Next Article in Journal
Field Test on Soybean-Urease Induced Calcite Precipitation (SICP) for Desert Sand Stabilization against the Wind-Induced Erosion
Next Article in Special Issue
Sustainable Career Development for College Students: An Inquiry into SCCT-Based Career Decision-Making
Previous Article in Journal
Utilizing a Domestic Water Tank to Make the Air Conditioning System in Residential Buildings More Sustainable in Hot Regions
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Influence of Psychological Distance on the Challenging Moral Decision Support of Sports Majors in Internet of Things and Machine Learning
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 22
10.3390/su142215473
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Modeling the Influence of Paternalistic Leadership and Personality Characteristics on Alienation and Organizational Culture in the Aviation Industry of Pakistan: The Mediating Role of Cohesiveness

by
Farrukh Shahzad
1,
Muhammad Farrukh Shahzad
2,
Azer Dilanchiev
3 and
Muhammad Irfan
4,5,6,*
1
School of Economics and Management, Guangdong University of Petrochemical Technology, Maoming 525000, China
2
School of Economics and Management, Beijing University of Technology, Beijing 100124, China
3
Faculty of Business and Technologies, International Black Sea University, Tbilisi 0162, Georgia
4
School of Management and Economics, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China
5
Center for Energy and Environment Policy Research, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China
6
Department of Business Administration, ILMA University, Karachi 75190, Pakistan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(22), 15473; https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215473
Submission received: 11 August 2022 / Revised: 15 October 2022 / Accepted: 19 October 2022 / Published: 21 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Organizational Behavior and Psychological Research for Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Espousing the theoretical framework of singling theory and social exchange theory, the current study examines the less explored topic of paternalistic leadership. This study contributed by scrutinizing the relationship between paternalistic leadership, personality characteristics, alienation, and organizational climate through the mediating role of cohesiveness. A convenience sampling technique was applied for this study. Data was collected through an adopted questionnaire from 723 respondents. A variance-based structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) was used for testing the proposed structural model. Results revealed that paternalistic leadership and personality characteristics significantly and positively impact alienation and organizational climate. Furthermore, cohesiveness mediates the relationship between personality characteristics, paternalistic leadership, alienation, and organizational climate. Based on research findings, essential theoretical and managerial aspects with major policy-making implications are discussed in the study.

1. Introduction

For efficient processes, air traffic controllers are considered major representatives in air traffic management and transportation. These air traffic controllers are accountable for the possession of air traffic orderliness and the timely arrival and departure of aircraft [1]. Therefore air traffic-related issues and mishaps can be tackled without delay [2]. When an individual has an excessive workload, high job requirements such as dealing with heavy machinery, strict time slots, and extreme maintenance pressure [3]. These factors contribute to the creation of a unique environment that makes discussion of current issues necessary. The current study focuses on how paternalistic leadership and personality positive characteristics affect the alienation and organizational climate in terms of cohesiveness in the aviation industry. However, a narrow study has been conducted on these constructs in earlier research, which aims to check how to control these constructs efficiently in such an organizational environment [4].
Paternalistic leadership is defined as an approach in which the leader plays the role of patriarch. Through this approach, an individual creates an environment where all the members work as a collective family [5]. Paternalistic leadership is categorized into authoritarianism, benevolence, and morality. According to [6] authoritarian leadership is defined as exercising control and authority over employees or subordinates. Benevolent leaders work for employees’ well-being and concerns [7]. In the last dimension of paternalistic leadership, morality is stated as those with high ethical and moral values, considered virtuous leadership [8]. The interpretation of paternalistic leadership changes between the different states of the world. A paternalistic leadership may be regarded as the pair of “exploit and operate” or authoritative depending on the type of local traditions and customs [9]. However, paternalistic leadership is deliberated as the most effective leadership dimension in the cultural setting and a way to evaluate achievements [10]. Due to authoritative and formal organizational work environments, paternalistic leaders (authoritarian) promote alienated behavior among employees. It impairs performance, which breeds employee disloyalty and ambivalence toward achieving their goals [11]. The current research argues how paternalistic leadership is interpreted in the aviation industry and establishes a link with the alienation, personality positive characteristics and organizational climate in the Pakistani context.
Furthermore, work alienation is defined as a set of behavior in which employees show psychological disconnection from their work and the organization. Workplace alienation occurs in circumstances when a worker loses track of supervision due to another person’s employment practices, and they possess the capacity to represent me on the job [12]. Alienated behavior of employees can be enhanced due to an adverse organizational climate. An employee’s perception of and feelings about their work can be referred to as the organizational climate. However, prior research suggested that the organizations followed an ethical workplace environment where the manager has created fair and accountable standards. Through effective communication channels and trustworthy relationships, employees would ultimately feel more privileged, motivated, and enthusiastic about their job [13].
Additionally, cohesiveness is a middle part of work as a mediator, which creates a link between positive personality characteristics, alienation, organizational culture, and paternalistic leadership as outcomes. Cohesiveness is referred to the degree of pressure that links the teammates and the group work aim [14]. Past research suggested that the term cohesiveness directly affects organizational climate and team performance [15]. When the workplace environment is supportive and friendly, employees exhibit more team spirit to perform well. Additionally, in this study, the two theories that are singling theory (ST) and social exchange theory (SET) are applied because paternalistic leadership with positive personality characteristics gives autonomy to their employees and empowers them for their goal achievement [16]. Although paternalistic leaders respect their staff members like their children, they become motivated and loyal to their leaders and organization to get a positive response. For this reason, the social relationship between alienated employees is best described by the social exchange theory (who feel disconnected from the values, norms, practices, and social relations of their network or society for plenty of social structural reasons) [17].
Despite earlier researchers’ long-standing interest, the combined effect of paternalistic leadership and personality positive characteristics on alienation, and organizational climate with the mediating role of cohesiveness has never been studied in the aviation industry of Pakistan. Furthermore, the relationship between personality characteristics with task alienation has not been discussed yet in previous studies in the cultural environment of Pakistan. In this regard, the current study will explore how paternalistic leadership and personality characteristics help to diminish workplace alienation and improve the organizational climate through team cohesion in the aviation industry.

