The Influence of Paternalistic Leadership On Individual Performance JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP IN ORGANIZATIONS

Introduction/Main Objectives: Paternalistic leadership as a unique leadership behavior has received the attention of researchers from various countries. The application of effective paternalistic leadership occurs in high power-distance and collectivistic cultures.  Background Problems: Most studies examine the influence of paternalistic leadership at the dimensional level. In addition, the issue in paternalistic leadership research is directed to review the presence of paternalistic leadership on members’ attitudes. Novelty: First, this study is aimed at testing the united dimensions of paternalistic leadership. Second, this study focuses on the psychological mechanisms underlying the impact of paternalistic leadership on individual tasks and contextual performance. Third, this study adopts social exchange theory and affective events theory to review the role of paternalistic leadership. Research Methods: Using a statistical test of mediating process with the approach of the causal chain. This research was carried out in the context of organizations in various sectors.  Finding/Results: Firstly, paternalistic leadership is present in varied organizations. Secondly, paternalistic leadership significantly influences individual tasks and contextual performance. Moreover, the findings reveal that trust in leadership enables to explain the relationship between paternalistic leadership and individual tasks and contextual performance.

Introduction/Main Objectives: Paternalistic leadership as a unique leadership behavior has received the attention of researchers from various countries. The application of effective paternalistic leadership occurs in high power-distance and collectivistic culture. Background Problems: Most studies examine the influence of paternalistic leadership at dimensional level. In addition, the issue in paternalistic leadership research is directed to review the presence of paternalistic leadership on members' attitudes. Novelty: First, this study is aimed at testing the united dimensions of the paternalistic leadership. Second, this study focuses on the psychological mechanisms underlying the impact of paternalistic leadership on individual's tasks and contextual performance. Third, this study adopts social exchange theory and affective events theory to review the role of paternalistic leadership. Research Methods: Using statistical test of mediating process with approach of causal chain. This research was carried out in the context of organizations in various sectors. Finding/Results: Firstly, paternalistic leadership presents in varied organizations. Secondly, paternalistic leadership significantly influences on individual task and contextual performance. Moreover, the findings reveal that trust in leadership enable to explain the relationship between paternalistic leadership and individual's tasks and contextual performance.

Introduction
Paternalistic leadership as a unique leadership behavior has received the attention of researchers from varied countries (e.g, Farh & Cheng, 2000;Cheng, et al., 2004;Martinez, 2005;Aycan, 2006;Pellegrini et al., 2010;Chu, 2010;Cheng et al., 2014;Chen et al., 2014). The application of effective paternalistic leadership occurs in high power-distance and collectivistic cultures (Chan, 2007;. In organizations with high power-distance cultures, its members would not expect delegation and participation; they expect assertiveness and decision-making from their leadership (Swierczek, 1991). In line with this, several empirical studies have revealed that paternalistic leadership will be found in countries with high power-distance and collectivistic cultures (Aycan, 2000;Saufi et al., 2002;Gelfand et al., 2007;Erben & Guneser, 2007).
Research in the Indonesian context then becomes relevant to do because in several studies (Irawanto et al., 2012;Pellegrini et al., 2010;Gelfand et al., 2007;Pellegrini & Scandura 2006) it is stated that paternalistic leadership behavior is related in countries adopting to a collective culture and high power distance. Moreover, Indonesia is a collectivistic and high power distance country (Caesar, 2016;Hofstade 2017).
This research reveals that the studies of paternalistic leadership have some limitations. Firstly, the greater part of studies examines the influence of paternalistic leadership at the dimensional level (Cheng et al., 2004;Chan, 2007;Chen et al., 2014;Bendi, 2020;Lau, Li, Okpara, 2020). Pellegrini and Scandura (2008) also suggest measuring paternalistic leadership not only at the dimension level but also by looking at a combination of benevolent, authoritarian, and moral dimensions. In line with this, Wagstaff et al. (2015) explain that employees' perceptions of paternalistic leadership are more important, as opposed to the outcomes from benevolent, authoritarian, or moral dimensions. Paternalistic leadership is behavior that combines benevolent, authoritarian, and moral dimensions. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to test the overall construct of the paternalistic leadership variable.
Second, the issue in paternalistic leadership research is that most studies have targeted on examining the impact of paternalistic leadership on employee's and work-attitudes, such as organizational commitment (Chen, et.al., 2019), and loyalty (Erben and Guneser, 2008;Pellegrini, Scandura, Jayaraman, 2010;Chou, 2012;Sheer, 2012;Liberman, 2014;Tan, 2015). Cheng et al. (2004) explain that employee attitudes toward paternalistic leadership such as identification, obedience, gratitude, and reciprocity may not be the same as employee behavioral responses (i.e., performance). Therefore, the additional objective of this research is to scrutinize the model of the relationship of paternalistic leadership and individual performance.
Third, few empirical studies have addressed the psychological process managing the influence of paternalistic leadership on employee's performance (Cheng et al., 2004;Chan, 2007;Pellegrini and Scandura, 2008;Chen et al., 2014). Furthermore, there is a need to explore other potential mediator alternatives which has been one of the suggestions arising from previous studies (Cheng et al., 2004, Chan, 2007. This study also perceives that a mediation is required to explain the direct impact of leadership behavior on employee's attitude. Furthermore, employee's attitude enables to influence on employee's achievement. This mediating process is based on social interaction perspective of the relationship of leaders and members (Klaussener, 2012). Furthermore, trust in leadership is a result of leadership process based on members's attitude or perspective. This study proposes a trust in leadership variable as a mediating variable that control the influence of paternalistic leadership on task and contextual-based performance. Based on social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) and the affective events theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), this study argues that trust in leadership represent a high-quality relation of a leader and followers (Collquit et al., 2007). Later, this study base developing the hypothesis of the impact of paternalistic leadership on individual performance on both theories.

