual appraisal report.
Benevolent leadership. Cheng et al.’s (2000) 11-item scale was used to measure
902 benevolent leadership behaviors (1 ¼ strongly disagree; 6 ¼ strongly agree). Empirical
studies have used this scale for measuring the behaviors of a benevolent leader
(Chen et al., in press; Chen and Kao, 2009). Sample items for benevolent leadership are
“Beyond work relations, my supervisor expresses concern about my daily life,” “My leader
encourages me when I encounter arduous problems,” “My supervisor handles what is
difficult to do or manage in everyday life for me.” The Cronbach’s α coefficient of
benevolent leadership was 0.94.
Psychological empowerment. Spreitzer’s (1995) 12-item scale of psychological
empowerment was used (1 ¼ strongly disagree; 7 ¼ strongly agree). A sample item for
meaning is “The work I do is very important to me,” for competence is “I am confident about
my ability to do my job,” for self-determination is “I have significant autonomy in
determining how I do my job,” and for impact is “My impact on what happens in my
department is large.” For analysis purpose, the four subscales were merged into a single
composite measure by averaging the four-item scores (e.g. Seibert et al., 2004).
The Cronbach’s α coefficient of psychological empowerment was 0.81.
Subordinates’ PSS. Eisenberger et al.’s (1986) eight-item scale of PSS was used
(1 ¼ strongly disagree; 7 ¼ strongly agree). Sample items are “My supervisor strongly
considers my goals and values,” and “My supervisor really cares about my well-being.
” The Cronbach’s α coefficient of PSS was 0.94.
Subordinates’ performance. Subordinates’ performance was obtained a year after the
survey. Subordinates’ immediate supervisors evaluated subordinates’ overall impression of
their work performance in their annual appraisal report (1 ¼ poor; 5 ¼ excellent).
Control variables. As the characteristics of subordinates vary on their performance
outcomes (McEvoy and Cascio, 1989; Sinclair et al., 1999), gender, education level, age,
organization tenure, and supervisor-subordinate dyad tenure were treated as control
variables. Gender and education were dummy coded as female vs male (0 ¼ female;
1 ¼ male) and the education levels of the respondents (0 ¼ primary school or below;
1 ¼ secondary school or above), respectively. Age, organization tenure, and
leader-subordinate dyad tenure were self-reported years.

Translation of questionnaire items

As the items of psychological empowerment and PSS were originally in English, translation
from English to Chinese was performed by a bilingual professional. Another bilingual
professional performed a back-translation to ensure the accuracy of the items (Brislin, 1986).

Statistical analyses
This study followed Baron and Kenny’s (1986) three-step procedure to test a mediation
model: the independent variable should be significantly related to the mediating variable;
the independent variable should be significantly related to the dependent variable; and the
mediating variable should be related to the dependent variable, with the independent
variable controlled for in the model. H3 suggests a moderated mediation model, whereby the
strength of the indirect relationship between benevolent leadership and subordinates’
performance through the mediation effect of PSS depends on the value of a moderator
(namely, psychological empowerment).
 This analytical framework, which combines moderation and mediation, examines how a Benevolent
moderating variable (psychological empowerment) influences the direct effect of benevolent leadership
leadership on performance, an indirect effect of benevolent leadership on performance that
is transmitted through PSS, and the total effects (both direct and indirect effects) of the
mediation model. Linear regression analysis was used in this study.

Results 903
Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA)
Before the testing of hypotheses, a CFA to check the measures’ convergent and discriminant
validity was conducted, before the testing of hypotheses. The 11-item of benevolent
leadership, the 12-item of the four dimensions of psychological empowerment, and the
8-item of PSS was included for analysis by the maximum likelihood method. In order to reduce
the number of parameters in the CFA analysis, Bagozzi and Edwards’s (1998) item parceling
method was performed. This action can maintain a reasonable degree of freedom for the
model (Bandalos, 2002). Benevolent leadership, psychological empowerment and PSS were
modeled using three, four and three parcels corresponding to their dimensions, respectively.
The three-factor model (benevolent leadership, psychological empowerment, and PSS)
showed good fit indices (RMSEA ¼ 0.09; CFI ¼ 0.93; GFI ¼ 0.92) and yielded a significantly
better fit to the data than the two-factor (RMSEA ¼ 0.14; CFI ¼ 0.86; GFI ¼ 0.82), and
one-factor (RMSEA ¼ 0.19; CFI ¼ 0.78; GFI ¼ 0.76) models. These results indicated that the
self-report scales of benevolent leadership, psychological empowerment, and PSS by
subordinates’ sample did possess adequate discriminant and convergent validity for use in
hypotheses testing.
Descriptive statistics. The means, standard deviations, and zero-order Pearson
correlations of all the key variables are presented in Table I.