2. Review of Literature and Hypothesis Development

2.1. Paternalistic Leadership and Alienation

Work alienation is stated as an approach in the direction of the task sphere, which reverses to describe intellectual disconnection from the corporation or company [18]. Work alienation occurs in a status where the worker’s misplaced supervision by the procedure of someone’s employment, and the ability to represent me at the task [12]. Furthermore, authoritarian leadership’s basic factor or attribute is pure and complete authorization and supervision by an assistant. As a result of the absenteeism of authority and freedom underneath authoritarian leadership, workers can practice work alienation [19]. Persistent with this aspect, many investigations have organized that the chain of command of authority is significantly linked with employee task alienation [20]. In line with past investigations and this controversy, the various presumptions are hypothesized: work alienation expresses a mindset to be intellectually unattached from task actions or exercises and contexts, which negatively influences somebody or a person’s emotional and intellectual distraction and involvement with their task.
However, the leader-member exchange theory (LMX) states that leaders and members build mutual relationships based on their personal interactions that create the bad relationship between them are alienation and authoritarianism [17]. The negative relationship ruins the friendly workplace culture and fosters employee mistrust, disloyalty, and disengagement [21]. Moreover, paternalistic leadership is common in Asian countries, where leaders show authoritative behavior with their subordinates to complete their tasks [22]. Instead of following set norms, employees do not all have the same autonomy to engage in decision-making. However, due to paternalistic leadership, alienated employees are not passive, dull and show disengagement towards their organization [18]. Another study has defined the concept of work alienation which is stated as behavior that workers care less about the task, and alienated workers frequently distanced themselves from the organization [23]. It is advised that employees who have been alienated at work provide feedback to a specific corporate promoter on how well followers and leaders interact with one another. As a result, employees under authoritarian management are more likely to engage in this alienating behavior, which may be strongly associated with employees’ unstable attitudes and behavior [24].
Task alienation is stated as a behavior forward the task range that is the image that expresses psychological disconnection from the firm [25]. Task alienation occurs when employees are unwilling to take an interest in organizational activities due to the supervisor’s negative behavior. If the environment of an organization is unsupportive, then workplace alienation is increased, hindering employees’ creativity, performance, and productivity [26]. According to the study, [27] a lack of authority and independence at the task is a primary cause of task alienation. If a leader embraces an authoritarian management style, he has full authority to manage the capital resources without any obstacles. This behavior motivates the alienated employees at the bank to show disinterest, fickleness and less involvement in their job. Because authority and independence are absent under authoritarian leadership, employees can get through patient task alienation. The essential qualities of authoritarian leadership are full force or command by assistants [28]. In keeping with this point, a figure and account of research have shown that the paternalistic leadership order or ranking of control is positively linked or correlated with the workers’ task alienation. While considering the above literature arguments, it is proposed that,
Hypothesis H1: 
Paternalistic leadership positively impacts the alienation.

2.2. Paternalistic Leadership and Organizational Climate

Paternalistic leadership is described as a management style in which a manager exercises fatherly authority over their employees in an effort to win their respect and trust [7]. However, making the employees trustworthy and a loyal organizational climate plays an important role to maintain a positive environment in the aviation industry. If the environment is not supportive and friendly, employees become dissatisfied and disloyal to the employer and organization [29]. Additionally, paternalistic leadership is referred to as a strong field and authority with fatherly benevolence and moral integrity couched in an intimate environment [30]. There are three critical dimensions of paternalistic management: moral, benevolence, and authoritarian [31]. In the moral dimension, leaders with high moral and ethical values create a supportive and friendly working environment [32]. So, employees can work with more deliberation and consistency rather than engage in counterproductive activities. Past research suggested that organizations that follow strict rules and regulations, proper reporting structures, and communication channels have an ethical work climate [33]. It helps the managers and their subordinates work under a single command and operate in formal order without major delays.
According to the Social Identity Theory, followers’ actions under the rule of harsh and punishing leaders can be adversely affected [34]. Specifically, authoritarian leaders’ oppressive and punishing behaviors become a collective phenomenon within the enterprise and might create bad situations for a forgiveness climate. Therefore, forgiveness for effective management is quite critical for enterprises [35]. Nonetheless, authoritarian leaders prefer punishment over forgiveness and use their authority as a stress device. Several studies reveal that authoritarian leadership negatively affects some organizational climates (e.g., moral weather) [36]. Depending on the arguments mentioned above, we anticipate that authoritarian leadership negatively affects the forgiveness climate.
In paternalistic culture, the dad and mom and the elderly circle of relatives protect the welfare of their younger individuals, appearing on their choices, disciplining their activities, and appearing on their behalf [37]. Paternalist leadership is the leadership style wherein a manager directs or controls subordinates for self-interest. The paternalistic chief even takes elements inside the private lives of subordinates, treats them like a father and protects them [38]. Paternalistic leadership with the qualities of benevolent leaders generates obligation and reaction or sensitivity of faith in their employees, which in turn motivates employees to interchange in commonly valuable ways such as job fulfillment, work engagement, job achievements, and faith [39]. Contrary, when a leader works for the well-being of employees and treats them as family members, workers become satisfied and loyal to their organization [23]. This study investigates the interrelationship between paternalistic leadership and organizational climate and argues that paternalistic leaders positively impact organizational climate, so we made a hypothesis.
Hypothesis H2: 
Paternalistic leadership significantly impacts the organizational climate.

2.3. Personality Positive Characteristics and Alienation

Personality positive characteristics are defined as the traits that are distinct among individuals. Human beings have different personality aspects that depend on their nature, culture, and instinct [40]. However, past research [28] showed that people with positive personality traits are more proactive, enthusiastic and optimistic in their lives. It includes the following components: extroversion, openness to experience, self-esteem and optimism. The energetic components are composed of extroversion and openness, which are stated by a sequence of essential characteristics. Because of these points, past research suggested that extroverted and outgoing employees give more value to others than focusing on themselves [41]. Ultimately, employees’ extrovert behavior would help overcome the supervisor’s alienated attitude and negative remarks. A study was conducted in the banking sector to measure the link between workplace alienation and the positive personality traits of employees. However, the result shows that emotionally stable employees with high morale and a positive attitude towards their job feel less alienated from the supervisor [42]. A positive attitude keeps employees internally motivated, satisfied and proactive in performing their tasks without delay.
According to the Social Identity Theory, benevolent leaders who’ve less control over workers and show positive behavior can help to do their employees be motivated and minimize alienated behavior [34]. Specifically, managers with positive personality attributes create a friendly and creative work environment where everyone wants to become fully dedicated and tries to minimize alienated behavior [43]. From the perspective of workplace alienation, because managers try to enforce laws and regulations without understanding the perspectives of their subordinates, most employees in the government sector constantly feel less dedicated and faithful to them [44]. Moreover, earlier research shows that employees with high self-esteem show less alienation towards their job because when employees are less valued by their bosses, it affects their engagement level and loyalty [45]. Moreover, research supported the argument that employees with positive personality traits, i.e., proactive and extrovert (who are social and lively to work with others rather than alone), are more productive and help minimize alienated behavior [46]. Therefore, it is hypothesized that positive personality characteristics have a significant relationship with alienation from the abovementioned discussion.
Hypothesis H3: 
Personality positive characteristics (PPE) positively impact the alienation.

