TABLE OF CONTENTS11.INTRODUCTION

21.1Background and Importance of the Study

31.2Problem Definition / Gap Identification

41.3Research Question

51.4Significance of the Study

61.5Objective of the study

71.6Definition of Research Variables

71.6.1Definition and Dimensions of Paternalistic Leadership (PL)

81.6.2Definition & Dimensions of Leader Member Exchange

91.6.3Definition and Dimensions of Power Distance

101.6.4Definition of Job Satisfaction

111.6.5Definition and Dimensions of Job Performance

131.6.6Definition and Dimensions of Organizational Commitment

152.LITERATURE REVIEW

162.1Paternalistic Leadership (PL)

172.2Leader Member Exchange (Lmx)

172.3paternalistic leadership and leader-member exchange

192.4Power Distance (PD)

202.5Power Distance as Moderator between PL and LMX

212.6Job Satisfaction (JS)

222.7Job Performance (JP)

222.8Organizational Commitment (OC)

232.9PL and Employees Job Related Outcomes (JS, OC, JP)

242.10LMX and Employees Job Related Outcomes (JS, OC, JP)

262.11LMX Mediate the Relationship between PL and Employees Job Related Outcomes (JS, OC, JP)

282.12RESEARCH FRAMEWORK

282.13HYPOTHESIS

293.METHODOLOGY

303.1Research Design

303.1.1Type of Study

303.1.2Unit of Analysis

303.1.3Time Horizon

303.1.4Research Interference

303.2Population and Sample

303.2.1Population

313.2.2Sampling

313.3Scales Used for Measurement of Variables

313.3.1Paternalistic Leadership (PL)

313.3.2Leader-Member Exchange (LMX)

323.3.3Power Distance (PD)

323.3.4Job Satisfaction (JS)

323.3.5Affective Organization Commitment (OC)

323.3.6Job Performance (JP)

323.4Data Analysis Procedures

334.TIME FRAME OF RESEARCH

345.REFERENCES

436.APPENDIXES

1. INTRODUCTIONToday business world is getting global more rapidly opposing with more sophisticated challengers than before. As obligation of globalization, the boundaries and borders of business world are wiped and people from different cultures come much closer to each other. Cumulating and maintaining the overall performance and effectiveness of organizational in these diverse cultures is one of the most important tasks of leaders. This can be done through only understanding and building fruitful relationships between employees of the organization. This study will explore Paternalistic Leadership (PL) style and its uses as terms of influence strategies toward subordinates outcomes i.e. Job Satisfaction (JS), Job Performance (JP) and Affective Organizational Commitment (OC) through Leader Member Exchange (LMX). This research also proposed that a cultural dimension i.e. Power Distance (PD) could act as a moderating variable for the relationship between PL and LMX. Our study sample will be comprised on employees from public sector organizations of Pakistan. 1.1 Background and Importance of the StudyBetter leaders develop better employees and together develop better products. Leadership and followership is an allied model. Nonetheless, both leader and subordinate not be able to yield sufficient grip on organizational matter, so researchers focused on the dyadic relationship between the leader and subordinates, and frame the Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory.

LMX draws on social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) to suggest that a different relationship exists between a leader and each of their followers. LMX researchers have reported positive outcomes of high-quality relationships for leaders, followers, and organizations, including higher performance ratings, higher job satisfaction, greater satisfaction with supervisor, stronger organizational commitment, and more positive role perceptions (Gerstner and Day, 1997).

As per previous research conducted by Botero & Van Dyne (2009) and Howell & Hall-Merenda (1999) find that power distance in an organization greatly affect toe development of relationships between leader and members.

This may be because members may not always react favorably to the different and unique relationships the leader develops with each team member. When team members have different quality relationships with the leader, members are likely to be more concerned whether they have a high quality relationship with the leader and compare ones relationship quality to others (Henderson, Wayne, Shore, Bommer, & Tetrick, 2008; Vidyarthi, Liden, Anand, Erdogan, & Ghosh, 2010). Thus, the leaders group differentiation among employees (in-group and out-group) may lead to feelings of unfairness and a breakdown of employees cohesion and cooperation, which can create a tendency of high and low power distance. Employees job outcomes are important building blocks of an organization which lays the foundation for high efficiency, effectiveness and success of the organization. Any organization cannot progress by single individual's effort, it is collective effort of all the members (leaders and under commands) of the organization. Employees at all, from top to lower level, have to input their efforts and make maximum use of their abilities for organizational and their own success and satisfaction. On the other hand their satisfaction and performance is a major multidimensional construct aimed to achieve results and has a strong link to strategic goals of an organization (Mwita, 2000). The relationship between leadership, organizational and employee performance was indirect as well as direct (Gadot, 2007), which proves the importance of these variables in organizational success.1.2 Problem Definition / Gap Identification

There is enough literature available related to PL, LMX and their link with employees job related attitudes/behaviors, in which researchers found significant relationships between these variables.[c.f. McFarlane, Newton & Thornton, (1990); Redding (1990); Pellegrini & Scandura, (2006), Chan & Mak, (2012)].

Botero & Van Dyne (2009) and Howell & Hall-Merenda (1999) have suggested that Power Distance culture in organization significantly affects the leader-member relations which is also known and proposed in this study as LMX. This may be because, when team members have different quality relationships (low or high LMX) with the leader, are likely to be more concerned with whether they have a high quality relationship with the leader and whether they are being well treated by the leader or not, cited by Henderson, Wayne, Shore, Bommer, & Tetrick (2008); Vidyarthi, Liden, Anand, Erdogan, & Ghosh, (2010). As explained above due to differentiation relationship among group members high and low leader-member exchange (in-group and out-group) may create feelings of iniquitousness and a failure of group cohesion and cooperation, which may leads them towards high and low power distance among them. On the basis of this we proposed that power distance is moderating between PL and LMX.

Secondly, to the best of our knowledge, no research has focused on the possible moderating effect that the Power Distance held by employees have in the PL and LMX. So, this study is an attempt to explore the effect of Power Distance on relationship between Paternalistic Leader and subordinates and employees job related outcomes through LMX. 1.3 Research Question

This study aims to address and answer the following research questions:- What is the relationship between Paternalistic Leadership and Leader-Member Exchange?

What is the impact of Paternalistic Leadership on employees job related outcomes?

What is the impact of Power Distance between Paternalistic Leadership and Leader-Member Exchange? Is there is any strategy or training through which we may able to develop more effective paternalistic leaders in organizations? 1.4 Significance of the Study

Todays organizations are formed without any boundaries and borders as people from different cultures are becoming part of same business organizations. So the need to clarify the affect of cultural values of employees and relationship between leader and subordinates is very important.This study will comprise on study sample of employees of different public sector organizations of Pakistan. Since Pakistan is a country with a higher level of power distance, it is a place more suitable to examine the moderating effect of power distance.Moreover, Aycan et al (2000) characterized Pakistan as under-researched country in the HRM field so as a developing country undergoing to developed institutional rules and cultural values. This study will provide insight into management practice and will helpful for developing long-term and reliable organizational values and policies in Pakistan.