Hypothesis test
H1 predicts that PSS mediates the relationship between benevolent leadership and
subordinates’ performance. After entering the control variables, the mediating variable
(PSS) was regressed on the independent variable (benevolent leadership) as shown in
Table II. To fulfill the first requirement for mediation, results showed that benevolent leadership
was positively related to PSS ( β ¼ 0.56; po0.001). The effect of benevolent leadership on
subordinates’ performance ( β ¼ 0.20; po0.001) was significant, which met the second
requirement for mediation. PSS was then entered to test the possible mediating effect on the

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Gender – – –
2. Age 28.45 7.78 0.04 –
3. Education – – −0.08 0.05 –
4. Organization tenure 2.64 1.86 0.11 0.33** −0.10 –
5. Dyad tenure 2.18 1.61 0.09 0.30** −0.12* 0.86** –
6. Benevolent
leadership 4.50 0.81 −0.03 0.02 0.08 −0.09 −0.07 0.94
7. Psychological
empowerment 5.68 0.42 −0.13* −0.02 0.01 −0.01 0.06 −0.05 0.81
Table I.
8. Perceived
Means, standard
supervisory support 4.44 0.79 0.03 0.04 0.11 −0.07 −0.08 0.57** −0.08 0.94 deviations,
9. Work performance 3.98 0.86 −0.02 −0.09 0.08 −0.07 −0.03 0.20** 0.12* 0.25** – correlations, and
Notes: n ¼ 312. Reliability coefficients appear along the diagonal. The correlation coefficients are significant reliabilities of
at *p o0.05; **p o0.01 measures
 38,7

904
LODJ

Table II.

performance
subordinates’
of PSS on the

empowerment on
and psychological
interactive effect of
Regression summary

benevolent leadership
for the mediating role
Perceived supervisory support Work performance
Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6

Control variables
Subordinates’ gender 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00
Subordinate’ age 0.08 0.05 0.05 0.05 −0.07 −0.08 −0.08 −0.08 −0.07 −0.09
Subordinates’ education 0.11 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.04
Organization tenure −0.05 0.01 −0.01 −0.06 −0.14 −0.12 −0.09 −0.12 −0.14 −0.11
Dyad tenure −0.05 −0.05 −0.04 0.01 0.12 0.12 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.11
Independent variable
Benevolent leadership 0.56*** 0.56*** 0.58*** 0.20*** 0.20*** 0.21*** 0.12
Moderator variable
Psychological empowerment −0.05 −0.04 0.13* 0.13* 0.14*
Interactive effect
Benevolent leadership×psychological empowerment 0.29*** 0.15** 0.10
Mediator variable
Perceived supervisory support 0.18** 0.17*
n 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312
Overall R2 0.02 0.33 0.34 0.42 0.02 0.06 0.07 0.09 0.06 0.11
Change in R2 0.02 0.31 0.01 0.08 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.02
Notes: *p o0.05; **po 0.01; ***po 0.001
relationship between benevolent leadership and subordinates’ performance. PSS was found to Benevolent
significantly mediate the relationship between benevolent leadership and work performance leadership
( β ¼ 0.18, po0.01). As the β weights of benevolent leadership were significant on performance,
partial mediation on work performance is present. Thus, H1 was partially supported.
H2 predicts that psychological empowerment moderates the positive relationship
between benevolent leadership and subordinates’ PSS, and work performance such that the
positive relationship is strongest when psychological empowerment is highest. The joint 905
effect of benevolent leadership and psychological empowerment on subordinates’ PSS
( β ¼ 0.29, p o0.01) and work performance ( β ¼ 0.15 p o0.01) was significant in Table II.
To determine the nature of the interaction, the simple slopes for the relationship between
benevolent leadership with high psychological empowerment (1 SD higher) and low
psychological empowerment (1 SD lower) was tested, and results are plotted in Figures 2
and 3, respectively. H2 was supported.
In support of H3, the magnitude of the regression coefficients of the joint effect of
benevolent leadership and psychological empowerment on subordinates’ performance
( from β ¼ 0.29, p o0.01 to β ¼ 0.15, p o0.01) was reduced, after entering the mediator
(i.e. PSS). PSS partially mediated the interaction effects on subordinates’ performance
( β ¼ 0.27, p o0.05). Therefore, H3 was partially supported.

