Literature review

Leadership is neither a position, designation nor the action of an exclusive leader. Instead, it is an interactive procedure in which leader and followers engage in mutual goals (Wren, 1995). There is a strong need for a leader, when there is a situation where someone is required to bring a change and provide guidance (English 1992). When an organization is going to incorporate change, at that time people look for a leader who can provide guidance and become a source of inspiration for others (Bolman & Deal, 1994) Supportive Leadership: It has been proposed throughout research that supportive leader behaviours can have a positive effect on employees. The concept of supportive leadership (or leader behaviours) has been quite well document in research. For instances, researchers have considered supportive leader behaviours to be an important components of individualized consideration a part of transformational theories of leadership. Indeed, Avolio and Bass (1995) and Podssakoff, Mackenzie, Moorman and Fetter (1990) defined supportive leadership in terms of general support for the efforts of followers and behaviour on the part of the leader which indicates that he or she respects his or her followers and is concerned with followers feelings and needs. House (1978) and Rafferty and Griffin (2004) have similarly defined supportive leadership as behaviour that expresses concern for followers and their individual needs. Supportive leaders behaviours have been espoused to have considerable influence on various outcome. House and Mitchell (1974) asserted that supportive leader behaviours can facilitate a friendly and psychologically supportive working environment, providing an avenue for the reduction of stress and frustration that may be experienced by the employees otherwise in high stress jobs. Indeed, a reasonable amount of research has supported pro-well-being assertions with respect to the reduction of perceived strain experienced by employees. For instances, LaRocca and Jones (1978) found leader support to be associated with higher levels of self-reported employee satisfaction and lower levels of intention to leave. Further, Karasek, Schwarkz, and Theorell (1982) found supportive leadership buffered the negative effects of job demands on job dissatisfaction and depression. Research has also found supportive leader behaviours to be inversely related to employee burnout (e.gGolembiewski,Munzwenrider & Stevenson, 1986). Overall, there is reasonable evidence backing the notion that supportive leader behaviours are generally associated with more positive employee well-being outcomes, and stressor perceptions. Job Performances: Performances are a measure of a persons ability to execute a specific task (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995). Job performances is the extent to which employees make efforts to achieve organization goals ( Greguras et al., 1996). It is how an employee strives to attain the goals of the organization and tries to achieve the standards set up by the organization (Bohlander et al.2001; Eysenck, 1998). Job performance consists of the observable behaviours that people do in their jobs that are relevant to the goals of the organization (Campbell, McHenry, & Wise, 1990). Job performance is of interest to organizations because of the importance of high productivity in the workplace (Hunter & Hunter, 1984). Performances definitions should focus on behaviours rather outcomes (Murphy, 1989). McCloy et al. (1994) viewed performances as multidimensional based o the actions or behaviours that relate to the organizational goals. Task performances and contextual performances are studied as the two dimensions of job performances by Motowidlo & Van Scotter (1994). Behaviours that is associated with keeping and servicing an organizations technical core is termed as task performances and contextual performances and viewed as the function of ones interpersonal skills. It supports the social environment and is linked with helping and cooperative elements of enviable behaviours within the organization. Job Satisfaction: Job satisfaction has been defined as feelings or affective responses to facets of the (workplace) situation (Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969,p.6). More recently, researchers have acknowledged that job satisfaction is a phenomenon best described as having both cognitive (thoughts) and affective (feelings) characters. Job satisfaction described that how much happy an individual is with his/her job. According to Locke (1976) job satisfaction is a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of ones job and job experiences. The happier the individual, the higher is level of job satisfaction. It is assumed that positive attitude towards work and greater organizational commitment increase job satisfaction which in return enhances performances of the individual (Linz, 2002). Job satisfaction is the most studied variable in the literature due to its importances in organizational behaviour. Different theories about job satisfaction can be found in literature like Affect Theory, Dispositional Theory, Two factor theory also called (Motivator-Hygiene Theory) and job Characteristics Model. According