Paternalistic Leadership (PL)
Paternalistic leadership is figured out as behavior incorporating discipline, strong authority, and moral integrity (Cheng et al., 2004). This definition include three dimensions, namely benevolence, authoritarianism, and morality (Farh & Cheng, 2000;Cheng et al., 2004;Irawanto et al. 2012;Sheer, 2012;Chen et al., 2014). The authoritarian dimension is characterized by hierarchical relation between a leader's control, power and authority and employee's oncompliance, fulfillment, and respect (Aycan, 2006;Cheng et al., 2004;Farh et al., 2006). Leaders conduct authority by setting rules, obligation, and sanction and appreciation . Empirical evidence shows the diverse effects of the authoritarian dimension on resulting on employee's attitudes and behavior. On the other hand, the authoritarian dimension is reported to have a negative effect on performance outside the role (Chen et al., 2014), identification with leaders, organizational commitment, and fear of supervisors (Farh et al., 2004in Chan, 2007 subordinate performance (Wang et al., 2018). In addition, the authoritarian dimension also has a negative influence on psychological health (Chen and Kao, 2009), employees' voices (Chan, 2014), and status assessment (Zhang et al, 2015). In contrast, several studies have revealed that the authoritarian dimension have a positive effect on employee's loyalty to supervisors, commitment to the organization, and employee's identification, compliance, and gratitude (Cheng et al., 2004). Sheer (2012) also adds the positive effect of the authoritarian dimension on loyalty to leaders and organizations, compliance, and job satisfaction.
The benevolent dimension associate with leadership behavior showing respect for members' interests or family welfare (Chan, 2007). The behavioral dimension of the leader's benevolence is a form of investment in the leader's social relationships with organizational members related to their work or personal matters (Farh & Cheng, 2000). This is also in connection with Aycan (2006) who perceive that employee who obey the leader will enjoy the leader's benevolence. This benevolent dimension produces positive impact on performance of tasks and extra roles (Chen et al., 2014), and leader-member relationship (Tang and Naumann, 2015). Meanwhile within teambased works, it result benefits, such as cohesiveness, team-based commitment and satisfaction (Cheng et al., 2002in Chan, 2007. The moral dimension associates with presenting a strong personality, selfdiscipline, and selflessness (Chan, 2007; Farah and Cheng quoted from Wu and Tsui, 2012). Leaders who exhibit high moral values will be good examples for employees (Chen et al., 2014). Empirical evidence points to this dimension's positive effects such as loyalty, obedience and gratitude, and quality of interactions with leaders, extra-role behavior, and achievement (Cheng et al., 2002b;Cheng et al., 2004in Chan, 2007, employees' voices (Chan, 2014), trust , and job satisfaction (Chou, 2012). On the other hand, research by Chen and Kao (2009) shows that the moral dimension has no significant effect of on the psychological health of employees.
Various research findings also show that the measurement of paternalistic leadership in dimensions does not reflect the overall paternalistic leadership behavior (Pellegrini and Scandura, 2008;Chen et al., 2014). This is in line with Pellegrini and Scandura (2008) who explain that when conclusions are drawn, separate paternalistic leadership dimensions produce different results in terms of the role of paternalistic leadership. This study argues that paternalistic leadership is a unified dimension. The relationships between one dimension and another are seen as a unit. In line with this, Wagstaff et al. (2015) describe the measurement of employee perceptions of paternalistic leadership have to be seen as being a single group. This is related to the understanding that paternalistic behavior formed through united dimensions rather than through the independence of these dimensions (Ryder et al., 2000).