Power Distance (PD) a dimension of organizational culture, is proposed most relevant cultural value in the current research framework because the dark side of paternalistic leadership is quoted as its possibility to turn into favoritism/nepotism and providing resources and shelter to only a group (in-group) of followers, and eliminate other group (out-group), which may lead employees towards individual and group level power distance. On the other hand, several authors like Tepper, (2007); Aryee, Sun, Chen, & Debrah, (2008) have recently called for greater consideration of cultural values as relevant factors in PL and LMX research. The current research responds to these calls, which is an attempt as theoretical contribution is to examine the moderating effect of power distance orientation on the relationships between PL and LMX.

Last but not least significance is its attempt towards practical contribution is, that through this study we will try to find out the importance of PL and its impact on employees and organizational outcomes and at the end we will try to find out whether Paternalistic Leaders behaviour and qualities can be adoptive or developed through any source or not.

1.5 Objective of the studyObjectives of the current study are elaborated as following:- To find whether Paternalistic Leadership has any relation with Leader-Member Exchange or not. To find out the moderating effect of Power Distance between Paternalistic Leadership and Leader-Member Exchange.

To find the impact of Paternalistic Leadership on employees job satisfaction. To find the impact of Paternalistic Leadership on employees Affective Organizational Commitment.

To find the impact of Paternalistic Leadership on employees Job Performance. To find the impact of Leader-Member Exchange on Job Satisfaction.

To find the impact of Leader-Member Exchange on employees Affective Organizational Commitment.

To find the impact of Leader-Member Exchange on Employee Job Performance.

To find the mediating effect of Leader-Member Exchange between Paternalistic Leader and employee Job Satisfaction. To find the mediating effect of Leader-Member Exchange between Paternalistic Leader and employees Affective Organizational Commitment.

To find the mediating effect of Leader-Member Exchange between Paternalistic Leader and employees Job Performance.

1.6 Definition of Research Variables1.6.1 Definition and Dimensions of Paternalistic Leadership (PL)

Aycan, (2006) and Webster (1975) defines paternalistic leadership as the principle or system of governing on a country, group consisting on employees, etc in a manner suggesting a fathers relationship with the family.

According to Padavic & Earnest (1994) Paternalistic Leader takes care of employees like a father and is involved in every aspect of their lives, in return, the subordinates are expected to be loyal, respectful to the superior and respond in such a way as to consider the workplace as a family place.

Researchers Mather, Aycan, & Kanungo, (1996); Aycan et al., (2000); Cheng, Chou & Farh, (2000); Pellegrini & Scandura, (2006); Aycan, (2006) have developed following five dimensions of paternalistic leader:-a. Creating a Family Atmosphere at Workplace

This dimension describes the leader as behaving like a father to his or her subordinates. For instance, a paternalistic leader is expected to give fatherly/motherly advice to his or her subordinates in their professional as well as personal lives.

b. Establishing Close & Individualized Relationships with SubordinatesThe paternalistic leader is expected to know every subordinate in person (personal problems, family life, etc.), be genuinely concerned with their welfare, and take a close interest in their professional as well as personal lives.

c. Getting Involved in the Non-Work Domain-Work Lives Entails leader behaviors such as attending important events (e.g., wedding and funeral ceremonies, graduations, etc.) of their subordinates as well as of their immediate family members; providing help and assistance (e.g., financial) to their subordinates who are in need; and acting as a mediator between an employee and his or her spouse when there is a marital problem.

d. Expecting Loyalty

This represents loyalty and commitment expectations of the leaders from their subordinates. For instance, employees are expected to immediately attend to an emergency in the company even if this requires them to compromise their private lives. For a paternalistic leader, loyalty and commitment of the subordinate are the two most important criterions in evaluating the performance of the subordinate.

e. Maintaining Authority/Status

Involves leader behaviors such as giving importance to status differences (position ranks) and expecting employees to behave accordingly. The paternalistic leader believes that he or she knows what is good for the subordinates and their careers. He or she would also want that none of his or her subordinates doubt his or her authority.1.6.2 Definition & Dimensions of Leader Member ExchangeLeader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory is grounded on the basis of the interaction and quality of relationship between leader and subordinate. Its initial form is known as the Vertical Dyad Linkage (VDL) theory, suggesting that there is a dyadic relationship between leaders and their followers, during the leadership process.

Leadermember exchange (LMX) theory describes leadership as a process, focusing on the relationship between a leader and follower (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Liden & Maslyn, 1998).

As stated above in introduction step that the LMX theory states that leaders form differential relationships with different subordinates in a workgroup (Graen & Cashman, 1975; Liden & Graen, 1980), which results in a differentiated workgroup. This differentiated workgroup is comprised of subordinates with high and low quality of LMX. Further clarification of high and low LMX is as under:-

a. High Leader Member Exchange

High LMX (in-group) relationships are characterized by support, and trust (Liden & Graen, 1980), mutual liking, professional respect, contributory behaviors, and mutual influence (Dienesch & Liden, 1986; Liden & Maslyn, 1998).

b. Low Leader Member Exchange

Low LMX (out-group) relationships are contractual and formal (Dansereau et al. 1975). Stated differently, in-group subordinates are treated as trusted subordinates, whereas out-group ones Social Power, Power Distance, and LMX are act essentially as hired hands.

1.6.3 Definition and Dimensions of Power Distance

Hofstede (1991) described power distance as the extent to which less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally.

Power distance (PD) refers to the way in which societies handle the problem of human inequity. This cultural dimension looks at how much a culture does or does not value hierarchical relationships and respect for authority. Hofstede (1980) identified high and low power distance as further dimensions of power distance. Definition of these dimensions is as following:-

a. High Power DistanceIn a high power distance society close supervision is positively evaluated by subordinates; subordinate consultation may not be as important as in a small power distance society because there is a tendency for its members to accept paternalistic management (Perera; Mathews, 1990). Moreover, high power distance is associated with being more task-oriented and less people-oriented because high power distance cultures initiate structure for task completion and retain the social distance inherent in hierarchical relationships (Bochner & Hesketh, 1994). As such, cultures or individuals higher on power distance are more likely to value status, power, and prestige (Jaw, Ling, Wang, & Chang, 2007; Schwartz, 1999). In high power distance oriented cultures, individuals with power are seen as superior, inaccessible, and paternalistic and are expected to lead autocratically (Hofstede, 1980). b. Low Power Distance

In contrast, of high power distance, low power distance manifests itself, for example, as decentralized organizations, participative decision making, and consultative leadership (Hofstede, 1980).

1.6.4 Definition of Job SatisfactionJob satisfaction is a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of ones job or job experiences defined by (Locke, 1976).

Duong (2011) defined job satisfaction as a positive emotional state reflecting an effective response to a job situation.

Mardanov, Ismatilla, Maertz, Carl, Sterrett, (2008-b) claimed that job satisfaction is an attitude which individuals form and maintain about a job, and this attitude is developed from their perceptions of the job.