2.4. Personality Positive Characteristics and Organizational Climate

Organizational climate is considered an instrument that helps the employees understand the environment to work effectively without problems. It is preferred how employees feel and understand the organizational climate [47]. It all depends on the behavior and personality traits of concerned employees working in the organization. Climate and culture in any organization are interlinked phenomena because culture helps to identify the workplace values, norms and ethics [48]. The organization followed an ethical workplace environment where the manager has created fair and accountable standards, effective communication channels and trustworthy mutual relationships. In that case, employees ultimately feel more privileged, motivated and enthusiastic about their job [49]. Organizational culture refers back to the perspectives of personnel concerning their employer’s regulations, processes, norms, and values within an ethical context. Likewise, it is described as the organization’s work surroundings that famous the ethical implications of organizational rules and practices [50].
Corporate practices in the ethical results body show the moral working climate. Meanwhile, it is important to understand employees’ (supportive, rigid or centralized) perceptions regarding the working environment and their relationship with colleagues and managers. So, an employee with positive personality traits (energetic, calm, friendly, and supportive) can bear all the circumstances smoothly [51]. Additionally, organizational environment and personality traits are interlinked as employees with a calm and friendly nature can survive easily in any situation and do not blame their mistakes. Additionally, past studies suggested that the climate of an organization and employee’s behavior directly impact each other because if the employee has a proactive personality trait can easily hinder the negative work-related environment without any anger or negative remarks [52]. The ethical culture additionally directs personnel concerning organizational ethical problems. The moral climate creates a commonplace into how issues may be addressed within ethical limits. The ethical climate depends on leaders’ ethical conduct and employees’ behavior. Moreover, a survey was conducted to measure the personality traits among airline industries, and the results revealed that employees with a positive attitude, extroverts and social could easily adjust to challenging cultures [53]. Employees with aggressive attitudes do not have good temperaments for achieving their goals in opposite circumstances, where an unsupportive work climate is present, and they are unable to adapt to challenging circumstances [54]. Further, if employees have high self-esteem, they are unwilling to accept orders and negative remarks from supervisors [27]. So, it is concluded that self-esteem and organizational climate are negatively related to each other.
In order to get a clear understanding, a recent survey was conducted in the Indian airline industry to measure the link between positive personality traits and an authoritative workplace environment. The findings showed that people who work in an authoritarian atmosphere, which lacks autonomy for decision-making and adheres to a strict hierarchy, are ultimately demotivated [55]. According to a survey of the Bangladeshi garment sector, employees are more productive and engaged when they possess good personality attributes, can deal with challenging circumstances and are consistently inwardly motivated to complete tasks with dedication [56]. However, this upbeat outlook enables the staff to manage their errors and develop a growth-oriented mindset. Another study has confirmed that extrovert employees and an ethical workplace environment have a good association since extroverts are social people who want to live in groups and despise loneliness [57]. These workers enjoy working and living in groups, delegating jobs with the aid of leaders and completing their assignments without difficulty or controversy. A recent study in the banking industry found that employees tend to be calm, sociable, loyal, internally driven, and honest, among other favorable attributes. They possess the ability to develop their position in challenging circumstances without losing hope and can endure in any circumstance [58]. Hence, it is concluded from the above discussion that personality positive characteristics create a positive relationship with the organizational climate. So, it is hypothesized that,
Hypothesis H4: 
Personality positive characteristics (PPE) positively impact the organizational climate.

2.5. Mediating Role of Cohesiveness

The term cohesiveness is defined as a force in which employees are willing to participate as team members and remain enthusiastic to work collectively [59]. Most cohesive workers value other team members to get a trustworthy relationship among them. Past research suggested that cohesiveness and paternalistic leadership had negatively related to each other as paternal leaders have the power and authority to work with others by enforcing laws and orders [60]. The term paternalistic leadership is derived from the Chinese and Taoism culture. To implement them in difficult situations, leaders show strict rules and authority with fatherly and kind behavior [61]. Paternalistic leadership has focused on three dimensions: authoritarianism, morality, and benevolence. All of them influence cohesiveness. A previous study suggested that authoritarian leaders created a hostile work environment through power and authority, which hinders the employee’s commitment, arouses disloyalty, and lack of interest in teamwork to minimize the team cohesiveness [3]. From an organizational cohesiveness perspective, authoritarian leaders create adverse relations with team cohesion because they create unfavorable conditions where team members focus on individual performance rather than collective organizational goal achievement [62].
Furthermore, past research argues that cohesiveness and organizational climate have a positive relationship as the employees in the banking sector depict more team cohesion if an ethical work climate is provided. In this way, employees get motivated to perform their tasks with team member collaboration [63]. Accordingly, workers will realize that their needs are to collaborate with managers to build a collaborative organizational climate to make better workers significant addition to the organization [64]. So, it is suggested that commitment and organizational commitment are positively interlinked. A recent study revealed that organizational climate is not only interlinked with universal comfort rather than to numerous features of work comfort i.e., social or mutual interlinks and team cohesion [65]. Organizations with a massive side by the side of team cohesion, up to standard to sustain powerful involvement beside one and all, will oppose whatever action frightens this uncertainty. A sky-scraping of cohesion may rapidly support workers to connect with one another’s coordinated alliance or association to create a supportive climate [66]. So, it is determined that cohesiveness is positively related to the organizational climate.
In addition, the degree of ties or connections between team members is referred to as team cohesion. Team procedures are starting to be significantly impacted by team cohesion [67]. Thus, it examines the possible mediating effect of a team of team cohesion on the relationship between paternalistic leadership, alienation, and organizational climate. First, benevolent leadership acts positively with the employees in turn, and employees feel a supportive corporate environment, more engaged and less alienated in return [68]. Cohesion will automatically become high if employees show high and positive team morale. So, employees have demonstrated high effectiveness in a team with cohesion. Second, authoritarian leadership generally disintegrates such cohesion and rouses negative emotions, but when team cohesion is more, the denial of authoritarian leadership on cumulative effectiveness will be powerless [69]. These teams work well together and operate more effectively than those led by autocratic authority. Past studies have shown that team cohesion has an essential effect on team development. The team tightened as an individual, the most likely entity assumptions about their team’s capability could pass among individuals and build team-level belief and conduct [70]. Specifically, it may be familiar in cohesive teams, where team persons are enchanted with everyone, that group persons are too many flats to lessen the alienation into organizational commitment and a healthy organizational climate [71]. Therefore, it is proposed that a great level of team cohesion as a mediator will lessen the influence of alienation and make an efficient organizational climate. So, the following hypothesis is proposed,
Hypothesis H5: 
Cohesiveness mediates the relationship between paternalistic leadership, personality positive characteristics, alienation, and organizational climate.
The Theoretical model framework is presented in Figure 1.

3. Materials and Method

This study focuses on the essential factors contributing to alienation and organizational climate in the aviation industry. In the rapidly changing market environment, innovation has become crucial for organizations to gain a competitive advantage [72]. Air transport lines are creative and innovative, demanding strong personalities positive characteristics and paternalistic leadership in skills, knowledge, and methods. The circulation of new information and process method is the core part of the Air transport sector which will come from the different team members of the projects. But Pakistan lacks ideas and continues to use outdated technology and it is considered an underdeveloped country in the aviation industry. Therefore, projects face uncertainties and the absence of cohesiveness in the aviation industry area, which increases the project’s risks and complexities. Through convenience sampling, data were collected from higher, lower, and middle management of Pakistan International Airlines (PIA). 811 questionnaires were distributed and 723 were obtained from respondents. Data were screened for missing values, multivariate outliers and unengaged responses. Further, 18 responses were deleted. 42 responses were missing values and the remaining 28 were outliers. This represents a response rate of 89.1%.
Out of 723 respondents, 69% are males, other 31% are females (see Table 1). The respondents’ educational backgrounds included 13% with intermediate degrees, 47% with bachelor’s degrees, 23% with master’s degrees, and the remaining 17% with doctoral degrees. The composition of the sample with the reference of designation. 11% of respondents were working in top management in organizations. 33% were working in middle management, and 56% of respondents were employees of an organization working in lower management. Work experience of respondents, in which a high percentage of respondent’s work experience is 48% in range (0–5), in range (5–10) the respondents work experience is 36%, in range (11–20) the respondents work experience is 16%. The detailed questionnaire is provided in Appendix A.
Paternalistic leadership is measured based on complex leadership criteria, such as authoritarian, benevolent, and moral leadership. A paternalistic leader fosters a friendly work ecosystem where employees work with loyalty and perform well [73]. Six Items were adopted from [64]. Personality positive characteristics refer to factors such as openness and extraversion. 8 items were taken from [74]. Cohesiveness enhances team members’ interpersonal attraction, task commitment, and group pride. 8 items were adopted by [75]. Alienation is the ability of an individual to absorb new self-estrange, powerlessness meaninglessness. It facilitates individuals in the implementation of innovative projects. 6 items were taken from [76]. Organizational climate shared employees’ belief in the direction of the formal rules and policies in their corporation and casual practices of their leadership. Organizational climate 8 items were adopted by [77].