Contextual Performance (CP)
This study argues that individual performance is related with task and contextual (Borman and Motowidlo, 1993).
Task performance is associated with effectiveness (i.e., the results) of a job that contributes to organizational goals directly or indirectly (Borman and Motowidlow, 1993). Meanwhile, contextual performance relates with behavior based on organizational culture indirectly affecting organizational achievement (Motowidlo and Van Scotter, 1994).
There are some conditions that explain the difference between task performance and contextual performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1997), namely: (1) task aspect vary from one job to another, while the contextual aspect of jobs is relatively similar; (2) assessment of task is focused on capabilities, while contextual is directed traits and motivation; and (3) criteria of task performance is a predetermined and in-role behavior, while contextual aspect is more of an extra-role behavior.

Trust in Leadership (TL)
Findings from several studies indicate that trust has several dimensions (Cook and Wall, 1980;McAllister, 1995). First, according to Lewis and Wiegert (1985) and Dirks & Ferrin (2002), interpersonal trust has a cognitive and affective basis (quoted from McAllister, 1995). Second, this trust dimension plays a role in influencing employee behavior (Dirks and Ferrin, 2002). Affective trust refers to a special relationship with someone who can be trusted who shows concern for one's well-being (Dirks and Ferrin, 2002;McAllister, 1995). Meanwhile, cognitive trust refers to problems related to the reliability, integrity, honesty, and fairness of a person to be trusted (Dirks and Ferrin, 2002;McAllister, 1995).

Leadership on Task Performance
Task performance is closely associated with formal duties and responsibilities in organizations.
Regarding paternalistic leadership, the leader's role is to provide attention and direction regarding career development for the benefit of employees (Wang and Cheng, 2010). Employee task performance will improve because of guidance from the leader. In addition, according to Chan and Mak (2012), paternalistic leadership virtue behavior will help employees to work more productively in groups (Pellegrini and Scandura, 2008).
Paternalistic leadership also demonstrates integrity and public interest rather than private interest (Niu et al., 2009). This paternalistic leadership behavior will motivate employees to commit in social exchange relationships. In high social exchange relationships, the employees will be willing to reciprocate the accepted behavior by increasing their effort which can affect employee performance improvement (Chen et al., 2014). In addition, paternalistic leadership behavior encourage employee to comply with instructions or the tasks they have been given (Cheng et al., 2004;Sheer, 2012). Chan's study (2007) confirms that the behavior of leaders who show concern for, and pay attention to, employee welfare benefit to support on employee's performance. Based on this explanation, this study has formulated first hypothesis as following: H1: Paternalistic leadership has a positive impact on employee's task performance Cheng et al. (2004) describe how, when a leader behaves like a father for a long-time, followers will feel comfortable and grateful to the leader. This is a form of emotional bonding and positive reciprocity (Blau, 1964). Ultimately, employees will feel responsible about following organizational rules and policies, they will have a sense of accountabilty, and this will encourage the achievement of organizational goals, which is an example of contextual work (Borman and Motowidlo, 1993;Motowidlo and Van Scotter 1994). Farh and Cheng (2000) explain that paternalistic leadership that shows high moral integrity will become a role model for employees. This is a critical role of paternalistic leadership in contextual performance. In addition, giving attention and care become a model of employee contextual performance behavior toward colleagues.
Empirical evidence also demonstrates that paternalistic leadership behavior benefit on increasing employee's performance which is not directly related to the employees' main duties, but has an impact on organizational goals (Chan, 2007;Chen et al., 2014). Hence, this study has formulated second hypothesis as following: H2: Paternalistic leadership has a positive influence on employee contextual performance

