Paternalism in labour relationships is characteristic of Chilean and Latin American firms. Despite its empirical and practical relevance it lacks adequate conceptual elaboration so that it remains an opaque real drive that cannot be managed. This paper seeks to propose some conceptual distinctions to help clarify its meaning.
Using the social systems theory of Niklas Luhmann, paternalism is analysed as semantics which makes three main aspects visible: interests, autonomous decisions and responsibility that are seen as different sources of risk and danger for the workers. Paternalism is allegedly a protective device.
Paternalism is reinforced and reproduced by distrust in the workers' capacities to make decisions on their own and it becomes a justification to keep wages low, hinder delegation and becomes an ideology that justifies gaps between productivity and compensation.
Paternalism is difficult to operationalize in order to make empirical observations, but through qualitative analysis we were able to characterize it with two examples. This will help empirical research to continue on a more appropriate conceptual basis.
HRM practices should consider that paternalism is present as an expectation and that management should know that it can also pervade administration despite its modernized appearance.
Since paternalism pervades expectations in opaque ways, it sets limits to management's capacities to administer human resources in a modern way. Awareness of this fact allows its comprehension and the ability to properly deal with it.
