Supportive leadership style Since 1960s, supportive leadership behavior is found to be positively related to subordinate job satisfaction.

This type of leadership has received extensive attention in a variety of different research areas, including the leadership (e.g. House, 1971), occupational stress (e.g. Kahn & Byosiere, 1992) and mentoring fields (e.g. Allen, Eby, Poteet, Lentz, & Lima, 2004). House (1981) defined a supportive leader as one who provides emotional, informational, instrumental and appraisal support to followers. However, the most intuitive meaning of social support is emotional support, which involves the provision of sympathy, evidence of liking, caring and listening. Wager (1965) found that a supportive style of leadership assisted the supervisor in fulfilling and satisfying the employees' role expectations. A supportive leadership style can be motivational to the extent that it causes the initiation, intensity, and persistence of work related behaviors in subordinates. Thus, a supportive leader is perceived as displaying feelings of trust, encouraging the development of close, mutually satisfying relationships, and creating a favorable atmosphere for interaction. Further, he or she not only recognizes, but also is responsive to subordinate needs by offering support. Avolio and Bass (1995) stated the leader displays more frequent individualized consideration by showing general support for the efforts of followers. Podsakoff et al. (1990) examined individualized support, which was defined as behavior on the part of a leader that indicates that he or she respects his or her followers and is concerned with followers feelings and needs.

Supportive leadership is a key aspect of effective leadership in pathgoal theory (House, 1971). House (1996) defined supportive leader behavior as behavior directed toward the satisfaction of subordinates needs and preferences, such as displaying concern for subordinates welfare and creating a friendly and psychologically supportive work environment. We therefore define supportive leadership as expressing concern for followers and taking account of their individual needs Hoppock's (1935) analysis of the early literature on job satisfaction indicated that workers tend to feel more satisfied when supervisors understood their problems and helped them, when needed. In a survey of more than 10,000 managerial, supervisory, and hourly personnel, Ronan (1970) obtained similar results, as did Roberts, l'liles, and Blankenship (1968). Stagner, Flebbe, and Wood (1952) found that railroad workers were better satisfied when their supervisors were good at handling grievances and communicating with employees. Likewise, Bose (1955) observed that workers under employee-centered supervisors had more pride in their groups than those under work centered supervisors. Mann and Hoffman (1960) found that in two plants, one automated, the other not, employees were more satisfied with supervisors who were considerate of their feelings, recognized good work, were reasonable in their expectations, and stood up for their subordinates. Research indicates that people who enjoy working with their supervisors will be more satisfied with their jobs (Aamodt, 2004). Furthermore, a study by Bishop and Scott (1997) as cited by Aamodt (2004) found that satisfaction with supervisors was related to organizational and team commitment, which in turn resulted in higher productivity, lower turnover and a greater willingness to help.

Researchers have also turned their attention to determining the critical variables which can improve job satisfaction (Agho et al. 1993, Blegan 1993, Campbell et al. 1976, King et al. 1982, Mottaz 19985, Weaver 1977). A review of empirical studies by Savery (1989) showed there are seven working conditions or variables which lead to job satisfaction for a majority of people. These conditions are interesting and challenging work, a feeling of achievement, relationship with immediate supervisor and other professionals, opportunities for friendship, advancement, security of employment and recognition. Most of these conditions/variables have been identified as intrinsic motivators and meeting these expectations are important in order to achieve high levels of job satisfaction for an individual. Furthermore, the value of intrinsic motivators to job satisfaction is well acknowledged among organizational researchers. In a simple word, having supervisors that concern about our needs and wants, showing empathy to our problems can foster good relationship between employees and supervisors therefore leading to job satisfaction to the former. According to Luthans (1995), there seem to be three dimensions of supervision that affect job satisfaction. One of the dimension has to do with the extent to which supervisors concern themselves with the welfare of their employees. Research indicates that employee satisfaction is increased if the immediate supervisor is emotionally supportive (Egan & Kadushin, 2004; Robbins, 1989; Schlossberg, 1997, as cited by Connolly & Myers, 2003). Shartle (1934) used interviews and questionnaires in a comparative study of supervisors who were rated as either effective or ineffective. Effective supervisors did not differ from their 477 ineffective peers in technical skills, but they were found to excel in their ability to interact effectively and in their interest in people. H. H. Meyer (195 I) observed that effective supervisors

regarded others as individuals with motives, feelings, and goals of their own and did not avoid interactional stress. Likewise, Walker, Guest, and Turner (1956) observed that effective supervisors established personal relationships with employees, stuck up for them, and absorbed the pressures from higher levels of authority. In the same way, A. X Turner (1954) reported that workers regarded as good supervisors those who did not pressure their subordinates unnecessarily were fair, friendly, and understanding and did not tell their subordinates to quit if they did not like the conditions. Several investigations focused on the impact on subordinates' satisfaction of psychological and social closeness or distance, a component of relations orientation. The results were mixed. Julian (1964) found that job satisfaction was higher when there was psychological closeness between the leader and the led. However, Blau and Scott (1962) and E. P. Shaw (1965) reported that the cohesiveness of the group was strengthened by the social distance between the leader and the followers, whereas Sample and Wilson (1965) found cohesiveness to be unrelated to such social distance. But the majority of reports from both field studies and laboratory experiments indicated that subordinates' satisfaction with their leaders was linked to their leaders' relations oriented attitudes and behavior. Starnpolis (1958) showed that the more employees rated their supervisor as fair, able to handle people, giving of credit, ready to discuss problems, and keeping employees informed, the less the employees expressed a desire for their company to be unionized. Bass and Mitchell (1976) reported similar results for professional and scientific workers. Illustrative also is the inability, to date, of the United Auto Workers, to organize the highly relations oriented, Japanese-owned, automobile plants in the United States (Gladstone, 1989).

In an aircraft factory, where team leaders devoted much of their time to facilitating the work of their team members and attending to the team members' personal problems, indicators of dissatisfaction, such as absenteeism and turnover, were lower (Mayo & Lombard, 1944). Numerous field studies continue to confirm the positive impact of a leader's relations orientation on the satisfaction of subordinates. For example, York and Hastings (1985-86) asked 172 employees working in Carolina social services to complete the Survey of Organizations (D. G. Bowers, 1976). At all levels of the assessed maturity of workers, the facilitative and supportive performance of supervisors was associated with the subordinates' satisfaction and motivation to work. In a nursing studies by Maloney (1979) concluded that people oriented leaders generally were more satisfying to their employees. In addition, employees grievances and turnover were lower when the leaders were seen as relations oriented. When the socio emotional and task oriented leadership of residence hall leaders were measured separately, both were linked by Donald (1969) to the satisfaction of students. However, the effects of task orientation on subordinates' satisfaction have usually been found to be somewhat less consistent. Task relevant behavioral measures, which contain element of the leader's punitiveness, will generate dissatisfaction, grievances, and turnover (Schriesheim & Kerr, 1974). In a survey of several thousand employees, R. Likert (1955) found that job satisfaction decreased as the supervisors pressure for production increased. On the other hand, it is not uncommon to find positive correlations for both the task and relations oriented behavior of supervisors and the satisfaction of their subordinates with supervisors. Generally, for nurse supervisors, for example, a strong task orientation that is not coupled with a high relations orientation results in less satisfied subordinates (Maloney, 1979).

Experiments may provide additional convincing evidence of the relationship between a leader's relations orientation and subordinates' satisfaction as most experimental studies concluded that the satisfaction of subordinates was positively associated with the leader's relations oriented behavior. Groups with positively supportive leaders exhibited higher degrees of cohesiveness and members satisfaction but were slower in solving problems. W. M. Fox (1957) also found that supportive leadership was associated with the members' satisfaction and the groups cohesiveness. The primary effects of supportive leadership are on affective reactions such as job satisfaction (Yukl, 1999). Empirical research has supported this assertion Oudge, Piccolo, & Hies, 2004; Wofford & Liska, 1993). Theorists have suggested that supportive leadership is associated with affective outcomes because socio-emotional support increases positive affect and enjoyment in the workplace, and communicates to followers that they are accepted and liked (Wofford & Liska, 1993). Theoretical arguments suggest that supportive leadership is likely to display a stronger positive relationship with job satisfaction than developmental leadership. Job satisfaction consists of two components: an affective and cognitive component (Fisher, 2000). The affective component of job satisfaction captures the feelings that are engendered by one's job and represents the emotional experience associated with a job. The cognitive component of job satisfaction refers to beliefs about one's job, and the location of one's job on various dimensions of judgment (Breckler & Wiggins, 1989). It is likely that the socio-emotional nature of supportive leadership will also display a strong relationship with the affective component of job satisfaction. Furthermore, in a study of 29 aircraft commanders, Halphin and Winer (1957), found correlation of 0.64 between supportive behavior and an index of crew satisfaction. The positive relationship

also supported by House, Filler and Damodar (1971) whom has found

that supervisory

supportiveness with company, job and freedom of action.. However, in a study utilizing data on 1,225 managers in 27 organizations, Stodgill (1974) found that, although supportive managers were more likely to have satisfied subordinates, these results were not universal. Furthermore, leadership involvement was shown to be positively correlated with job satisfaction of employees. Leadership involvement consists of aspects of style related to interpersonal skills, support, communication and understanding. Results of this study suggest that this type of support and nurturance is beneficial in facilitating change and maintaining levels of support during periods of upheaval and uncertainty associated with change (Albion & Ruth,2007). Thus, the study is highly warranted in this area.