Trust in Leadership as Mediating on the Influence of Paternalistic Leadership on Employee's Performance
According to Blau, trust in leadership is the result of social exchange relationships (in Colquitt et al., 2007). When the leader is able to create high social exchange relationships with employees, it will make employees have high trust in the leader. Burke et al. (2007) also explain that trust is an intervention process that can improve important behaviors, attitudes, and relationships in organizations. Correspondingly, Schoorman et al. (2007) mention that ability, benevolence, and integrity grant to increasing trust in leadership in organizations. Empirical evidence from Farh and Chen (2000) also reveals that one of the employee's responses to paternalistic leadership is trust in that leadership.
When paternalistic leadership can develop a positive perception of trust in subordinates, their relationship becomes more bound in social exchange (Blau, 1964). In this context, the relationship between leaders and subordinates provides more socio-emotional benefits than economic benefits. This motivates members of organizations to perform their duties optimally . Paternalistic leadership also exhibits high integrity which can affect employees' positive perceptions of a leader's fairness . Previous study revealed that they are more inclined towards performance subordinate since their leaders is trustworthy, (Khan et al., 2020). Employees will believe that they will get rewarded according to the performance they produce. Therefore, the study has formulated third hypothesis as following: H 3: Trust in leadership mediates the influence of paternalistic leadership on task performance Furthermore, Bello (2012) reveals that trust in leadership will result in improvements in employee compliance with applicable regulations, supporting organizational change, and the desire to behave well as employees. This is the leader's ability to create employee trust which in turn affects the improvement of high contextual performance such as complying with applicable regulations and procedures.
One example of another kind of employee contextual performance is helping coworkers complete work. This happens because they follow the behavior of leaders who show concern for members of the organization as role models. Organizational members believe that the leader will be supportive if the behavior is also carried out by members (Chen et al., 2014). Therefore, the authors have formulated the following hypothesis: H4: Trust in leadersship mediates the influence of paternalistic leadership on contextual performance

Procedure and Respondents
This study uses a quantitative explanatory approach, whereby the influences that variables have on each other are explained through hypothesis testing (Neuman, 2006). The data were collected from employees in varied organizationssectors. This study uses a purposive sampling approach, namely sampling is done by setting certain criteria in accordance with the objectives of this study (Cooper and Schindler, 2014). The criteria used are the length of service or interaction between employees and their leaders; it must be at least one year so that employees can describe the relationship they have with their leaders. Primary data were obtained directly from the respondents (employees) through an instrument set of questionnaires. In addition, this study uses an online survey method.
The survey (n = 190) is collected employee from several location in Indonesia (e.g. Java, Kalimantan, Sulawesi and other island). Determination of sample from several location to generalize findings. Each respondent was asked to fill out a questionnaire found at the link provided. The link was send by email and whatsapp chat. Before distributing questionnaires, this study informs participants about the purposes of the research and promised anonymity. This study collected valid responses of 155 participants (a 81.6% response rate).
Most respondents were women who numbered 90 (58%). Respondents with an age range of 24 to 29 years were the biggest group (42 people or 91.6%). Respondents with unmarried status numbered 103 people (66.5%).
Those with undergraduate education were the most numerous (124 people 80%). As for duration of employment, those in the range of 1-2 years were the most numerous (77 people or 49.7%).

Measurement
The questionnaires use a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). This study also adopts Cronbach alpha for the measurement of reliability coefficient.
The paternalistic leadership variable consists of 26 items Cheng et al. (2014). An example of a statement item is: "My leader is not using me for personal gain." The paternalistic leadership has 0.876 for reliability coefficient.
The task performance variable was measured using an instrument developed by Befort and Hattrup (2003) consisting of 8 statement items. One example is: "I am capable of producing high-quality work." The reliability coefficient of the task performance is 0.908.
The contextual performance variable was measured using 16 statement items developed by Motowidlo and Van Scotter (1994). One example is: "Obey directions even when the leader is not there." The reliability coefficient of the contextual performance is 0.902.
The trust in leadership variable was measured using an 11 statement items developed by McAllister (1995). One example is: "My other coworkers who have interacted with my leader will find him trustworthy." The trust in leadership variable has 0.901 for reliability coefficient. Table 1 represent the results of mean, standard deviation, and correlation of all variables. The results reported that the average response to the paternalistic leadership variable was 3.32, for the trust in leadership variable it was is 3.82, for the task performance variable it was 3.85, and for the contextual performance variable it is 3.76. These results demonstrate that the response to all variables is above the average value. In addition, the paternalistic leadership variable has a strong positive correlation with the trust in leadership variable (r = .731; p >.01), positively a correlate with the task performance variable (r = .370; p > .01), and positively a correlate with the contextual performance (r = .410; p > .01). The confidence variable also shows a moderate positive correlation with task performance (r = .396; p> .01), and a positive correlation with contextual performance variables (r = .427; p> .01). Furthermore, Table 1 also shows a firm correlation with task and contextual performance. variables (r = .738; p> .01).