1.6.5 Definition and Dimensions of Job Performance

The most important employee outcome, arguably, is job performance, defined broadly as the aggregated value of the activities that employees contribute both directly and indirectly, and positively and negatively, to organizational goal accomplishment (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Campbell, 1990).Jex (2002) defined Job performance as all the behaviours employees engage in while at work.

Job performance, the set of behaviors that are relevant to the goals of the organization or the organizational unit in which a person works described by Murphy (1989). Many definitions of job performance have been proposed (e.g., Campbell 1990; Murphy 1989), for our purposes, job performance refers to scalable actions, behavior and outcomes that employees engage in or bring about that are linked with and contribute to organizational goals.

According to Binning and Barrett (1989) grouped around primarily three broad dimensions of Job Performance, task performance, organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive behaviors. We take up each in turn:-

a. Task Performance

Early attempts at exploring the job performance construct focused heavily on task requirements. Task performance is defined as the proficiency with which officials perform activities that are formally recognized as part of their jobs; activities that contribute to the organization's technical core either directly by implementing a part of its technological process, or indirectly by providing it with needed materials or services (Borman and Motowidlo 1993). According to Murphy (1989) task performance entails the accomplishment of duties and tasks that are specified in a job description. However, as Schmidt (1993) points out with changing jobs, job descriptions may not provide solid grounds for defining task performance.

b. Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Several researchers over the years have argued that job performance entails more than just task performance (Borman and Motowidlo 1993; Brief and Motowidlo 1986; Clark and Hollinger 1983; Hogan and Hogan 1989; Organ 1988; Smith, Organ and Near 1983). Roethlisberger and Dickinson (1939) simplified this concept as Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) in the job performance literature. OCB was defined as individual behavior that is discretionary/extra-role, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization (Organ 1988). Van Dyne, Cummings and Parks (1995) argued for the use of `Extra-Role Behavior' (ERB) instead of OCB. Based on role theory concepts developed by Katz (1964), ERB has been hypothesized to contribute to organizational effectiveness.

c. Counterproductive BehaviorsDeviant behaviors that have negative value for organizational effectiveness have also been proposed as constituting distinct dimensions of job performance. Robinson and Bennett (1995) define deviant behavior as voluntary behavior that violates significant organizational norms and in so doing threatens the well being of an organization, its members, or both. Ones, Viswesvaran and Schmidt (1993) as well as the works of Paul and Wanek (1996) have identified the different forms of counterproductive behaviors such as property damage, substance abuse, violence on the job. Withdrawal behaviors have long been studied by work psychologists in terms of lateness or tardiness, absenteeism, and turnover. Work psychologists and social psychologists have explored the antecedents and consequences of social loafing, shirking or the propensity to withhold effort (Kidwell and Bennett 1993).

1.6.6 Definition and Dimensions of Organizational Commitment The concept of organizational commitment has been defined in many ways (Kim 2012). For instance, Mowday, Porter & Steers (1979) defined it as the extent to which employees identify with their organizations values or norms. Bieby (1992) defined commitment as "an attachment that is initiated and sustained by the extent to which an individual's identification with a role, behavior, value, or institution is considered to be central among alternatives as a source of identity". Mowday et al. (1982) defined it as the relative strength of an individuals identification with and involvement in his or her organization. Furthermore, Allen and Meyer (1990, 1996) and Meyer and Allen (1991) divided organizational commitment into following three dimensions:- a. Affective CommitmentAffective commitment is about feeling of identity with an organization that is associated with the individuals want or desire to remain with the organization (Farris 2012). It refers to the employees attachment to the organization based on emotional attachment, a sense of belonging, and involvement (OConnor & Srinivasan 2010).

b. Normative Commitment Normative commitment is associated with the individuals feelings of obligation to the organization (Farris 2012). It stems from the employee's thought that leaving the organization can be a betrayal to organization and colleagues. OConnor & Srinivasan (2010) defined it as the totality of internalized normative pressures to act in a way which meets organizations goals and interests effectively suggesting that these behaviors are exhibited because employees believe it to be the right and moral thing to do.

c. Continuance Commitment Continuance commitment is about what would happen if the employee leaves the organization; questioning whether it will be costly or inconvenient if the employee leaves the organization? Thus, continuance commitment is associated with the individuals perceived cost of leaving the organization or the need to remain with the organization (Farris 2012). It as the tendency to engage in consistent lines of activity based on the individuals recognition of the costs associated with discontinuing the activity, described by OConnor & Srinivasan (2010).

2. LITERATURE REVIEWThis chapter reviews and summarizes the literature on Paternalistic Leadership, Leader Member Exchange (as mediator), Power Distance (as moderator), and job related outcomes i.e. Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment, and Job performance. On the basis of what is currently known about these variables from various authors, a conceptual framework for identifying the factors related to Paternalistic Leadership, Leader Member Exchange, Power Distance, and employees job related outcomes will be developed. 2.1 Paternalistic Leadership (PL)Paternalistic leader is one who creates positive relationship between him and his subordinates. As per this description the paternalistic leader performs in such a way as to create a family atmosphere at the workplace, establishes close and individualized relationships with his or her subordinates, and involves in non-work activities with his or her followers.

According to Aycan, (2001, 2006) and Padavic & Earnest (1994) paternalistic leadership takes care of employees like a father take care of his family and also involved in every aspect of their lives, in return, the subordinates are expected to be loyal, respectful to the superior and respond in such a way as to consider the workplace as a family place.

Research from India, Turkey, China, and Pakistan also suggests that paternalism does not mean authoritarianism but slightly a relationship in which followers enthusiastically respond the care and safety of caring authority by showing conformity (Aycan et al., 2000; Pellegrini & Scandura, 2006). Since 2000, researchers on paternalism have developed five dimensions of paternalistic (Mather, Aycan, & Kanungo, 1996; Aycan et al., 2000; Cheng, Chou & Farh, 2000; Pellegrini & Scandura, 2006; Aycan, 2006). These dimensions have already been explained in details in above mentioned introduction phase.

Paternalistic leaders looked upon positively because of their paternal concern for the followers and their effort to create a family-like atmosphere. But on the other hand, the dark side of paternalistic leadership is quoted as its possibility to turn into favoritism / nepotism and providing resources and shelter to only a group of followers, and eliminate others (Kabasakal and Bodur, 2002). And sometimes paternalistic leader carries some sort of coercion behaviour as he sometimes makes decision without consent of his under commands, as father do in family settings.

2.2 Leader Member Exchange (Lmx)LMX theory, at first focused on the nature of the relations leaders formed with their followers, where later addressed how leader-member relationship (LMX) was related to organizational effectiveness. Among the widely researched topics are the quality of leader-member relationship and its effects found that, the quality of LMX in the workplace can often affect the entire structure and success of the organization (Mardanov et al. 2008-b).