to Nelsons (2006) an employees satisfaction is priceless. The frustrated or discouraged employees negatively influence the willingness to do the job. The unsatisfied employees are less committed to the organization, which affects their performance and eventually the performance of the firm. Supportive Leadership and Job Performances: Oluseyi and Ayo(2009) discussed leadership in term of the leaders role and ability to get the work done by subordinate in an effective manner. Leadership is an essential attitude for better organizational performances. Support from the leader motivates employees; I increase their performances, and improve their concentration level. According to Avolio and Bass (1995), a supportive leader has high concern for individual consideration. Supportive leadership is the subdimension of transformational leadership is featuring individualized consideration (Rafferty & Griffin, 2006). Such leaders support every subordinate to strive for higher performance and assist him or her solve the work related issues. In these way leaders, help subordinates to avoid stress. It is a role of a leader to understand the needs of employees and address them properly. Researchers (Dumdum et al., 2002: Judge et al., 2004) confirmed the direct effects of consideration (supportive leadership) on performance. If the leader is supportive and considerate and stimulates understanding and motivation then it will be helpful in getting tasks accomplished by employees efficiently and effectively. A number of studies have observe a significant, positive relationship between supervisors consideration and subordinate performance ( Farris & Lim, 1969; Greene, 1975; Lowin & Craige, 1968). This guided the second hypothesis for this study: Hypothesis 2 a : The supportive leadership is positively related to job performance. Job Satisfaction and Job Performances: The relationship between job satisfaction and performances has been studied extensively throughout the history of industrial/organizational psychology (Judge, Thoresen, Bono & Patton, 2001). The satisfaction-performance relationship has been studied for decades. The Hawthorne studies in the 1930s and the human relations movement stimulated interest in the relationship between employee attitude and performance. Brayfield and Crockett (1995) published a narrative review of the satisfaction-performance relationship in which they concluded that the relationship was minimal or nonexistent. However, this review was limited by the small number of primary studies existent at the time that examined the satisfaction-performances relationship. Since Brayfield and Crcketts influential review, other reviews of the satisfaction-performance relationship have also been published (e.g., Herzberg,Mausner,Peterson , & Campbell; 1957; Vroom, 1964; Locke, 1970, Schwab & Cummings, 1970). These reviews have differed in their perceptions of the satisfaction-performance relationship. One of the most optimistic of these reviews is that of Hertzberg et al. (1957) in which they express confidences in a relationship between job satisfaction and job performances, but suggest that pervious correlations have been low because researchers were not correctly measuring satisfaction and performance. A common theme among these reviews is a necessity for theoretical work on satisfaction, performances, and their relationship (Locke, 1970; Schwab & Cummings, 1970). Specially, Schwab and Cummings (1970) explain that a premature focus on the satisfaction-performance relationship has been problematic because of the lack of theory involved. Following these reviews, researchers began to more closely consider the satisfaction-performance relationship, both empirically investigating the relationship and also looking specifically at potential mediators and moderators of the relationship (Judge et al.,2001). Laffaldano and Muchinsky (1985) conducted an empirical investigation of the satisfaction-performances relationship and found the true population correlation to be. 1.7. Thus, they concluded that satisfaction and performances are only slightly related. In the more recent meta-analysis, Judge et al,(2001) estimate a true population correlation of .30. They explain that this result is different from the one obtained by laffaldano and Muchinsky (1985) because the laffaldono and Muchinsky study examined satisfaction at the facet rather than global level. As performance was conceptualized as being at a general level, one would except that measuring satisfaction at that facet level would result in lower correlation than measuring satisfaction at the more general global level. As such, it is reasonable to believe that the correlation between satisfaction and performances is closer to Judge etals (2001 correlation of .30 rather than laffaldono and Mucuchinskys (1985) correlation of .17. Judge et al. (2001) argued that there are seven different models that can be used to describe the job satisfaction and job performances relationship. Some of these models view the relationship between job

satisfaction and job performances to be unidirectional, that either job satisfaction causes job performances or vice verse. Another model states that the relationship is a reciprocal one; this has been supported by the research of Wanouns (1974). The underlying theory of this reciprocal model is that if the satisfactions is extrinsic, then satisfaction leads to performance, but if the satisfaction is intrinsic, then the performances leads to satisfaction. Other models suggest there is either an outside factors that causes a seemingly relationship between the factors or that there is bo relationship at all, however, neither of these models have much research. Supportive leadership and Job Satisfaction: Job satisfaction refers to an individuals global feeling about their job (Spector, 1997) and authors have argued that the primary effects of supportive leadership are on affective reactions such as job satisfaction (Yukl,1999). Empirical research has supported this assertion (Judge, Piccolo & llies, 2004; Wofford & Liska, 1993). Theorists have suggested that supportive leadership is associated with affective outcomes because socio-emotional support increase positive affect and enjoyment in the workplace, and communicates to followers that they are accepted and liked (Woffored & Liska, 1993). As a result, it is proposed that: Hypothesis 2: Supportive leadership will display a positive relationship with job satisfaction.