4. Data Analysis and Findings

PLS-SMART is an excellent multivariate method that investigates complicated studies issues that comprise unobserved factors and multifaceted connections of various variables. PLS can figure p-values via a bootstrapping technique to examine the measurement model. PLS-SMART 3.0 has the functionality to calculate p-values through a bootstrapping approach. This study’s measurement model was validated using the partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) approach [78]. Internal consistency is the reliability of each variable. Internal consistency for all the variables is measured using Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability. It shows how much the items of each construct are related to each other [79]. For this, the threshold value is 0.7. If the value is greater than 0.7, variables are internally consistent [80]. Cronbach’s Alpha value for paternalistic leadership = 0.904, personality positive characteristics = 0.895, alienation = 0.971, organizational climate = 0.983 and cohesiveness = 0.943. Composite reliability score for paternalistic leadership = 0.925, personality positive characteristics = 0.796, alienation = 0.977, organizational climate = 0.985 and cohesiveness = 0.950. Therefore, it depicts good internal consistency. As shown in Table 2 above, the composite reliability score for each construct is greater than 0.7. For AVE; for paternalistic leadership = 0.674, personality positive characteristics = 0.686, alienation = 0.779, organizational climate = 0.594 and cohesiveness = 0.657.

4.1. Measurement Model Loadings

Convergent validity is the average of item’s outer loading of each variable and is also measured from the Average variance extracted (AVE) from each construct. If the AVE value of each variable is greater than 0.5 then the PLS model is declared to have met convergent validity [81]. In Table 3, values for outer loading for each item are above 0.7.

4.2. Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity is stated as the degree to which a theory is precisely or rightly specific from other theories by observational or experimental requirements [82]. It is also indicated that the square root of AVE must be higher than all its correspondence with more or new constructs. The purpose of discriminant validity is to ensure that every variable is not the same as the other variable [83]. Table 4 indicates the square root of AVE, which is higher than the calculated correlation values. Consequently, indicating the construct’s discriminate validity that is correlated with the expected or prospective evaluation models. Results accomplish the entire requirement for setting up the values of validity and reliability of the constructs.

4.3. Estimation Model

The determination coefficient is the value obtained by estimating or computing variation ratios in the dependent variables [84]. R square analysis is the value of the coefficient of determination calculated by the variation ratio and the total variance calculated by the dependent variable product over the independent construct. R square values explain how well IVs explain the DVs. The R square value of this research model is alienation = 0.202, cohesiveness = 0.674, and organizational climate = 0.209. The Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) is stated as the variation between the examined interrelationship and the model indirect interrelationship matrix. In SRMR, values lower than 0.10 or 0.08 are a symbol of good fit. SmartPLS is used to draw the structural model, and model fitness is also examined. The values of fitness indices indicate that the model is overall a good fit. For instance, CFI = 0.956, GFI = 0.963, IFI = 0.971, NFI = 0.952, TLI = 0.967, RMSEA = 0.036, SRMR = 0.06, X2/df 1.253 (see Figure 2).

4.4. Direct Effects

The path coefficient is purposeful in affecting the importance of paths stated in the structural model. Bootstrapping through SMART PLS is used to measure the significant relationship of all variables. It tells whether the impact of that one variable has a positive or negative effect on others. It showed that certain independent variables on the dependent variable have a significant and direct and indirect effect of constructs on each other. The variables in the structural model are personality positive characteristics, paternalistic leadership, cohesiveness, alienation and organizational climate. The p-value criterion (p < 0.05) computed the importance of the variables. A summary of the discoveries is granted in Table 5. The above tables show that a certain independent variable on the dependent variable is a significant and direct and indirect effect of constructs on each other. Cohesiveness has a positive and significant impact on alienation and organizational climate. Study validates that all hypothesis H1, H2 and H3 are accepted (β = 0.449; p = 0.000), (β = 0.457; p = 0.000) respectively. Paternalistic leadership and personality are characteristics that positively and significantly impact cohesiveness. The values of direct impact are suggested as accepted (β = 0.579; p = 0.000), (β = 0.285; p = 0.000) respectively.

4.5. Indirect Effects

In Hypothesis 4, we proposed an indirect relationship between the following variables. We calculated the bootstrapping for the PLS-SEM method to test the specific indirect effect. Therefore, it is concluded that cohesiveness has significantly mediated the relationship between paternalistic leadership and alienation (t = 0.260; p = 0.000). Cohesiveness significantly and fully mediated the relationship between positive personality characteristics and alienation (t = 0.265; p = 0.000). Cohesiveness significantly and fully mediates the relationship between paternalistic leadership and organizational climate (t = 0.128; p = 0.000). Cohesiveness significantly and fully mediated the relationship between personality characteristics and organizational climate (t = 0.128; p = 0.000). Results are reported in Table 6.