Leader-member exchange theory (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) takes a relationship based approach to explain leadership processes and outcomes and emphasizes that both the leaders and members develop the dyadic exchange relationship to generate bases of leadership influence (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Schyns & Day, 2010; Uhl-Bien, 2006). The fundamental premise of LMX theory (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) is that leaders develop different types of mutual and reciprocal exchange relationships with their members. LMX represents the quality of exchange relationships between the leader and group members. In a low quality relationship, the leader and member have exchanges based primarily on the formal employment contract, whereas in a high quality relationship, they have developed mutual trust, loyalty, respect, support, openness, and honesty (Graen & Scandura, 1987). LMX has two further dimensions i.e. Low and High quality LMX, which have already been explained above in introduction part. 2.3 paternalistic leadership and leader-member exchangeThe essence of leadership is not found in the leader per se, but in the relationship that exists between the leader and his or her subordinates. With this in mind, over the past few decades, two popular competing theories have emerged to explain the supervisor-subordinate relationship, which results in the shape of LMX theory. According to Pellegrini & Scandura (2006), paternalistic leadership behavior and LMX found to be significantly connected with each other as per their findings (r = 0.59, p < 0.01).

PL and LMX are strongly related to each other and to job satisfaction. As both PL and LMX are measures of (good) leader-subordinate relations, their correlation is not entirely unexpected. This corresponds to the findings of Pellegrini & Scandura, (2006),

Modern scholars study Paternalistic leadership as a relationship based approach leadership, unlike traditional theories in which scholars studied leadership as a function of leaders personal attributes (Gerstner & Day, 1997). Based on this it can be anticipated that leadership is not an only independent attribute but it is a reliant on relationships with followers. Leadership and followership is an allied model. Leaders cannot exist without followers, nor can followers exist without leaders, so researchers focused on the dyadic relationship between the leader and subordinates, and frame the Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory.

LMX theory, which was initially proposed as Vertical Dyadic Linkage theory, which focused on the nature of the relations leaders formed with their followers (Mardanov et al. 2008-b).

Fischer and colleagues, (2005) proposed that paternalism with their emphasis on personalized relationships, are expected to lead to higher levels of general support and specifically, helping behaviors between leader and followers.

LMX theory is premised on notions of role making (Graen, 1976), social exchange (Social Exchange Theory), reciprocity, and equity (Deluga, 1994). Leaders convey role expectations to their followers and provide tangible and intangible rewards to followers who satisfy these expectations. Likewise, followers hold role expectations of their leaders, with respect to how they are to be treated and the rewards they are to receive for meeting leader expectations.

As apparent in above discussions, we can conclude that LMX theory is related to positive organizational outcomes, which means that the effectiveness of PL is strongly related to level of LMX and we derived the following hypothesis:-

H1. Paternalistic Leadership has positive impact on LMX.

2.4 Power Distance (PD) To achieve an organizational goal, it is necessary to develop a strong relationship between the employer and employees and a suitable organizations culture. The culture can be defined as a way of thinking, feeling and reacting, acquired and transmitted mainly by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievement of human groups, including their embodiments in artifacts; the essential core of culture consists of traditional ideas and especially attached values (Kluckhohn, 1951). Hofstede (1980) initially identified four independent dimensions of national culture differences which were empirically found and validated i.e. power distance, individualism, uncertainty avoidance and masculinity. In the current research, we focused on Power Distance (PD), which is one of the dimensions of Hofstedes (1980) cultural values.According to Hofstede (1980) power distance culture has two more types i.e. low power distance and high power distance, which have been explained above in variable definition stage (Introduction chapter).

Power distance is a value directly relevant to organizational contexts given that power in organizations is necessarily distributed unequally (Farh, Hackett, & Liang, 2007).

Power distance influences the levels of participative decision making, centralization, and formal hierarchy within organizations (Hofstede, 2001). In high power distance cultures, individuals with power are seen as superior, inaccessible, and paternalistic and are expected to lead autocratically (Hofstede, 1980). Because individuals with power are perceived as superior and elite, those with less power accept their places in the hierarchy, trust their leaders, defer judgments to them (Kirkman, Chen, Farh, Chen, & Lowe, 2009), and are generally submissive, loyal, and obedient to their leaders (Bochner & Hesketh, 1994). Moreover, high power distance is associated with being more task-oriented and less people-oriented because high power distance cultures initiate structure for task oriented and hold the social distance inherent in hierarchical relationships (Bochner & Hesketh, 1994). As such, cultures or individuals higher on power distance are more likely to value status, power, and prestige (Jaw, Ling, Wang, & Chang, 2007; Schwartz, 1999). In contrast, low power distance manifests itself, for example, as decentralized organizations, participative decision making, and consultative leadership (Hofstede, 1980).

Understanding power distance is especially important in organizational research because power is fundamental to all relationships, is inherent in hierarchical organizations, and affects many organizational processes and outcomes.

2.5 Power Distance as Moderator between PL and LMX We chose high power distance orientation (a cultural dimension) at the individual level for this study, because this value dimension has been found to be typical of the Pakistani context. Power distance has been defined as the degree to which less powerful members of institutions and organizations accept that power is distributed unequally (Hofstede, 1980). Pakistan is predominantly a Muslim country, where religion plays a prominent role in almost all walks of life. In a recent study by Taylor (2003), it was found that most Muslim countries scored higher in power distance than non-Muslim countries. The Muslim cluster included Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and Pakistan. That means religion might explain the high scores on power distance, in that the Muslim religion fosters a climate in which leaders have ultimate power and authority. Also, rules, laws, and regulations developed by those in power reinforce their own power and control (Pellegrini & Scandura, 2006). The Pakistani cultural system is classified as being the highest on power distance first (with score of 55), whereas the United States is one of the lowest (38th) on this dimension (Hofstede, 1980, 1994). Leading Pakistani organizations is like leading hierarchical relationships, because Pakistani workers have strong preference for respect and hierarchy. Hierarchical relationships are manifested in day-to-day business dealings as well. Even a casual observer can notice hierarchically organized offices, pantries, parking spaces, and restrooms. The power distance orientation of Pakistani subordinates has obvious implications for power relationship and leadership.Along with above arguments different researchers argued that LMX is founded in Social Exchange Theory (SET) explanations, which do less well in accounting for performance differences among people high (versus low) in Power Distance (Begley, Lee, Fang, & Li, 2002).

As SET explanations for LMX outcome relationships are founded in norms of exchange, the strength of these relationships should be affected by employees acceptance of the exchange norm as a basis for employee-employer relationships (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002).

Tyler, Lind, & Huo, (2000), suggest that people care most strongly about how they are treated by authorities when they have personalized connections with them. Such connections develop when individuals are able to negotiate the terms, rules, and expectations governing them, which is possible only where the social and power gap between exchange partners is small. For high PD partners, wide social distance is maintained and role expectations bind subordinates to showing deference, respect, loyalty and dutifulness to the authority figure. On the basis of above arguments and evidences we proposed the following hypothesis:-

H2. Power Distance moderates the relationship between Paternalistic Leadership and Leader-Member Exchange2.6 Job Satisfaction (JS)Job. What comes to mind when prompted with this word? May be money, long hours, co- workers, benefits, breaks, or livelihood. People spend over half of their lives at some sort of job. Most of the time people identify themselves with their occupation. Looking at how the workers are satisfied with their jobs is something that scholars investigated for many years.Job satisfaction is one of the main measures for employees job related outcomes and it was widely researched in the organizational behavior area.