Discussion
Benevolent leadership has had its roots in Confucian ideology for more than 2,000 years.
A benevolent leader shows care, love, and benevolence toward his/her subordinates. In this

5
Perceived Supervisory Support

4.5

4 Figure 2.
The moderating
effects of
3.5 psychological
Low PE empowerment on the
relationship between
High PE benevolent leadership
3
and perceived
–1 1
supervisory support
Benevolent Leadership
Work Performance

4.3

Figure 3.
The moderating
effects of
Low PE psychological
empowerment on the
High PE relationship between
3.8
benevolent leadership
–1 1
and work performance
Benevolent Leadership
LODJ study, benevolent leadership was significantly associated with subordinates’ work
38,7 performance over time. It provides an explanation for the impact of benevolent leadership
on subordinates’ performance at work after a year. Consistent with the paternalistic
leadership literature (Chen et al., 2014; Pellegrini and Scandura, 2006, 2008), benevolent
leadership is associated with PSS which in turn is positively related to subordinates’ work
performance. The notion of the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) explains the significance
906 of benevolent leadership on subordinates’ performance by the perceived support of their
leaders. This suggests that the benevolence of a leader has a positive impact which
encourages subordinates to get full support in work settings.
Results indicated that psychological empowerment did emerge as the moderator of the
relationship between benevolent leadership and subordinates’ PSS and performance.
Benevolent leadership with high levels of psychological empowerment enhances PSS and
subordinates’ performance over time. The positive effect of benevolent leadership on
subordinates’ PSS and work performance was stronger when subordinates exhibited higher
level of psychological empowerment. In other words, benevolence helps to foster the positive
impact of benevolent leadership on subordinates’ PSS and work performance. Subordinates
can project their perceived support more effectively when they regard their benevolence
lead as having higher levels of psychological empowerment.

Theoretical implications
First, this study examines the impact of benevolent leadership on subordinates’
performance over time ( from appraisal report evaluated by immediate supervisors after a
year). By taking care of subordinates, the impact of benevolence of a leader will last long in
the heart of subordinates. This matches with an old Chinese saying of “Guanxi” in leader
and its relationship to enhance the work performance of subordinates. A leader with high
levels of benevolence plays a specific role to go beyond the subordinates’ performance
(Wang et al., 2005).
Second, this study found that PSS mediates the relationship between benevolent
leadership and subordinates’ performance. Benevolence plays an important role in shaping
the support of work (i.e. PSS) which may help individual employees develop a close
relationship with their leaders. PSS has transmitted a leader’s benevolence, which increases
the motivation of an individual’s work behavior. Support from a leader is an important
process for the social exchange theory to leadership performance relationship.
Third, this study extends prior leadership theory and research on how psychological
empowerment shapes the impact of benevolent leadership on subordinates’ performance.
Extant research did examine the effect of psychological empowerment on the impact of
benevolent leadership and subordinates’ outcomes (Pieterse et al., 2010). Results identified a
specific process of benevolent leadership in which psychology empowerment moderated the
effect of PSS on subordinates’ performance. Subordinates who experience benevolence of
their leader are more likely to believe that psychological empowerment is important to show
respect and promote performance. Benevolent leadership has demonstrated a positive effect
when subordinates experience supportive and empowerment conditions.