5. Discussion

This study investigated the relationship between paternalistic leadership, personality positive characteristics, alienation and organizational climate with the mediating role of cohesiveness. Data was gathered from the management staff of PIA. 811 questionnaires were distributed and 723 were returned. Data were screened for missing values, multivariate outliers and unengaged responses. Further, 18 responses were deleted. 42 responses were missing values and the remaining 28 were outliers. This represents a response rate of 89.1%. For analysis PLS-SEM software 3.0 was used. The fundamental reason for this research was to respond to the Pakistan aviation industry’s failure [85]. The findings of this study represent that the independent variables such as paternalistic leadership and personality positive characteristics have a positive and significant impact on the dependent variables’ alienation, and organizational climate through the mediating role of cohesiveness. Furthermore, the nature and traits of the instruments show the severity and strength to which the analysis or evaluation was measured.
Firstly, the direct relationship between paternalistic leadership and personality positive characteristics on alienation is positive and significant. This finding is in line with the previous study, in which it was revealed that paternalistic leadership positively affects alienation [11,29]. The main reason behind this insignificant relationship is the existence of the diverse culture of working organizations [86]. Paternalistic leaders always have an intact view of employees and essential stakeholders. As such, they will prioritize worker desires over the hobbies of investors. Paternalistic leadership has observed incomprehensibility amongst people about their work position, the means to perform the function, and the contribution of the work to a bigger motive through alienation [5]. Personality positive characteristics through excessive stages and sociability positively contribute to alienation in an organization.
Secondly, the direct relationship between paternalistic leadership and personality positive characteristics on organizational climate is positive and significant. Paternalistic leadership plays an important role in creating any kind of organizational climate. Forming required norms and values for the desired climate and sharing them within the organization are the responsibilities and successfully pull the management towards achievements. Organizational culture sets the fundamental values of a business and can be thought of as an organization’s character or personality. Previous studies have shown that employees attribute personality characteristics to organizational culture [31]. Personality positive characteristics affect their view of the company and lead towards success through a positive attitude.
Thirdly, the core part of this study is the mediating role of cohesiveness between paternalistic leadership, personality positive characteristics, alienation and organizational climate. Cohesiveness refers to an individual’s perception approximately the closeness, bonding, and similarity around the team’s venture [9]. Cohesiveness is related to the individual’s emotions about their involvement with the group’s tasks and desires. Through leadership organizational climate reflects a man or woman’s belief approximately the closeness, bonding, and similarity around the group as a social unit. In addition to the character’s feelings, their attractiveness and social interaction with the team through the effect of alienation relate to completing the task to maintain a positive organizational environment. The findings of the current study revealed that cohesiveness has a positive impact and fully mediates the relationship among all constructs.
Understanding the needs of the employees and preserving their delight at excessive tiers are crucial for all businesses. However, mainly for the airline industry, it’s essential to maintain an aggressive advantage over other industries, such as the IT sector. The nature of the job is prone to reason, misery and emotional exhaustion, which might also have fundamental destructive outcomes on the effectiveness of airline agencies. It is evident that the increasing effect of emotional exhaustion on turnover intentions and absenteeism is within the ground body of workers of airline companies. The study findings provide many useful managerial implications. Air site visitors control divisions of airport paintings under a big quantity of strain. Any mistake can also motivate irrevocable effects. The nature of the activity calls for night shifts and long work hours. These circumstances make leadership crucial for enhancing possible alienation and organizational climate, and enhancing and strengthening the cohesiveness of personnel. In the cultural context of Pakistan, there are demanding work placing such as air site visitors managing gadgets, paternalistic leadership with personality positive characteristics affect crucial organizational climate in the aviation industry. Paternalistic behaviors, through imparting an extra cohesive and supportive environment and giving more interest to the lives of their fans, can elevate the range of employees and in doing so lessen alienation and organizational climate. This study outcome supported these institutions, as they linked paternalistic leadership positively with cohesiveness and significantly with alienation and organizational climate. With the given consequences and the giant relationships among the variables, we will interpret even in-piece surroundings as complex and traumatic as air visitors manage gadgets.
This study is helpful or applicable to managerial implications through air traffic controlling distributions of airfield performance or functioning underneath a serious aggregate of enforcement. Any error or fault might be creating unrepairable effects. The nature of work needs lobster shifts and lengthy task timing. In cultural circumstances such as that of Pakistan and a tricky and challenging task environment such as airline control units. Paternalistic leadership affects organizational performance. Bosses with paternalistic leadership conduct, or attitude by giving a better cohesiveness and supportive environment that leads to a very comfortable and strong organizational environment.

6. Conclusions and Policy Recommendations

The current study elucidates the link between paternalistic leadership and personality positive characteristics, alienation, and organizational climate. Further, it investigated the role of the mediator, that is cohesiveness. Results show that paternalistic leadership is essential for maintaining an organizational climate. The more alienation and personality positive characteristics contributed to better communication, the greater the group contributors can share their new thoughts and insights with their respective organizations. The finding of this study indicates that paternalistic leadership and personality positive characteristics have a positive and significant impact on alienation, and organizational climate. These constructs are important elements in organizational success. So, cohesiveness as a mediator plays a crucial role in achieving the organization’s objectives.
New knowledge is always required to improve any organizational culture. In pleasant surroundings, group individuals and team members feel easy to grab new knowledge and techniques to contribute to the aviation sector’s success. Especially in aviation projects, numerous groups can work better. They have ideas and new insights that could completely change people’s mindsets. Gains through paternalistic leadership and personality positive characteristics enhance the performance of the organization through controlling alienation, and organizational climate. Through cohesiveness, the organizational climate influences on a top-notch extent the performance of the employees as it has a prime impact on the motivation and satisfaction of job satisfaction of individual employees. This study indicates that cohesiveness fully mediates the relationship between paternalistic leadership, positive personality characteristics, alienation, and organizational climate.
There are always some limitations in every study. Firstly, the sample of this study is narrow or finite to only the PIA airline of Pakistan. Another approach study can be examined by taking more airlines, like Shaheen airline, Air Blue, and AirSial, etc. Secondly, data were collected by convenience sampling method, limiting the reliable outcomes. Thirdly, leaving the questionnaire in PIA Lahore and later gathering it would not certainly give excellent responses. As most workers are busy in their jobs or may have more workload, they fill out the questionnaire beyond reading the questions, which may limit the generalizability of results. Fourthly, advanced investigations demand a wide time range. Furthermore, other research will gather the data as there are many airlines countrywide. Fifthly, the time factor is a major limitation of our study. Although the outcome of our investigations is worthwhile on paternalistic leadership, due to a deficiency of knowledge and inputs, we were not able to check the relationships between high and low levels of authoritarianism, benevolence, and moral leadership. Lastly, future investigations may use other personality characteristics like pay structures, work environment, self-control empowerment, and use of team culture and climate as meditating variables.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: M.F.S. and M.I. Methodology, M.F.S. Software, M.F.S. Validation, F.S., M.I. and A.D.; formal analysis, M.F.S. Investigation., F.S. and M.I. Resources, F.S. writing—original draft preparation, M.F.S. and M.I. writing—review and editing, F.S. and A.D. Visualization, A.D. Supervision, M.I. Project administration, M.I. funding acquisition, F.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The first author is supported by the Fundamental Research Start-up Funds from Guangdong University of Petrochemical Technology (Project No. 702-72100003004 and 702/5210012) (Grant No. 2020rc059).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Beijing University of Technology, China.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data can be obtained upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A. Questionnaire Survey

Appendix A.1. Section-1 Personal Characteristics

1. Biological sex
Male  Female
2. Age
18–28 years 29–39 years More than 40 years
3. Qualification
Intermediate Bachelor Masters PhD
4. Job level
Top management Middle management Lower management
5. Experience (within this organization)
5 or less years 5–10 years More than 10 years

Appendix A.2. Section-2 (Please Reply All the Research Questions)

Paternalistic LeadershipStrongly
Disagree		DisagreeNeutralAgreeStrongly Agree
1My supervisor is like a family member when he/she gets along with us.
2My supervisor devotes all his/her energy to taking care of me.
3My supervisor never avenges on a personal wrong when he/she is offended.
4My supervisor employs people according to their abilities and virtues.
5My supervisor asks me to obey instructions completely.
6My supervisor always has the last say in the meeting.
AlienationStrongly
Disagree		DisagreeNeutralAgreeStrongly Agree
1I have a good deal of freedom in the performance of my daily task.
2I have the opportunity to exercise my own judgment on the job.
3My work is a significant contribution for success of my organization.
4Sometimes I am not completely sure and understand the purpose of work.
5I do not feel a sense of accomplishment in the type of work I do.
6My salary is the most rewarding aspect of my job
CohesivenessStrongly
Disagree		DisagreeNeutralAgreeStrongly Agree
1There is a friendly an atmosphere among people in the organization.
2People in my group trust each other.
3People are warm and friendly in the organization.
4People in my organization treat each other with respect.
5People cooperate with each other.
6People work well together as a team.
7People are willing to share resources.
8People almost always speak well of it.
9People are proud to belong to the team.
Personality Positive CharacteristicsStrongly
Disagree		DisagreeNeutralAgreeStrongly agree
1I am creative.
2I am intellectual.
3I am intelligent.
4I am deep.
5I am introverted.
6I am quiet.
7I am reserved.
8I am untalkative.
Organizational ClimateStrongly DisagreeDisagreeNeutralAgreeStrongly Agree
1The relationships with my bosses are good.
2My bosses encourage me when I have problems so that I can solve them.
3My suggestions about the work are listening.
4Opportunities for training are offered.
5If I need help because of a heavy workload, I am given the necessary means.
6The goal of my work is clearly defined.
7The bosses are willing to listen to their employees.
8Socially, my work has the prestige it deserves.