Organ & Konovsky (1989) claimed that job satisfaction may be treated as positive emotional state reflecting an effective response to a job situation.

Job satisfaction is important to almost every employee and employer in the business world. The reason is due to job satisfaction making a better working environment (Gruneberg, 1979; Nemiroff & Ford, 1976; Pettit, Goris, & Vaught, 1997; Steers, 1976).

According to Redding (1990) paternalistic approach can increase job satisfaction of the employee. Similarly, Kohn and Schoolers (1973) study of American workers suggested job satisfaction is closely related to closeness of supervision and leadership.

2.7 Job Performance (JP)Job performance is a broad and complex construct comprising two fundamentally different aspects, namely, in-role job performance mandated by an organization, and more spontaneous innovative work behaviors (Katz, 1964).

Researchers have constructed three further dimensions of of Job Performance, task performance, organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive behaviors. These dimensions have been explored in detail in variable definition topic. 2.8 Organizational Commitment (OC)Organizational commitment is an attitude and behaviour of company loyalty exhibited by employees (Truckenbrodt 2000). There are several definitions for organizational commitment. Simply, organizational commitment can be defined as the strong desire to be continued to be a member of an organization. It plays a positive role in retention of members in the organization (Liao et al. 2009). Mowday, Porter & Steers (1979) have defined organizational commitment as individuals believing in and accepting organizational goals and values, willing to remain within their organizations, and willing to provide considerable effort on their behalf (Liao et al. 2009). Allen and Meyer (1990) defined organizational commitment as an attitude/behaviour that individuals tend to believe that "I would be happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization" (Tse & Lam 2008). According to Farris (2012) organizational commitment is a psychological state that binds the individual to the organization.

Mowday, Porter & Steers (1982) also identified three characteristics of organizational commitment: (a) a strong belief in and acceptance of the organizations goals and values; (b) willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization; and (c) a strong desire to maintain membership in the organization (Joo 2010). Thus, organizational commitment may also affect employees identifying themselves with their organizations. Individuals with higher levels of organizational commitment have a sense of belonging and identification with the organization that increases their desire to pursue the organization's goals and activities, and their willingness to remain part of the organization (Meyer & Allen 1996; Mowday, Porter & Steers 1982; in Golden & Veiga 2008).

2.9 PL and Employees Job Related Outcomes (JS, OC, JP)

Effective leadership and their relationship with employees are two factors that have been regarded as fundamental for employee job satisfaction, performance and commitment of employees with organization which ultimately leads towards organizational success.

According to Gelfand, Erez & Aycan, (2007) Paternalistic leadership, has a positive impact on positive employee attitudes and behaviours towards organization.

A capable leader provides direction for the organization and lead followers towards achieving desired goals. In similar vein, employees with high job satisfaction are likely to exert more effort in their assigned tasks and pursue organizational interests (Mosadegh Rad & Yar mohammadian, 2006).

After Farh and Cheng (2000) studied all the research done since 1976, they define PL as treating the relationship with discipline, fatherly authority and morality embedded in it. According to this definition PL composed of mainly three elements: authoritarianism, benevolence, and moral leadership.

Authoritarianism is the leadership style in which leader exercise authority over subordinates and each subordinate has a duty to obey the leader.

Benevolent leadership means that leader lead subordinate by care and has individualized concern toward subordinate and their well-being. Benevolent leadership contains shi-en behaviours (kindness), such as individual concern and thoughtful and kind for his/her subordinates, which, they can only return through loyalty/commitment to their work and organization (Pasa, Kabasakal & Bodur, 2001; Aycan, 2006; Gelfand, Erez & Aycan, 2007; Pellegrini & Scandura, 2008).

Paternalism, from the organization perspective, is assessed as improving and civilizing workplace, in Paternalism, company leaders are more concerned into personal lives of their employees and supporting them in their familys issues. So due to this concern and caring attitude by subordinate toward their employee increase their dedication and loyalty Gordon (1998) and Warren (1999). Paternalism brings out employee loyalty, efficiency, and promotes team-work output (Aycan, 2002).

On the basis of above arguments and literature we compose following hypothesis:-

H3.Paternalistic Leadership has positive impact on Job SatisfactionH4.Paternalistic Leadership has positive impact on Affective Organizational CommitmentH5.Paternalistic Leadership has positive impact on Job Performance

2.10 LMX and Employees Job Related Outcomes (JS, OC, JP)The literature has shown LMX, rated by the member and the leader, to be highly correlated with several employee outcomes (Gerstner & Day, 1997). The most prominent of these outcomes are attitudinal outcomes (i.e., job satisfaction, retention/turnover, and organizational commitment) and behavioral outcomes (i.e., job performance and organizational citizenship behavior).Support has been also found for LMX theory predictions about various employee outcomes, such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, career advancement, and organizational citizenship behavior (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Ilies, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007).

Similarly, research on LMX and job satisfaction showed evidence of positive relationship existing between LMX and job satisfaction (c.f. Dansereau et al., [1975], Graen, Liden, and Hoel [1982], and Scandura & Graen (1984) all In addition, Pillai, Scandura, and Williams (1999) showed LMX to be highly correlated with job satisfaction across multiple countries and cultures. On the other hand, Graen and Ginsburg (1977), Liden and Graen (1980), and Vecchio and Gobdel (1984) all found no correlation between LMX and overall job satisfaction. Gerstner and Days (1997) meta-analysis, however, suggests that the overall effect size for LMX and satisfaction is quite high, and thus is a reliable correlation.

Harris et al (2009), in their research, titled as Leadermember exchange and empowerment: Direct and interactive effects on job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and performance find that LMX positively relate to employee attitudes and behaviour towards organization and Job. Similarly, Fisk and Friesen (2012) in their research found that LMX quality strengthen job satisfaction and job performance of the employees.A persons actuality is a good citizen which promotes the environment of welfare and well-being of the larger collective. Support for this relationship was provided by Hackett, Farh, Song, and Lapierre (2003), who reported a meta-analytic mean correlation of .32 between LMX and Job attitudes of employees.

Similarly, studies for over 25 years on LMX and Affective Organizational Commitment (OC) has predicted tied which each other. Results from these studies have been mixed, with some research finding a significant relationship between LMX and organizational commitment (Duchon, Green and Taber [1986]; Liden, Wayne, & Sparrowe, [2000]) while others have failed to replicate these findings (e.g., Green, Anderson, & Shivers, 1996).