Managerial implications
The study offers practical implications for practitioners and managers to foster better
performance of subordinates over time. Benevolent leadership is welcomed and desirable by
subordinates (Chan and Mak, 2012). This leadership style appears to be effective in driving
the work performance of subordinates and gain the support when a manager provides more
social support, exhibits kindness and respects subordinates’ decisions. For example,
a manager expresses individualized care and genuine gratitude to employees. Employees
are more willing to accept the work tasks and expanded job responsibilities by the social Benevolent
bonding within an organization. leadership
Also, a benevolent leader may help subordinates to generate feelings of meaning,
competence, self-determination, and impact of an organization. The open environment is
good for subordinates in sharing opinions and to devote extra effort in their work.
Subordinates reciprocate to show a higher level of performance which enjoy the task
challenges and meaningfulness of the job tasks in workplace. As regards the practical utility 907
of benevolence of a leader, this leadership style can motivate subordinates in making
decisions when they are psychologically empowered. For instance, managers will develop
benevolence and support of subordinates based on their previous management experiences.
Especially, for highly empowered subordinates, support of a manager with benevolence is
important to motivate subordinates on work issues.

Limitations and future research

This study has several limitations. First, the data were collected from the administrative
staff of a manufacturing plant in China. The results may not be generalized in different
contexts and professions, given the contextually and culturally specific setting. As the
impact of benevolent leadership on subordinates’ performance may vary in Chinese or
western samples, future research should continue to examine the leadership research across
cultures and work contexts (Farh and Cheng, 2000).
Second, although this study used an appraisal report evaluated by immediate
supervisors after a year as the measurement of subordinates’ performance, subordinates
rated the items of benevolent leadership, psychological empowerment, and PSS which may
lead to common source bias in the research model. In other words, this study measured the
constructs from the same source in a single survey. Future studies may use other work
performance indicators, such as the productivity rate of the workforce.
Third, this study examines a mediating mechanism, i.e. PSS as the mediator between
benevolent leadership and subordinates’ performance. There is a need to further this line of
research to examine the “black box” of benevolent leadership and subordinates’
performance. Future research should pay extra effort to investigate other potential
mediating mechanisms, such as self-efficacy (Brown et al., 2005).
Fourth, this study only examines psychological empowerment as a moderator in the
relationship of benevolent leadership and work performance. Future research should
consider other boundary conditions that may trigger the impact of PL behaviors on
subordinates’ performance, such as autonomy (Wang and Cheng, 2010).
To conclude, this study provides new insights into the research of benevolent
leadership. The relationships among benevolent leadership, subordinates’ PSS, and work
performance have shown significant explanation. This study adds to the literature by
showing that benevolence and psychological empowered of a leader may, to some degree,
enhance support and work performance. Findings supported how psychological
empowerment moderates the relationship between benevolent leadership and
subordinates’ performance over time.

References
Arnold, J.A., Arad, S., Rhoades, J.A. and Drasgow, F. (2000), “The empowerment leadership
questionnaire: the construction and validation of a new scale for measuring leadership
behaviors”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 249-269.
Aycan, Z. (2006), “Paternalism: towards conceptual refinement and operationalization”, in Yang, K.S.,
Hwang, K.K. and Kim, U. (Eds), Indigenous and Cultural Psychology: Understanding People in
Context, Springer, New York, NY, pp. 445-466.
LODJ Bagozzi, R.P. and Edwards, J.R. (1998), “A general approach for representing constructs in
38,7 organizational research”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 45-87.
Bandalos, D.L. (2002), “The effects of item parceling on goodness-of-fit and parameter estimate bias in
structural equation modelling”, Structure Equation Modeling, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 78-102.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, F.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of
908 Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1182.
Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York, NY.
Brislin, R.W. (1986), “The wording and translation of research instruments”, in Looner, W.J. and
Berry, J.W. (Eds), Field Methods in Cross-Cultural Research, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 137-164.
Brown, S.P., Jones, E. and Leigh, T.W. (2005), “The attenuating effect of role overload on relationships
linking self-efficacy and goal level to work performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90
No. 5, pp. 972-979.
Chan, C.H.S. and Mak, W.M. (2012), “Benevolent leadership and follower performance: the mediating
role of leader-member exchange (LMX)”, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 29 No. 2,
pp. 285-301.
Chan, C.H.S., Huang, X., Snape, E. and Lam, C. (2013), “The janus face of paternalistic leaders:
authoritarianism, benevolence, subordinates’ organization-based self-esteem, and performance”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 108-128.
Chen, H.Y. and Kao, H.S.R. (2009), “Chinese paternalistic leadership and non-Chinese subordinates’
psychological health”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 20 No. 12,
pp. 2533-2546.
Chen, X.P., Eberly, M., Chiang, T.J., Farh, J.L. and Cheng, B.S. (2014), “Affective trust in Chinese leaders:
linking paternalistic leadership to employee performance”, Journal of Management, Vol. 40
No. 3, pp. 796-819.
Cheng, B.S. and Farh, J.L. (2001), “Social orientation in Chinese societies: a comparison of employees from
Taiwan and Chinese mainland”, Chinese Journal of Psychology, Vol. 43, pp. 207-221 (in Chinese).
Cheng, B.S., Chou, L.F. and Farh, J.L. (2000), “A triad model of paternalistic leadership: the constructs
and measurement”, Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, Vol. 14, pp. 3-64
(in Chinese).
Cheng, B.S., Huang, M.P. and Chou, L.F. (2002), “Paternalistic leadership and its effectiveness: evidence
from Chinese organizational teams”, Journal of Psychology in Chinese Societies, Vol. 3 No. 1,
pp. 85-112.
Cheng, B.S., Shieh, P.Y. and Chou, L.F. (2002), “The principal’s leadership, leader-member exchange
quality, and the teacher’s extra-role behavior: the effects of transformational and paternalistic
leadership”, Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, Vol. 17, pp. 105-161
(in Chinese).
Cheng, B.S., Chou, L.F., Huang, M.P., Farh, J.L. and Peng, S. (2003), “A triad model of paternalistic
leadership: evidence from business organization in Mainland China”, Indigenous Psychological
Research in Chinese Societies, Vol. 20, pp. 209-252 (in Chinese).
Cheng, B.S., Chou, L.F., Wu, T.Y., Huang, M.P. and Farh, J.L. (2004), “Paternalistic leadership and
subordinate responses: establishing a leadership model in Chinese organizations”, Asian Journal
of Social Psychology, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 89-117.
Chou, W.J., Sibley, C.G., Liu, J.H., Lin, T.T. and Cheng, B.S. (2015), “Paternalistic leadership profiles:
a person-centered approach”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 685-710.
Dawley, D.D., Andrews, M.C. and Bucklew, N.S. (2008), “Mentoring, supervisor support, and perceived
organizational support: what matters most?”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal,
Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 235-247.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchinson, S. and Sowa, D. (1986), “Perceived organizational
support”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 500-507.
Erben, G.S. and Güneser, A.B. (2008), “The relationship between paternalistic leadership and Benevolent
organizational commitment: investigating the role of climate regarding ethics”, Journal of leadership
Business Ethics, Vol. 82 No. 4, pp. 955-996.
Erdogan, B. and Bauer, T.N. (2009), “Perceived over-qualification and its outcomes: the moderating role
of empowerment”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 2, pp. 557-565.
Erkutlu, H. and Chafra, J. (2016), “Benevolent leadership and psychological well-being: the moderating
effects of psychological safety and psychological contract breach”, Leadership & Organization 909
Development Journal, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 369-386.
Farh, J.L. and Cheng, B.S. (2000), “A cultural analysis of paternalistic leadership in Chinese
organizations”, in Li, J.T., Tsui, A.S. and Weldon, E. (Eds), Management and Organizations in the
Chinese Context, Macmillan, London, pp. 94-127.
Farh, J.L., Podsakoff, P.M. and Cheng, B.S. (1987), “Culture-free leadership effectiveness versus
moderators of leadership behavior: an extension and test of Kerr and Jermier’s substitutes for
leadership model in Taiwan”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 43-60.
Farh, J.L., Cheng, B.S., Chou, L.F. and Chu, X.P. (2006), “Authority and benevolence: employees’
responses to paternalistic leadership in China”, in Tsui, A.S., Bian, Y. and Cheng, L. (Eds),
China’s Domestic Private Firms: Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Management and
Performance, Sharpe, New York, NY, pp. 230-260.
Ghosh, K. (2015), “Benevolent leadership in not-for-profit organizations”, Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 592-611.
Harris, K.J., Wheeler, A.R. and Kacmar, K.M. (2009), “Leader-member exchange and empowerment:
direct and interactive effects on job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and performance”,
The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 371-382.
Hui, C. and Lee, C. (2000), “Moderating effects of organization-based self-esteem on organizational
uncertainty: employee response relationships”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 215-232.
Hwang, K.K. (2000), “Chinese relationalism: theoretical construction and methodological
considerations”, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 155-178.
Hwang, K.K. (2008), “Leadership theory of legalism and its function in Confucian society”, in Chen, C.C.
and Lee, Y.T. (Eds), Chinese Leadership Philosophies and Practices: Indigenous Perspectives,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 108-142.
Jackson, T. and Bak, M. (1998), “Foreign companies and Chinese workers: employee motivation in the
People’s Republic of China”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 11 No. 4,
pp. 282-300.
Karakas, F. and Sarigollu, E. (2012), “Benevolent leadership: conceptualization and construct
development”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 108 No. 7, pp. 537-553.
Karakas, F., Sarigollu, E. and Manisaligil, A. (2013), “The use of benevolent leadership development to
advance principles of responsible management education”, Journal of Management
Development, Vol. 32 No. 8, pp. 801-822.
Koberg, C.S., Boss, R.W., Senjem, J.C. and Goodman, E.A. (1999), “Antecedents and outcomes of
empowerment: empirical evidence from the health care industry”, Group and Organization
Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 71-91.
Kottke, J.L. and Sharafinski, C.E. (1988), “Measuring perceived supervisory and organizational
support”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 1075-1079.
McAllister, D.J. and Bigley, G.A. (2002), “Work context and the definition of self: how organizational
care influences organization-based self-esteem”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 45 No. 5,
pp. 894-904.
McEvoy, G.M. and Cascio, W.F. (1989), “Cumulative evidence of the relationship between employee age
and job performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 1, pp. 11-17.
Ma, L. and Tsui, A.S. (2015), “Traditional Chinese philosophies and contemporary leadership”,
The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 13-24.
LODJ Martinez, P.G. (2003), “Paternalism as a positive form of leader-subordinate exchange: evidence from
38,7 Mexico”, Journal of Iberoamerican Academic of Management, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 227-242.
Niu, C.P., Wang, A.C. and Cheng, B.S. (2009), “Effectiveness of a moral and benevolent leader: probing
the interactions of the dimensions of paternalistic leadership”, Asian Journal of Social
Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 32-39.
Pellegrini, E.K. and Scandura, T.A. (2006), “Leader-member exchange (LMX), paternalism and
910 delegation in the Turkish business culture: an empirical investigation”, Journal of International
Business Studies, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 264-279.
Pellegrini, E.K. and Scandura, T.A. (2008), “Paternalistic leadership: a review and agenda for future
research”, Journal of Management, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 566-593.
Pellegrini, E.K., Scandura, T.A. and Jaidyanathan, J. (2010), “Cross-cultural generalizability of
paternalistic leadership: an expansion of leader-member exchange theory”, Group &
Organization Management, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 391-420.
Pieterse, A.N., Van Knippenberg, D., Schippers, M. and Stam, D. (2010), “Transformational and
transactional leadership and innovative behavior: the moderating role of psychological
empowerment”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 609-623.
Redding, S.G. (1990), The Spirit of Chinese Capitalism, Walter de Gruyter, New York, NY.
Schriesheim, C.A., Castro, S.L. and Cogliser, C.C. (1999), “Leader–member exchange (LMX) research:
a comprehensive review of theory, measurement, and data-analytic practices”, Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 63-113.
Scott, D., Bishop, J.W. and Chen, X. (2003), “An examination of the relationship of employee
involvement with job satisfaction, employee cooperation, and intention to quit in US invested
enterprise in China”, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 3-19.
Seibert, S.E., Silver, S.R. and Randolph, W.A. (2004), “Taking empowerment to the next level:
a multiple-level model of empowerment, performance, and satisfaction”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 332-349.
Sinclair, R.R., Martin, J.E. and Michel, R.P. (1999), “Full-time and part-time subgroup differences in job
attitudes and demographic characteristics”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 55 No. 3,
pp. 337-357.
Soylu, S. (2011), “Creating a family or loyalty-based framework: the effects of paternalistic leadership
on workplace bullying”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 99 No. 2, pp. 217-231.
Spreitzer, G.M. (1995), “Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement, and
validation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 1442-1465.
Spreitzer, G.M. (1996), “Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 483-504.
Thomas, K.W. and Velthouse, B.A. (1990), “Cognitive elements of empowerment: an ‘interpretive’ model
of intrinsic task motivation”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 661-681.
Tsui, A.S. and Farh, J.L. (1997), “Where guanxi matters: relational demography and guanxi in the
Chinese context”, Work and Occupations, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 56-79.
Waldman, D.A. and Avolio, B.J. (1986), “A meta-analysis of age differences in job performance”, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 1, pp. 33-38.
Wang, A.C. and 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, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 106-121.
Wang, H., Law, K.S., Hackett, R.D., Wang, D. and Chen, Z.X. (2005), “Leader-member exchange as a
mediator of the relationship between transformational and leadership and followers’
performance and organizational citizenship behaviour”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 48
No. 3, pp. 420-432.
Westwood, R.I. (1997), “Harmony and patriarchy: then cultural basis for ‘paternalistic headship’ among
the overseas Chinese”, Organization Studies, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 445-480.
Westwood, R.I. and Chan, A. (1992), “Headship and leadership”, in Westwood, R.I. (Ed.), Organizational Benevolent
Behaviour: A Southeast Asian Perspective, Longman, Hong Kong, pp. 123-139. leadership
Wu, T.Y., Hsu, W.L. and Cheng, B.S. (2002), “Expressing or suppressing anger: subordinate’s anger
responses to supervisors’ authoritarian behaviors in a Taiwan enterprise”, Indigenous
Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 3-49 (in Chinese).
Wu, T.Y., Hu, C. and Jiang, D.Y. (2012), “Is subordinate’s loyalty a precondition of supervisor’s
benevolent leadership? The moderating effects of supervisor’s altruistic personality and
perceived organizational support”, Asia n Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 145-155.
911
Zhang, Y., Huai, M.Y. and Xie, Y.H. (2015), “Paternalistic leadership and employee voice in China:
a dual process model”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 26, pp. 25-36.
Zhong, J.A., Lam, W. and Chen, Z. (2011), “Relationship between leader-member exchange and
organizational citizenship behaviors: examining the moderating role of empowerment”, Asia
Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 609-626.

