A Practical Guide to Paternalistic Leadership

What is paternalistic leadership?

Paternalistic leadership is not a derogatory term. It is normative, welcomed, and even praised in collectivist cultures. It has been described as a “a father-like leadership style in which clear and strong authority is combined with concern and considerateness and elements of moral leadership.”¹ Depending on your cultural background, working under a paternalistic leader (PL) may seem completely normal or extremely uncomfortable.

A PL expects you to obey unquestioningly and to show reverential fear. If you do, he will take care of you like a loving father and you will never be in want. You may get a brutal dressing-down once in a while, but once you are sufficiently broken, the PL will put you back together, this time stronger than ever (and more grateful than ever). Like any parent, the PL may be kind or severe in different situations, but he is always loyal. He may scold you for your poor quality of work, but before the rest of the world (his superiors, his peers, and the public), he will fight for you and for your advancement – if you are loyal. If you make a terrible mistake, after he breaks you down and ultimately shows you mercy, he will do everything possible to keep the situation contained. The bond of trust between a PL and his subordinate is equal in both directions, it is personal, and it extends beyond the workplace.

The three aspects of paternalistic leadership

Paternalistic leadership involves three elements: authoritarianism, benevolence and moral leadership.²

1. Authoritarianism: As a child, we are told not to “talk back” to our parents. Similarly, you may never suggest that you know better than your PL. If you do, prepare to face his wrath. Instead, new ideas have to be suggested in such a way that seeks out of his counsel and assistance.

• Do not say: “Why are we doing it this way when we could be doing it this other way?” You will be put back in your place or ignored.

• Do say: “What you have been doing is amazing. No one has ever done anything like this before. Would it be helpful if I tried X? I’m not sure because I lack the experience. What do you think?” Here, you will encounter the condescension of the father who can indulge your limited ideas and who appreciates your initiative. He will add his fingerprints to your idea and then bless it wholeheartedly.

There is a tale about the Italian sculptor Michelangelo pretending to correct the nose of his famous statue of David. Upon seeing the statue, Michelangelo’s patron felt he had to have an opinion or a criticism, like most PLs. So, Michelangelo “quickly took up a chisel in his left hand, with a little of the marble-dust that lay upon the planks of the staging, and then, beginning to strike lightly with the chisel, let fall the dust little by little, nor changed the nose a whit from what it was before. Then, looking down at the Gonfalonier, who stood watching him, he said, ‘Look at it now.’ ‘I like it better,’ said the Gonfalonier, ‘you have given it life.’”³ This tale, written in 1550, is comical because of how relatable it is half a millennium later.

2. Benevolence: The PL cares for you, and this care is genuine. This is why this form of leadership is called paternalistic and not tyrannical. The PL relates to you through fatherly love and care. PLs are known to care not only for their subordinates’ performance but about their children, health, and financial situation. With whatever latitude they are given in the organization, PLs will do their best to take care of you, especially if you are in trouble. For example, if you are going through a financial crisis because your parents are ill, they may try to raise funds to support you, either officially or unofficially in the organization. When an employee is laid off, PLs try to arrange longer severance packages for them.⁴

3. Moral leadership: Great PLs have an aura of excellence about them. Their moral superiority comes from a combination of genuine heroic efforts and hero stories told by themselves and others. A religious PL might be surrounded by stories of deep, personal sacrifices made for the mission. A corporate PL will talk about how he stood up to opposition and defended his team or how the higher-ups give special value to his input. These are not fabricated stories, but they function as stories (with natural embellishments) to reinforce the felt-leadership of the PL. It provides the fundamental reason why his subordinates should show him deference, and it provides this reason at the level of the heart. It is not because of his position alone but because of his moral greatness that people follow him. Weak PLs lack this component and rely on authoritarianism, as do others whose moral leadership gradually comes into question because of patterns of self-interested behavior.

Authoritarianism without these other two components never goes well.

Oceans rise, empires fall
We have seen each other through it all
And when push comes to shove
I will send a fully armed battalion to remind you of my love!
- King George III, Hamilton musical

Paternalistic leadership only works when there is very high trust between subordinates and the PL. The PL earns this trust by living up to a high moral standard and practicing benevolence, such that his subordinates truly believe that he is like a father to them.

However, when misusing its power and position to coerce employees rather than to motivate and support them, authoritarian leadership does not show leadership capability and competence, as full compliance by employees is achieved through coercion… The result is employees’ lack of cognitive trust in their leaders. Authoritarian leaders are also ruthless in their behavior and show a lack of care for their employees, with discipline being their priority. Thus, authoritarian leadership leads to employees having a lower level of affective trust in their leaders.⁵

The merits of paternalistic leadership

1. It is always personal, never transactional. The father-son/daughter relationship involves more than just the work and much more than an exchange of skills and money.
2. It facilitates the “speed of trust.” Because of the personal relationships, often involving family-to-family connections, trust runs deep. Less time is wasted on self-protection, legal maneuvering, lengthy emails, etc. “When someone ‘crafts’ an email instead of writing it, the receiver feels like they are standing near a landmine. Colleagues who trust each other get right to the point.”⁶
3. It relies upon modeling. Rather than just “managing” their subordinates, PLs model what it means to be committed to the work or cause.
4. There is one central point of authority, which is felt by all and which is not arbitrary and positional. Giving priority to everyone’s thoughts and feelings on everything eventually leads to frustration and stagnation. Such organizations/corporations watch everyone else pass them by while they continue sorting out their squabbles. On the other hand, organizations in which decisions are made by arbitrary leaders due solely to their positions become breeding grounds for resentment and political games. Both of these extremes are resolved by having a central point of authority that everyone trusts.

Problems of personal dignity

Can paternalistic leadership be reconciled with a worldview in which persons are the highest good rather than societies? In a collectivist society, “our family name” would be more important than “my personal fulfillment.” Perhaps collectivism is more successful from an evolutionary perspective, and it may therefore be the default mode of existing (social organization is after all instinctual). Families and societies within which individuals prioritize the group over self become like super-organisms within which each human being is a cell. Non-collectivist societies that fall into individualism or selfishness will not be able to compete with them because there is strength in numbers. However, personalism rises above both collectivism and individualism. Collaborative effort in a personalistic society involves willing cooperation, free participation in large endeavors, and the personal adoption of a shared vision. It sits at the intersection of individual fulfillment and collective success.

From this perspective, one’s protest against paternalistic leadership may be articulated succinctly: “I am not a child.” Whatever form of leadership is embraced, it must recognize the equal dignity of the leader and the follower. Therefore, the sole grounds for inequality of stature must be inequality of competence. In other words: you and I are equal, but you are better at this than I am, so I defer to you. Such personal equality is notably missing from paternalistic models.

A practical way forward

Even researchers who praise paternalistic leadership have found its authoritarian dimension to be problematic. Kim and Zhao analyzed the three dimensions separately and found that authoritarianism had strictly negative correlations with innovation, proactivity, and risk-taking.⁷

Their diagram shows the negative effects of authoritarianism but also the benefits of benevolence and moral leadership (at least in Asian contexts). In the merits section above, we too explicitly noted some advantages of paternalistic leadership. Therefore, at a practical level, the immediate goal of a person working under a PL should be to break free from the authoritarianism rather than to expect a different style of leadership to suddenly become possible with the same leader and organization.

To break free, you would have to make your freedom and autonomy apparent, while fully cooperating in whichever ways you are expected to. For example, if the PL demands that you do something one way and you disagree, you could say, “I can do it that way if you would like.” The temptation when working under a strong PL is to show agreement due to intense social pressure. Remarkably, most people working under an authoritarian will verbally agree with everything he says, even while they internally grow resentful. Minutes of meetings may show unanimous votes, even when most people in the group disagree. To break free, never show agreement unless it is sincere. If asked for your opinion, be honest about your perspective without being combative. If the PL demands something that is out of his domain, as often happens (e.g. telling you which house to buy or which credit card to get), simply reply, “Thank you for your suggestion.”

The challenge will arise in the disputed areas, where the PL believes he has authority and you believe he does not. Here, even the gentle signaling of your freedom will evoke frightful reactions in the authoritarian. For example, if he believes he is the expert or ultimate authority on a particular matter, he will be infuriated if you do not consult him or take his suggestions. Depending on the circumstances, you could either (1) ignore his reactions and stay the course or (2) begin a process of clarifying the extent of his authority. Both of these approaches can work surprisingly well.

When authoritarianism is held at bay, paternalistic leadership is at worst harmless and at best something wonderful. Benevolence, after all, poses no threat if it is not imposed. Having a leader who looks out for you and cares about you personally would not be the worst thing in the world. And most organizations and corporations would do much better if their leaders modeled moral excellence. Authoritarianism is the problem, so much so that, unless it is overcome, all the other benefits are simply not worth it.

---

1. Jiing-Lih Farh and Bor-Shiuan Cheng, “A Cultural Analysis of Paternalistic Leadership in Chinese Organizations,” in Management and Organizations in the Chinese Context, ed. J. T. Li, Anne S. Tsui, and Elizabeth Weldon (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2000), 84–127. ↩

2. Ibid. ↩

3. Giorgio Vasari, Lives of the Most Eminent Painters, Sculptors & Architects, trans. Gaston Du C. de Vere, vol. 9 (London: Philip Lee Warner, Publisher to the Medici Society, 1912–14), chap. 1. ↩

4. PON Staff, Paternalistic Leadership: Beyond Authoritarianism, Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School (blog), November 27, 2025. ↩

5. Michelle Chin Chin Lee, “Relationship between the Three Dimensions of Paternalistic Leadership, Cognitive and Affective Trust and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Multilevel Mediational Pathway,” Baltic Journal of Management 20, no. 6 (2025): 20–38. ↩

6. Bruce Hendrick, “5 Email Clues: You May Have a Trust Problem,” Bruce Hendrick (blog), December 2, 2014. ↩

7. Junic Kim and Kexiang Zhao, “Rediscovering Paternalistic Leadership: A Powerful Engine for Startup,” Asian Journal of Technology Innovation 33 (2024): 982–98. ↩