Affective commitment of an in-group member exists because the member perceives a positive social exchange relationship with his or her immediate supervisor. Therefore, organizational commitment is considered a form of reciprocation. That is, the leader provides the employee with tangible and intangible resources and the employee reciprocates to the leader by his or her devotion to the company and its goals and purpose (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga1975). Therefore, in line with previous LMX research, we predict that LMX enhance increased employees Affective Organizational Commitment.H6.Leader Member-Exchange has positive effect on Job SatisfactionH7.Leader Member-Exchange has positive effect on Affective Organizational Commitment

H8.Leader Member-Exchange has positive effect on Job Performance

2.11 LMX Mediate the Relationship between PL and Employees Job Related Outcomes (JS, OC, JP)According to leader-member exchange (LMX) theory (c.f. Gerstner and Day [1997], Graen and Uhl-Bien [1995], each employee establishes a unique social exchange relationship with his or her supervisor, and the quality of this leader-member exchange is generally found to be positively related to employees job attitudes and behaviours.

Harris, Kenneth, J., Wheeler, Anthony, R., & Kacmar, Michele, K., (2009), in their research, titled as Leadermember exchange and empowerment: Direct and interactive effects on job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and performance find that LMX positively influences employee attitudes towards organization and Job.

Higher quality of LMX between leader and followers, enhance organizational commitment, increase job satisfaction, and effect followers job performance (Duong 2011).

Harris et al (2009) conducted research based on job satisfaction and find that LMX is surely and significantly related to job satisfaction. Similarly, Fisk and Friesen (2012) in their research found that LMX quality strengthen job satisfaction of employees.

A persons actuality is a good citizen which promotes the environment of welfare and well-being of the larger collective. Support for this relationship was provided by Hackett, Farh, Song, and Lapierre (2003), who reported a meta-analytic mean correlation of .32 between LMX and Job attitudes of employees.

Research shows that high-quality LMX relationships are associated with higher ratings of employee performance by management than low-quality relationships. That is, employees involved in high-quality relationships with their supervisors are individuals who regularly and accurately perform their essential job duties (Duarte, Goodson, & Klich, 1993; Duchon et al., 1986; Graen & Ginsburgh, 1977). Moreover, members who are known to be excellent performers often make ideal candidates for high-quality relationships with leaders. In addition, job performance is completely job-related; therefore, high job performance is likely to be reported when there is a high degree of contribution in the LMX relationship.

In line with previous findings and above arguments, we aggregately predict the following hypothesis:- H9.Leader Member-Exchange meditate between Paternalistic Leadership and Job Satisfaction

H10.Leader Member-Exchange meditate between Paternalistic Leadership and Affective Organizational Commitment

H11.Leader Member-Exchange meditate between Paternalistic Leadership and Job Performance

2.12 RESEARCH FRAMEWORK

2.13 HYPOTHESIS H1. Paternalistic Leadership has Positive Impact on Leader-Member ExchangeH2. Power Distance Moderates the Relationship between Paternalistic Leadership and Leader-Member ExchangeH3.Paternalistic Leadership has Positive Impact on Job SatisfactionH4.Paternalistic Leadership has Positive Impact on Affective OrganizationalCommitmentH5.Paternalistic Leadership has Positive Impact on Job PerformanceH6.Leader Member-Exchange has Positive Impact on Job SatisfactionH7.Leader Member-Exchange has Positive Impact on Affective Organizational CommitmentH8.Leader Member-Exchange has Positive Impact on Job PerformanceH9.Leader Member-Exchange meditate between Paternalistic Leadership and Job Satisfaction

H10.Leader Member-Exchange meditate between Paternalistic Leadership and Organizational Commitment

H11.Leader Member-Exchange meditate between Paternalistic Leadership and Job Performance3. METHODOLOGY3.1 Research Design

3.1.1 Type of StudyThis is a causal and exploratory research, in which with the help of data collected from primary source, we will try to explore the impact of PL on employees outcomes through LMX. Power Distance will be tested as moderator between PL and LMX.

3.1.2 Unit of Analysis

Unit of analysis of this study will be individuals, specifically those who are working in any organization. As the proposed research model will be tested in organizational settings. 3.1.3 Time HorizonThis study will cross sectional one, as the required data from targeted respondents will be collected at only once during data collection phase.3.1.4 Research Interference

There will be no interference of researcher in this field study as the researcher will act only as measuring instrument during the whole research process. 3.2 Population and Sample3.2.1 Population

The population for proposed study model will be employees of different public sector organizations of Pakistan. The main reason of selection of these organizational setups is vertical structure in organizational hierarch. Vertical organizational structures are characterized by few people at the top and increasing numbers of people in middle management and lower level positions. In other words, a few people make policy and decisions, and many people carry them out. Governments often lean toward them because they create very defined job scopes and powers, each person has a clear role to play. Before joining any public sector organization every candidate keeps in mind this vertical structure and obedience accordingly. Thus our hypothesized variable of power distance especially high power distance will be most appropriate moderator. 3.2.2 Sampling

Non-probability sampling technique was chosen because the sampling frame covers a huge amount of suitable respondents. This study is using convenience sampling. Convenience sampling is non-probability sampling methods where subjects are choose on due to their ease of access and closeness to the investigator. 400 questionnaires are proposed to be distributed. Response rate is expected to almost 77 %, which will be sufficient sample size for analysis of data.Research access will assured through personal and professional contacts of the author who will make these organizational units available for sampling. 3.3 Scales Used for Measurement of Variables 3.3.1 Paternalistic Leadership (PL)

To measure Paternalistic Leadership (PL) 13 items scale by (Aycan, 2005) will be used. The Cronbachs Alpha of this scale is ________. A sample question is My manager participates in his/her employees special days (e.g., weddings, funerals, etc.). 3.3.2 Leader-Member Exchange (LMX)To measure Leader Member Exchange (LMX), 6 items, scale developed by Graen, Novak & Sommerkamp, (1982 & 1995) will be used. The Cronbachs Alpha of this scale ______. A Sample question is My supervisor understands my problems and needs.3.3.3 Power Distance (PD)

To measure the moderating effect of PD, 7 items, likert scale by Kirkman et al. (2009) will be used. . The Cronbachs Alpha of this scale ______. A Sample question of this scale is Employees should not express disagreements with their managers.3.3.4 Job Satisfaction (JS)

Job Satisfaction was measured with 5 items scale developed by Brayfield and Rothes (1951). The Cronbachs Alpha of this scale ______. Two sample questions are as under:-

I like my job better than the average worker does.

I definitely dislike my job (reverse coded).