References

  1. Lawu, M.S.; Santoso, I.; Asbudiutomo, R.M.; Gunadi, W. Service Recovery in Online Travel Agencies During COVID-19 Pandemic. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Istanbul, Turkey, 7–10 March 2022; pp. 4386–4397. [Google Scholar]
  2. Nealley, M.A.; Gawron, V.J. The Effect of Fatigue on Air Traffic Controllers. Int. J. Aviat. Psychol. 2015, 25, 14–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Öge, E.; Çetin, M. The effects of paternalistic leadership on workplace loneliness, work family con flict and work engagement among air traffic controllers in Turkey. J. Air Transp. Manag. 2018, 66, 25–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Nazir, S.; Shafi, A.; Asadullah, M.A.; Qun, W. Linking paternalistic leadership to follower’s innovative work behavior. The influence of leader–member exchange and employee voice. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2020, 24, 1354–1378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Behery, M.; Al-Nasser, A. Examining the impact of leadership style and coaching on employees’ commitment and trust Mediation effect of bullying and job alienation. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 2016, 24, 291–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kong, H.; Cheng, B.S.; Chou, L.F.; Wu, T.Y.; Huang, M.P.; Farh, J.L. Paternalistic leadership and subordinate responses: Establishing a leadership model in Chinese organizations. Asian J. Soc. Psychol. 2004, 7, 89–117. [Google Scholar]
  7. Wang, M.C.L. The Mediating Effect of Ethical Climate on the Relationship Between Paternalistic Leadership and Team Identification: A Team-Level Analysis in the Chinese Context. J. Bus. Ethics 2015, 129, 639–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Yasir, M.; Rasli, A. Direct and indirect effects of ethical leadership on workplace deviance in public healthcare sector of Pakistan. J. Adv. Manag. Res. 2018, 15, 558–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Meltem, S.; Özlem, Ö.; Öke, K.P. Paternalistic Leadership, Ethical Climate and Performance in Health Staff. Hosp. Top. 2020, 98, 26–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Hou, B.; Hong, J.; Zhu, K.; Zhou, Y. Paternalistic leadership and innovation: The moderating effect of environmental dynamism. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2019, 22, 562–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hiller, N.J.; Sin, H.P.; Ponnapalli, A.R.; Ozgen, S. Benevolence and authority as WEIRDly unfamiliar: A multi-language meta-analysis of paternalistic leadership behaviors from 152 studies. Leadersh. Q. 2019, 30, 165–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Özer, Ö.; Uğurluoğlu, Ö.; Saygılı, M.; Sonğur, C. The impact of work alienation on organizational health: A field study in health sector. Int. J. Healthc. Manag. 2019, 12, 18–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Qing, M.; Asif, M.; Hussain, A.; Jameel, A. Satisfaction and organizational commitment in public sector organizations: The mediating role of psychological empowerment. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2020, 14, 1405–1432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Buradum, T.F.; Anita, G.T. Workgroup Diversity and Group Cohesiveness in Nigeria Police. Sumer. J. Soc. Sci. 2018, 1, 59–66. [Google Scholar]
  15. Conway, E.; Monks, K.; Fu, N.; Alfes, K.; Bailey, K.; Conway, E.; Monks, K.; Fu, N.; Alfes, K.; Bailey, K. Reimagining alienation within a relational framework: Evidence from the public sector in Ireland and the UK. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2020, 31, 2673–2694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Huang, H.; Cheng, T.C.E.; Huang, W.; Teng, C. Impact of online gamers’ personality traits on interdependence, network convergence, and continuance intention: Perspective of social exchange theory. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2018, 38, 232–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Valle, M.; Kacmar, K.M.; Zivnuska, S.; Harting, T.; Valle, M.; Kacmar, K.M.; Zivnuska, S.; Harting, T. Abusive supervision, leader-member exchange, and moral disengagement: A moderated-mediation model of organizational deviance. J. Soc. Psychol. 2019, 159, 299–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Nair, N.; Vohra, N. The concept of alienation: Towards conceptual clarity. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 2012, 20, 25–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Capuk, S.; Yildirim, O. Impact of Turnover Intention on Loneliness and the Mediating Effect of Work Alienation. Bus. Manag. Strategy 2017, 8, 18–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Schaufeli, W.B. Heavy work investment, personality and organizational climate. J. Manag. Psychol. 2016, 31, 1057–1073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Zaman, K.; Ahmad, B.; Kee, W.L. Organizational climate and job satisfaction: Do employees’ personalities matter? Manag. Decis. 2018, 56, 421–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Zhang, S. When and how authoritarian leadership influences employee innovation behavior in the context of Chinese culture. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2021, 42, 722–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Amarat, M.; Akbolat, M. The mediating role of work alienation in the effect of workplace loneliness on nurses’ performance. J. Nurs. Manag. 2019, 27, 553–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Parlar, H. Exploring how authoritarian leadership affects commitment: The mediating roles of trust in the school principal and silence. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 2022, 36, 110–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kartal, N. Evaluating the relationship between work engagement, work alienation and work performance of healthcare professionals. Int. J. Healthc. Manag. 2018, 11, 251–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hosani, Y.; Al Jabeen, F.; Paul, J.; Stachowicz-stanusch, A. Antecedents of employee alienation and its impact on individual work performance during post-merger integration (PMI). J. Organ. Chang. Manag. 2020, 33, 1085–1110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Chiang, J.T.J.; Chen, X.P.; Liu, H.; Akutsu, S.; Wang, Z. We have emotions but can’t show them! Authoritarian leadership, emotion suppression climate, and team performance. Hum. Relat. 2021, 74, 1082–1111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Shen, Y.; Chou, W.; Schaubroeck, J.M. The roles of relational identification and workgroup cultural values in linking authoritarian leadership to employee performance. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 2019, 28, 498–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zhang, Y.; Lee, T.J. Alienation and authenticity in intangible cultural heritage tourism production. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2022, 24, 18–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Sungur, C.; Özer, Ö.; Saygili, M.; Uğurluoğlu, Ö. Paternalistic Leadership, Organizational Cynicism, and Intention to Quit One’s Job in Nursing. Hosp. Top. 2019, 97, 139–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Mansur, J.; Sobral, F.; Goldszmidt, R. Shades of paternalistic leadership across cultures. J. World Bus. 2017, 52, 702–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Sposato, M.; Rumens, N. Advancing international human resource management scholarship on paternalistic leadership and gender: The contribution of postcolonial feminism. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2021, 32, 1201–1221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ahmad Bodla, A.; Tang, N.; Van Dick, R.; Mir, U.R. Authoritarian leadership, organizational citizenship behavior, and organizational deviance: Curvilinear relationships. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2019, 40, 583–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Bochatay, N.; Bajwa, N.M.; Blondon, K.S.; Junod Perron, N.; Cullati, S.; Nendaz, M.R. Exploring group boundaries and conflicts: A social identity theory perspective. Med. Educ. 2019, 53, 799–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Khorakian, A.; Baregheh, A.; Eslami, G.; Yazdani, N.; Maharati, Y.; Jahangir, M. Creativity and paternalistic leadership in a developing country’s restaurants: The role of job embeddedness and career stage. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2021, 23, 677–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Younas, A.; Wang, D.; Javed, B.; Rawwas, M.Y.A.; Abdullah, I.; Zaffar, M.A. Positive Psychological States and Employee Creativity: The role of Ethical Leadership. J. Creat. Behav. 2020, 54, 567–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Li, G.; Rubenstein, A.L.; Lin, W.; Wang, M.; Chen, X. The curvilinear effect of benevolent leadership on team performance: The mediating role of team action processes and the moderating role of team commitment. Pers. Psychol. 2018, 71, 369–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Tuan, L.T. Driving employees to serve customers beyond their roles in the Vietnamese hospitality industry: The roles of paternalistic leadership and discretionary HR practices. Tour. Manag. 2018, 69, 132–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ugurluoglu, O.; Aldogan, E.U.; Turgut, M.; Ozatkan, Y. The Effect of Paternalistic Leadership on Job Performance and Intention to Leave the Job. J. Health Manag. 2018, 20, 46–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Shchebetenko, S. Do personality characteristics explain the associations between self-esteem and online social networking behaviour? Comput. Human Behav. 2019, 91, 17–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Itani, O.S.; El Haddad, R.; Kalra, A. Exploring the role of extrovert-introvert customers’ personality prototype as a driver of customer engagement: Does relationship duration matter? J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 53, 101980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Yu, H.; Yang, F.; Wang, T.; Sun, J.; Hu, W. How perceived overqualification relates to work alienation and emotional exhaustion: The moderating role of LMX. Curr. Psychol. 2021, 40, 6067–6075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. De Oliver, M. Emporia and the Exclusion Identity: Conservative Populist Alienation in the USA and Its Anti-immigrationism. Int. J. Polit. Cult. Soc. 2022, 35, 153–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Sharma, D. When Fairness is Not Enough: Impact of Corporate Ethical Values on Organizational Citizenship Behaviors and Worker Alienation. J. Bus. Ethics. 2018, 150, 57–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Xie, Y.; Xue, W.; Li, L.; Wang, A.; Chen, Y.; Zheng, Q.; Wang, Y.; Li, X. Leadership style and innovation atmosphere in enterprises: An empirical study. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2018, 135, 257–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Lian, L. Alienation as Mediator and Moderator of the Relationship Between Virtues and Smartphone Addiction Among Chinese University Students. Int. J. Ment. Health Addict. 2018, 16, 1208–1218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Al Ghazo, R.H.; Suifan, T.S.; Alnuaimi, M. Emotional intelligence and counterproductive work behavior: The mediating role of organizational climate. J. Hum. Behav. Soc. Environ. 2019, 29, 333–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Alikaj, A. Proactive Personality and Creative Behavior: Examining the Role of Thriving at Work and High-Involvement HR Practices. J. Bus. Psychol. 2021, 36, 857–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Spurk, D.; Hirschi, A. The Dark Triad and competitive psychological climate at work: A model of reciprocal relationships in dependence of age and organization change. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 2018, 27, 736–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Meng, J.; Berger, B.K. The impact of organizational culture and leadership performance on PR professionals’ job satisfaction: Testing the joint mediating effects of engagement and trust. Public Relat. Rev. 2019, 45, 64–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Syakur, A.; Achmad, T.; Susilo, B.; Ahmadi, R. Sustainability of Communication, Organizational Culture, Cooperation, Trust and Leadership Style for Lecturer Commitments in Higher Education. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2020, 3, 1325–1335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ratnasari, S.L.; Sutjahjo, G. The Effect of Job Satisfaction, Organizational Culture, and Leadership on Employee Performance. Ann. Trop. Med. Public Health 2020, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Bhaduri, R.M. Leveraging culture and leadership in crisis management. Eur. J. Train. Dev. 2019, 43, 554–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Chong, M.P.M. Two sides of the same coin? Leadersh. Organ. Cult. 2018, 39, 975–994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Wang, Y.; Liu, J.; Zhu, Y. Humble leadership, psychological safety, knowledge sharing, and follower creativity: A cross-level investigation. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 1727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Guo, L.; Decoster, S.; Babalola, M.T.; De Schutter, L.; Garba, O.A. Authoritarian leadership and employee creativity: The moderating role of psychological capital and the mediating role of fear and defensive silence. J. Bus. Res. 2018, 92, 219–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Thun, S.; Bakker, A.B. Empowering leadership and job crafting: The role of employee optimism. Stress Health 2018, 34, 573–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Abid, G.; Arya, B.; Arshad, A.; Ahmed, S.; Farooqi, S. Positive personality traits and self-leadership in sustainable organizations: Mediating influence of thriving and moderating role of proactive personality. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 25, 299–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Bravo, R.; Catalán, S.; Pina, J.M. Analysing teamwork in higher education: An empirical study on the antecedents and consequences of team cohesiveness. Stud. High. Educ. 2019, 44, 1153–1165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Mutonyi, B.R.; Slåtten, T.; Lien, G. Empowering leadership, work Empowering group cohesiveness, individual learning orientation and individual innovative behaviour in the public sector: Empirical evidence from Norway. Int. J. Public Leadership. 2020, 16, 175–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Galariotis, E.; Karagiannis, K. Cultural dimensions, economic policy uncertainty, and momentum investing: International evidence. Eur. J. Financ. 2021, 27, 976–993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Köllen, T. Lessening the difference is more–the relationship between diversity management and the perceived organizational climate for gay men and lesbians. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2016, 27, 1967–1996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Bano, A.; Salleh, N.; Mendes, E.; Grundy, J.; Burch, G.; Nordin, A. The effect of software engineers’ personality traits on team climate and performance: A Systematic Literature Review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 2016, 73, 52–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Chen, X.P.; Eberly, M.B.; Chiang, T.J.; Farh, J.L.; Cheng, B.S. Affective Trust in Chinese Leaders: Linking Paternalistic Leadership to Employee Performance. J. Manag. 2014, 40, 796–819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Tucker, D.A.; Hendy, J.; Chrysanthaki, T. How does policy alienation develop? Exploring street-level bureaucrats’ agency in policy context shift in UK telehealthcare. Hum. Relat. 2022, 75, 1679–1706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Torlak, N.G.; Demir, A.; Budur, T. Decision-making, leadership and performance links in private education institutes. Rajagiri Manag. J. 2021, 16, 63–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Lvina, E.; Johns, G.; Vandenberghe, C. Team Political Skill Composition as a Determinant of Team Cohesiveness and Performance. J. Manag. 2018, 44, 1001–1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Sedrine, S.B.; Bouderbala, A.; Nasraoui, H. Leadership style effect on virtual team efficiency: Trust, operational cohesion and media richness roles. J. Manag. Dev. 2021, 40, 365–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Cheng, H.-Y.; Huang, K.-P. Salute To the Black Sheep: The Legitimacy of Work-Place Bullying From the Perspective of Organizational Cohesive Affinity and Organizational Competitiveness. Int. J. Organ. Innov. 2019, 12, 230–238. [Google Scholar]