Validity
The testing of construct validity in this study was carried out by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with the varimax rotation method. Hair et al. (2014) recomended that the standard factor loading value used is .5. Moreover, there is two conditions must be met, first is the Kaizer-Mayer-Orkin value >0.5, and second is the Barlett's Test value with a significance value < .05.
In this process, statistical extraction of factors will be carried out to see the relationship between question items and construct. Furthermore, rotation is required if the extraction results do not yet produce a clear component factor, in addition, this rotation aims to obtain simpler factors. The varimax method or also called the orthogonal rotation method aims to produce a number of indicators that have a high loading factor value for each factor.
Therefore, several question items should be eliminated in the first round. There were 15 items from 62 question items should be terminated because not meet the valdity test requirements.
All other observed variables significantly (p<.001) loaded on their respective latent constructs with factor loading value greater than .5.

Hypothesis Testing
This study refers to the four steps of Baron and Kenny (1986) in testing the four hypotheses that have been formulated previously. To be systematic, the test is divided into two stages, as follows:

Testing Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 3
The first to be tested is that the paternalistic leadership positively influence on task performance. The regression results also explain that paternalistic leadership has a significant effect on task performance (β = .370; t = 4.932; p = .000). These results indicate that the first condition of the mediation test is met while confirming that hypothesis 1 is supported.
The second test is to test the influence of paternalistic leadership on the mediating variable of trust in the leadership. The regression results explain that the paternalistic leadership variable demonstrates a positive and significant effect on trust in the leadership (β = .731; t = 13.253; p = .000). These results also indicate that the second condition of the mediation test is met. The third test is to measure the effect of trust in leadership on the task performance variable. The regression test results that the trust in leadership variable show a significant effect on task performance (β = .396; t = 5.330; p = .000). These results confirm that the third condition of the mediation test has been met.
The last step of regression test is to examine the size of the influence of paternalistic leadership on employee's performance as mediated by trust in leadership. The results is showed that the influence of paternalistic leadership (β = .174; t = 1.609; p = .110) experienced a change in the regression results on task performance making it insignificant (p =.110 > .05) after the trust in leadership variable (β = .268; t = 2.480; p = .014) were included as mediation. These results conclude that the trust in leadership variable enable to role as full mediating variable for the relationship of paternalistic leadership and task performance. It means that hypothesis 3 is supported.

Testing Hypothesis 2 and Hypothesis 4
Further testing of hypothesis 2 and hypothesis 4 proceeded as follows. The first test is to examine the paternalistic leadership variable's effect on the contextual performance variable. The regression results that paternalistic leadership has a significant effect on contextual performance (β = .410; t = 5.552; p = .000). These results indicate that the first condition of the mediation test is met while also confirming that hypothesis 2 is supported.
The second test is to examine the paternalistic leadership variable's effect on a mediating variable of trust in leadership as. The regression test reported that the paternalistic leadership variable has a significant effect on trust in leadership (β = .731; t = 13.253; p = .000). These results also indicate that the second condition of the mediation test is met.
The third test is to examine the trust in leadership variable's effect on the dependent variable of contextual performance. The results of the regression reported that the trust in leadership variable has a positive and significant effect on contextual performance (β = .427; t = 5.843; p = .000). These results confirm that the third condition of the mediation test has been met.
The fourth step of the test is to examine the influence of the independent variable on the dependent variable with including the mediating variable. The regression results showed that the change in the influence of paternalistic leadership (β = .209; t = 1.968; p = .051) on contextual performance became insignificant (p value .051 > .05) after including the mediating variable of trust in leadership (β = .274; t = 2.585; P = .011). These reports that the trust in leadership has demonstrated as full mediating variable for the influence of paternalistic leadership on task performance. It means that hypothesis 4 is supported.

Conclusion and Suggestion
The results of this study address that the united three dimensions of benevolence, authoritarianism, and morality enables to be constructed as the paternalistic leadership in the heterogeneous organizations. These findings indirectly support the opinions of previous researchers (Glick and Fiske, 2001;Wagstaff et al., 2015) who find that measuring the dimensions together or as a whole can provide an overview of paternalistic leadership. Furthermore, the results of the three-dimensional paternalistic leadership correlation test showed a significant correlation. In addition, the results of the reliability test showed a high Cronbach alpha value (.876). This finding contrasts with Sheer's (2012) research which indicated that the paternalistic leadership variable, using the total score measurement, cannot be used because it has a low reliability value and the correlation between dimensions is not significant. Therefore, this study concludes that the overall measurement of paternalistic leadership is considered better than making measurements for each dimension.
This study also reveals the influence of paternalistic leadership on of task and contextual. These results support social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) based on shared norms (Gouldner, 1960in Chen et al., 2014. The theory states that a person is generally motivated to exhibit favorable behavior because he or she has received good treatment from others. Therefore, paternalistic leadership behavior that shows concern for, and gives attention to, employees then get a response in the form of good job performance from employees. The same result is also presented on contextual performance. Specifically, paternalistic leadership behavior is able to shape employee role models. Employees will demonstrate compliance with the rules and procedures that exist in the organization (Farh and Cheng, 2000). Therefore, the caring and attentive behavior exhibited by the leader will be implemented by helping coworkers. This can encourage high employee contextual performance.
The study was designed to advance literature on the relatively limited research domain of paternalistic leadership, specially mecanism how paternalistic leadership influence employee performance. We found strong empirical support for trust in leadership intervene and mediate positively the relationship of paternalistic leadership and individual performance (task and contextual). Through a positive result of trust in leadership as the mediating variable, paternalistic leadership raises the ability of employees to focus on tasks, besides that trust in leaders can create a sense of security and comfort related to employee motivation in completing tasks (Huang et al., 2010;Frazier et al., 2010).
Paternalistic leadership can also increase employee perceptions of fairness which can be a strong reason for an employee to feel confident in his leader . Furthermore, trust in leadership also provide confidence for employees in carrying out other things outside of the core task, namely contextual performance.

Conclusion
In conclusion, this study reports that the behavior of tpaternalistic leadership effectively presents in various organizational sectors. The findings of this research indicate that paternalistic leadership produce benefits of employee's task performance and contextual performance. Benevolence, moral integrity, and assertiveness show paternalistic leadership to be encouraging employees to complete the assigned tasks. Paternalistic leadership enables to make employees see their leaders as role models. Therefore, the behavior of a leader that is caring and attentive will be applied to coworkers. This can encourage improvement in employees' contextual performance. Trust in leadership critical contributes to explain the influence of paternalistic leadership behavior on employees' contextual performance of. As previously mentioned regarding the affective events theory, performance is a positive behavior that is influenced by a positive stimulus from paternalistic leadership through a positive attitude of previously formed beliefs. Furthermore, the limitations of this study are presented as base the development of the related future research. First, all question items in this study were filled out by employees which means they have potential for bias, although in this study the bias was reduced by having respondents fill out the questionnaire anonymously and by convincing respondents that there were no right or wrong response (Podsakoff et al., 2003). It is recommended that further research could control possible bias by taking responses from different sources or taking responses at different times (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
Second, this study only explains the impact of paternalistic leadership behavior. The following developed research could also examine the antecedent variables of paternalistic leadership. Third, the validity test for the paternalistic leadership variable reported that, of the nine authoritarian dimension items, there were five that had to be eliminated because they did not meet the requirements of factor analysis. This is presumably because the questions developed by Farh and Cheng (2000) are too negative, resulting in responses that are not in accordance with the actual conditions of employees who are asked to measure leadership behavior, because psychologically they will endure or stand firm. Therefore, it is suggested that further research could use the measurements developed by Watsegaff et al. (2015). Fourth, the mechanism of paternalistic leadership influencing on performance of task and contextual in this study have only tested one mediating variable, namely trust in leadership. Further research could consider variables of organizational commitment and perceived organizational justice with basing on using affective event theory to figure out the influence of paternalistic leadership on employee's the performance. This study perceives that both variables also have significant contribution for the impact of paternalistic leadership on increasing performance of task and contextual. Fifth, based on social interactionist perspective, trust in leadership is not static condition, but is dynamic. Therefore, this study suggest that the future research might adopt a qualitative approach to investigate levels of trusts in leadership among members.