3.3.5 Affective Organization Commitment (OC)

This variable will be measure with 7 items scale developed by Allen and Meyer, 1990. The Cronbachs Alpha of this scale ______. Sample question of this scale is I really feel as if this organizations problems are my own. 3.3.6 Job Performance (JP)

Employee performance will be measured with the help of scale developed by Thomas and Jamie, (2004). The Cronbachs Alpha of this scale ______. Sample question of this scale is Do you feel enthusiastic and motivated while coming to the office?3.4 Data Analysis Procedures

Data will be analyzed with the help of SPS for this purpose following procedure and measurements will be taken:-

a. Outlier

b. Missing Values

c. Frequency Distribution

d. Descriptive Analysis

4. TIME FRAME OF RESEARCH Activity DescriptionDateDuration

FromTill

Introduction of Research Model and Definitions of Variable01-Sep-201414 Sep 20142 weeks

Literature Review15 Sep 201412 Oct 20144 weeks

Data Collection13 Oct 201407 Dec 20148 weeks

Data Analysis08 Dec 201422 Dec 201415 days

Methodology23 Dec 201406 Jan 201515 days

Discussion07 Jan 201514 Jan 201501 week

Summary, Conclusion and Recommendations15 Jan 201530 Jan 201515 ays

5. REFERENCES Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63,118.

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1996). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: an examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 252276.

Aryee, S., Sun, L.Y., Chen, Z.X.G., & Debrah, Y.A. (2008). Abusive supervision and contextual performance: The mediating role of emotional exhaustion and the moderating role of work unit structure. Management and Organization Review, 4, 393411.

Aycan, Z. (2006). Paternalism: Towards conceptual refinement and operationalization. InYang, K. K. Hwang, & U. Kim (Eds.). Scientific Advances in Indigenous Psychologies: Empirical, Philosophical, and Cultural Contributions: 445-466.

Aycan, Z., Kanungo, R., Mendonca, M., Yu, K., Deller, J., Stahl, G., & Kurshid, A. (2000). Impact of culture on human resource management practices: A 10 country comparison. Applied Psychology, 49(1), 192-221.

Bielby, D. D. (1992). Commitment to work and family. Annual Review of Sociology, 18, 281301

Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.

Bochner, S., & Hesketh, B. 1994. Power distance, individualism/collectivism, and job-related attitudes in a culturally diverse work group. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 25: 233-257.

Botero, I. C., & Van Dyne, L. 2009. Employee voice behavior: Interactive effects of LMX and power distance in the United States and Colombia. Management Communication Quarterly, 23: 84-104.

Brief, A.P., & Motowidlo, S.J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviours. Academy of Management Review, 11, 710725.

Buchanan, Bruce: Building Organizational Commitment: The Socialization of Managers in Work Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly 19 (1974): 533-546.

Chan , S. H., & Mak, W. (2012). Benevolent leadership and follower performance The mediating role of leadermember exchange (LMX). Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 285301.

Cheng, B. S., Chou, L. F. & Farh, J. L. (2000). A triad model of paternalistic leadership: The constructs and measurement. Indigenous Research in Chinese Societies, 14, 3-64.

Cheng, B., L. F. Chou, Tsung Yu Wu, M. Huang and J. Farh: 2004, Paternalistic Leadership and Subordinate Responses: Establishing a Leadership Model in Chinese Organizations, Asian Journal of Social Psychology 7(1), 89117.

Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. 1975. A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process.

Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. 1986. Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of Management Review, 11: 618-634.

Duarte, N. T., Goodson, J. R., & Klich, N.R. (1993). How do I like thee? Let me appraise the ways. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 239-249.

Duchon, D., Green, S. G., & Taber, T. D. (1986). Vertical dyad linkage: A longitudinal assessment of antecedents, measures and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 56-60.

Duong, Julie, (2011), Leaders conceptions and evaluations of followers as antecedents of leadership style, leader-member exchange, and employee outcomes, Unpublished doctoral thesis, doi: 10.10061/j.sbpro.2012.03.225

Farh, J., Hackett, R. D., & Liang, J. 2007. Individual-level cultural values as moderators of perceived organizational support-employee outcome relationships in China: Comparing the effects of power distance and traditionality. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 715-729.

Farris, Jeremy, R., (2012), Organizational commitment and job satisfaction: A quantitative investigation of the relationships between affective, continuance, and normative constructs. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Capella University, Minneapolis.

Fisk, Glenda, M., & Friesen Jared, P. (2012), Perceptions of leader emotion regulation and LMX as predictors of followers' job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviors, The leadership Quarterly.(23) 1-12.

Gadot, E. V. (2007), Leadership style, organizational politics, and employees' performance: An empirical examination of two competing models. Personnel Review, Volume 36, No. 5, pp. 661-683.

Gelfand, M. J., Erez, M. & Aycan, Z. (2007). Cross-Cultural organizational behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58(1), 479-514.

Gerstner, C. R. & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of Leader-Member-Exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 827-844.

Golden, Timothy, D., & Veiga, John, F., (2008), The impact of superiorsubordinate relationships on the commitment, job satisfaction, and performance of virtual workers, The Leadership Quarterly, 19: 7788.

Graen, G. B, & Ginsburgh, S. (1977). Job resignation as a function of role orientation and leader acceptance: A longitudinal investigation of organizational assimilation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 19, 1-12.

Graen, G. B, Liden, R., & Hoel, W. (1982). Role of leadership in the employee withdrawal process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 868-872.

Graen, G. B., & Cashman, J. 1975. A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations. A developmental approach. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership frontiers,143-165.

Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In L. Cummings & B. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior 9, 175 208.

Graen, G.B. and Uhl-Bien, M. (1995) Relationship-based approach to leadership: development of leadermember exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective, The Leadership Quarterly 6(2): 219247.

Gruneberg, M. M. (1979). Understanding job satisfaction. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62(3), 235-248.

Hackett, R. D. (1989). Work attitudes and employee absenteeism: A synthesis of literature.

Hackett, R. D., Farh, J.-L., Song, L. J., & Lapierre, L. M. (2003). LMX and organizational citizenship behavior: Examining the links within and across Western and Chinese samples. In G. Graen (Ed.), Dealing with diversity: LMX leadership The series, 1: 219 263.

Hall, Douglas T., and Schneider, Benjamin: Correlates of Organizational Identification as a Function of Career Pattern and Organizational Type. Administrative Science Quarterly,17: 340-350.

Harris, Jeremy, R., (2012), Organizational commitment and job satisfaction: A quantitative investigation of the relationships between affective, continuance, and normative constructs. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Capella University, Minneapolis.

Harris, Kenneth, J., Wheeler, Anthony, R., & Kacmar, Michele, K., (2009), Leadermember exchange and empowerment: Direct and interactive effects on job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 20: 371-382.

Henderson, D. J., Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H., & Tetrick, L. E. (2008). Leader-member exchange, differentiation, and psychological contract fulfillment: A multilevel examination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1208-1219.

Herman & Lam, Wing, (2008), 'Transformational leadership and turnover: The role of LMX and organizational commitment. Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, 93, 1208-1219.

Hofstede G (1980). Cultures Consequences: International Differences in Work Related Values. Newbury Park. p.186.

Hofstede G (2003). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Sage publications.

Hofstede, G. 1980. Cultures consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. 1991. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill

Hofstede, G. 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.

Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leader-member exchange and citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 269-277.

Kabasakal, H. and Bodur, M. (2002) Arabic cluster: a bridge between east and west, Journal of World Business 37(1): 4054.