  70. Jung, D.I.; Sosik, J.J. Transformational Leadership in Work Groups: The Role of Empowerment, Cohesiveness, and Collective-Efficacy on Perceived Group Performance. Small Group Res. 2002, 33, 313–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Ford, R.C.; Mclaughlin, F.S. Making workplace fun more functional. Ind. Commer. Train. 2004, 36, 117–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Campbell, J.L.; Coyer, F.M.; Osborne, S.R. Incontinence-associated dermatitis: A cross-sectional prevalence study in the Australian acute care hospital setting. Int. Wound J. 2016, 13, 403–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Farh, J.-L.; Cheng, B.-S. A Cultural Analysis of Paternalistic Leadership in Chinese Organizations. In Management and Organizations in the Chinese Context; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2000; pp. 84–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Erben, G.S.; Güneşer, A.B. The relationship between paternalistic leadership and organizational commitment: Investigating the role of climate regarding ethics. J. Bus. Ethics 2008, 82, 955–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Moran, G. Group cohesion and conformity behavior. Psychol. Rep. 1965, 17, 465–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Seeman, M. Empirical Alienation Studies: An Overview. Theor. Alien. 1976, 1, 265–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Pritchard, R.D.; Karasick, B.W. The effects of organizational climate on managerial job performance and job satisfaction. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 1973, 9, 126–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Henseler, J.; Hubona, G.; Ray, P.A. Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: Updated guidelines. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2016, 116, 2–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Shahzad, M.F.; Khan, K.I.; Saleem, S.; Rashid, T. What Factors Affect the Entrepreneurial Intention to Start-Ups? The Role of Entrepreneurial Skills, Propensity to Take Risks, and Innovativeness in Open Business Models. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021, 7, 173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Hair, J.F.; Sarstedt, M.; Hopkins, L.; Kuppelwieser, V.G. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2014, 26, 106–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Rojas, S.L.; Widiger, T.A. Convergent and Discriminant Validity of the Five Factor Form. Assessment 2014, 21, 143–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 115–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Fornell, C.; Bookstein, F.L. Two Structural Equation Models: LISREL and PLS Applied to Consumer Exit-Voice Theory. J. Mark. Res. 1982, 19, 440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Siehler, E.G. Caesar, Cicero and Ferrero. Am. J. Philol. 1914, 35, 379–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Khan, R.A.; Durrani, A.; Babar, A.S.; Siddiqui, A. Factors affecting Safety Management of Aviation: A study of Pilot experience and Leadership style on safety Management of Aviation. DASC Res. Cent. 2022, 1, 5–6. [Google Scholar]
  86. Fang, C.H.; Fang, C.L.; Chao, R.F.; Lin, S.P. Paternalistic leadership and employees’ sustained work behavior: A perspective of playfulness. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 14 15473 g001 550
Figure 1. Theoretical model framework.
Figure 1. Theoretical model framework.
Sustainability 14 15473 g001
Sustainability 14 15473 g002 550
Figure 2. Estimation model.
Figure 2. Estimation model.
Sustainability 14 15473 g002
Table
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of respondents.
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of respondents.
DemographicsDistributionn = 723
Biological sexMale498 (69%)
Female225 (31%)
Age18–28 years264 (37%)
29–39 years367 (50%)
More than 40 years92 (13%)
QualificationIntermediate92 (13%)
Bachelor340 (47%)
Masters168 (23%)
PhD123 (17%)
Job LevelTop management83 (11%)
Middle management236 (33%)
Lower management404 (56%)
Experience5 or less years347 (48%)
5–10 years260 (36%)
More than 10 years116 (16%)
Table
Table 2. Construct reliability and validity.
Table 2. Construct reliability and validity.
VariablesαCRAVE
Alienation0.9710.9770.779
Cohesiveness0.9430.950.657
Organizational climate0.9830.9850.594
Personality positive characteristics0.8950.7960.686
Paternalistic leadership0.9040.9250.674
α = Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient, CR = Composite Reliability, AVE = Average Variance Extracted.
Table
Table 3. Measurement model loadings.
Table 3. Measurement model loadings.
VariablesItems Loadings
Paternalistic leadership (PL)PL10.858
PL20.793
PL30.705
PL40.855
PL50.877
PL60.826
Personality positive characteristics (PPC)PPC10.961
PPC20.978
PPC30.991
PPC40.977
PPC50.989
PPC60.988
PPC70.988
PPC80.973
PPC90.977
PPC100.965
Alienation (AL)AL10.947
AL20.977
AL30.983
AL40.971
AL50.972
AL60.755
Organizational climate (OC)OC10.918
OC20.926
OC30.957
OC40.976
OC50.968
OC60.931
OC70.964
OC80.921
Cohesiveness (COH)COH10.852
COH20.82
COH30.816
COH40.802
COH50.848
COH60.847
COH70.754
COH80.762
COH90.764
COH100.831
Table
Table 4. Discriminant validity.
Table 4. Discriminant validity.
VariablesALCOHOCPCPL
Alienation0.955
Cohesiveness0.4600.810
Organizational climate0.8290.4570.946
Personality positive characteristics0.4100.7660.4060.979
Paternalistic leadership0.6050.8650.5980.7130.821
Table
Table 5. Direct effects.
Table 5. Direct effects.
Variables β-Valuet-Statistics p-ValuesHypothesis
Cohesiveness → Alienation0.44913.2110.000Accepted
Cohesiveness → Organizational climate0.45713.5630.000Accepted
Positive personality characteristics → Cohesiveness0.2854.5500.000Accepted
Paternalistic leadership → Cohesiveness0.5799.5770.000Accepted
Table
Table 6. Indirect effects.
Table 6. Indirect effects.
Variablesβ-Valuet-Statistics p-Values
Positive personality characteristics → Cohesiveness → Alienation0.1284.5130.000
Paternalistic leadership → Cohesiveness → Alienation0.2607.2320.000
Positive personality characteristics → Cohesiveness → Organizational climate0.1304.4780.000
Paternalistic leadership → Cohesiveness → Organizational climate0.2657.3730.000
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Shahzad, F.; Shahzad, M.F.; Dilanchiev, A.; Irfan, M. Modeling the Influence of Paternalistic Leadership and Personality Characteristics on Alienation and Organizational Culture in the Aviation Industry of Pakistan: The Mediating Role of Cohesiveness. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15473. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215473

AMA Style

Shahzad F, Shahzad MF, Dilanchiev A, Irfan M. Modeling the Influence of Paternalistic Leadership and Personality Characteristics on Alienation and Organizational Culture in the Aviation Industry of Pakistan: The Mediating Role of Cohesiveness. Sustainability. 2022; 14(22):15473. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215473

Chicago/Turabian Style

Shahzad, Farrukh, Muhammad Farrukh Shahzad, Azer Dilanchiev, and Muhammad Irfan. 2022. "Modeling the Influence of Paternalistic Leadership and Personality Characteristics on Alienation and Organizational Culture in the Aviation Industry of Pakistan: The Mediating Role of Cohesiveness" Sustainability 14, no. 22: 15473. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215473

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop