Conclusion
Today, paternalistic leadership is still an exciting area for research. Diferent research results indicate that much more remains to be done to unveil the essence of this leadership style. Our study illustrates that collective efcacy is an important mechanism in explaining why moral leadership generates such high levels of organizational commitment, and interestingly, the fndings also reveals both negative and positive consequences of team cohesion. Thus, our model helps explain the interplay of paternalistic leadership, collective efcacy, organizational commitment, and team cohesion. We hope that it prompts further research into the efects of the three diferent dimensions of paternalistic leadership and the diferent mechanisms through which they work.