Kang, Dae-seok, Stewart, Jim, & Kim, Hayeon, (2011), The effects of perceived external prestige, ethical organizational climate, and leader-member exchange (LMX) quality on employees commitments and their subsequent attitudes, Personnel Review, 40 (6): 761-784.

Kanter, R. 1988. When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective, and social conditions for innovation in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 10: 169211.

Katz, D. 1964. The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral Science, 9: 131 133. Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. 1993. Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt, W. C. Borman, & Associates (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations: 7198.

Kim, H. (2012). Transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behavior in the public sector in South Korea: the mediating role of affective commitment. Local Government Studies, 38(6), 867892.

Kirkman, B. L., Chen, G., Farh, J. L., Chen, Z. X., & Lowe, K. B. 2009. Individual power distance orientation and follower reactions to transformational leaders: A cross-level, cross-cultural examination. Academy of Management Journal, 52: 744-764.

Kirkman, B.L., Lowe, K.B., & Gibson, C.B. (2006). A quarter century of Cultures Consequences: A review of empirical research incorporating Hofstedes cultural values framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 285320.

Kohn, M. and Schooler, C. (1973). Occupational experience and psychological functioning: An assessment of reciprocal effects. American Sociological Review, 38, 97-118.

Liao, Shu-Hsien, Hu, Da-Chian, & Chung, Hui-Ying, (2009), The relationship between leader member relations, job satisfaction and organizational commitment in international tourist hotels in Taiwan, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20 (8): 1810-1826.

Liden, R. C., & Graen, G. (1980). Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 451-465.

Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. 1998. Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24: 43-72.

Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader-member exchange theory: The past and potential for the future. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 15, 47-119.

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, 86, 407-416.

Liden, R., & Graen, G. B. 1980. Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 23: 431-465.

Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology: 12971343.

Luthans, E. (1998) Organizational Behavior Irwin/McGraw Hill, New York.

Mardanov, Ismatilla, T., Maertz, Carl,. P., & Sterrett, Jack. L., (2008), Leader-member exchange and job satisfaction, Journal of Leadership Studies, 2 (2): 63-82.

Mather, P., Aycan, Z. & Kanungo, R. N. (1996). Work cultures in Indian organizations: A comparison between public and private sector. Psychology and Developing Societies, 8(2), 199-223

McFarlane Shore, L., Newton, L. A. & Thornton, G. C. (1990). Job and organizational attitudes in relation to employee behavioral intention. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11: (57-67).

Meyer, John P., and Allen, Natalie J (1984). Testing the Side-Bet Theory of Organizational Commitment: Some Methodological Considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology 69 372-378.

Mosadegh Rad, A. M., & Yarmohammadian, M. H. 2006. A study of relationship between managers leadership style and employees job satisfaction. Leadership in Health Services, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. xi-xxviii.

Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. 1994. Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79: 475 480.

Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. M., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee-organizational linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic.

Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224247.

Mowday, Robert T., Porter, Lyman W., and Steers, Richard M.: Employee-Organization Linkages: The Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism, and Turnover, Academic Press, New York. 1982.

Mwita, J. I. (2000), Performance management model: A system-based approach to system quality. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, Volume 13, No. 1, pp. 19-37.

Nemiroff, P. M. & Ford, D. L. (1976). Task effectiveness and human fulfillment in organizations: A review and development of a conceptual contingency model. Academy of Management Review, 1, 69-82.

OConnor, Christine & Srinivasan, Sanjeev, (2010), Influence of employment type of LMX, organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Employment Relations Record, 10 (2): 75-93.

Organ, D.W. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome, Lexington Books

Padavic, I., & Earnest, W. R. (1994). Paternalism as a component of managerial strategy. Social Science Journal, 31(4), 389-356.

Paa, S. F., Kabasakal, H. & Bodur, M. (2001). Society, organizations and leadership in Turkey. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50(4), 559-589.

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), 264-279.

Pellegrini, E. K. & Scandura, T. A. (2008). Paternalistic leadership: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Management, 34(3), 566-593.

Perera, M. H. B; Mathews, M. R., (1990). The cultural relativity on accounting and international patterns of social. Accounting. Advances in International Accounting; III: 215-25.

Pettit, J.D., Goris, J. R. & Vaught, B.C. (1997). An examination of organizational communication as a moderator of the relationship between job performance and job satisfaction. Journal of Business Communication, 34(1), 81-98.

Pillai, R., Scandura, T. A., & Williams, E. A. (1999). Leadership and organizational justice: Similarities and differences across cultures. Journal of International Business Studies, 30, 763-779.

Porter, L.W., Steers, R.M., Mowday, R.T., and Boulian, P.V. (1974). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 603-609.

R. T. Mowday, L. W. Porter and R. M. Steers, Employee-Organization Linkages: The Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism and Turnover, Academic Press, Inc., New York, 1982.

Redding, G. (1990), The Spirit of Chinese Capitalism.

Scandura, T. A., & Grean, G. B. (1984). Moderating effects of initial leader-member exchange status on the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 428-436.

Schyns, B., & Day, D. V. (2010). Critique and review of leader-member exchange theory: Issues of agreement, consensus, and excellence. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 19, 1-29.

Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. 1994. Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 580607.

Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Process and structure in leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Review, 22, 522-552.

Steers, R. M. (1976). Organizational effectiveness: A behavioral view. Santa Monica: Goodyear Publishing Company.

Tepper, B.J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33, 261289.

Triandis, H.C. (1994). Culture and social behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill. Tsui, A.S., Egan, T.D., & OReilly, C.A. (1992). Being different: Relational demography and organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 549579.

Truckenbrodt, Yolanda, B., (2000), The relationship between leader-member exchange and commitment and organizational citizenship behavior, Acquisition Review Quarterly, Summer: 233-244.

Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational Leadership Theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 654-676.

Vecchio, R., & Gobdel, B. (1984). The vertical dyad linkage model of leadership: Problems and prospects. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 5-20.

Vidyarthi, P. R., Liden, R. C., Anand, S., Erdogan, B., & Ghosh, S. (2010). Where do I stand? Examining the effects of leader-member exchange social comparison on employee work behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 849-861.

Webster, (1975), Websters dictionary. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster Westwood R (1997). Harmony and patriarchy: The cultural basis for paternalistic headship among the verses Chinese. Organization Studies, 18(3): 445-480

West, M. A., & Farr, J. L. 1989. Innovation at work: Psychological perspectives. Social Behavior, 4: 1530.

Wiener, Y. (1982). Commitment in organizations: A normative view. Academy of Management Review, 7, 418-428.

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.

Wolfe Morrison, E. (1994). Role definitions and organizational citizenship behaviour: The importance of the employees perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 15431567.

6. APPENDIXES

Power Distance

Paternalistic

Leadership

Job Satisfaction

Organizational Commitment

Leader-Member Exchange (LMX)

Job Performance

e.Reliability Test

f.One-Way Anova

g.Correlation Analysis

h.Regression Analysis

13 | Page