Further reading
Avolio, B.J., Zhu, W., Koh, W. and Bhatia, P. (2004), “Transformational leadership and organizational
commitment: mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural
distance”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 8, pp. 951-968.
Brislin, R., Lonner, W.J. and Thorndike, R. (1973), Cross-Cultural Research Methods, Wiley, New York, NY.
Cheng, B.S. (1995), “Chaxuegeju and Chinese organisational behaviour”, Indigenous Psychological
Research in Chinese Societies, Vol. 3, pp. 142-219 (in Chinese).
Cheng, B.S. (1998), “Organizational culture across the Taiwan Strait: a comparison of the PRC and
Taiwanese enterprises”, in Cheng, B.S., Huang, K.L. and Kuo, C.C. (Eds), Corporate Culture in
Taiwan and China. ‘A Sinyi Cultural Foundation Series: The Management in Taiwan and China’,
Vol. 1, Yuan Liou, Taipei, pp. 1-53 (in Chinese).
Cheng, B.S. and 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, Vol. 14, pp. 65-114 (in Chinese).
Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N. (1988), “The empowerment process: integrating theory and practice”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 471-482.
Mayer, R.C. and Gavin, M.B. (2005), “Trust in management and performance: who minds the shop while
the employees watch the boss?”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 874-888.
Muller, D., Judd, C.M. and Yzerbyt, V.Y. (2005), “When moderation is mediated and mediation is
moderated”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 6, pp. 852-863.
Yang, M.M. (1994), Gifts, Favours and Banquets: The Art of Social Relationships in China, Cornell
University Press, Ithaca, NY.

Corresponding author
Simon C.H. Chan can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]