As researchers have noted, one of the fundamental assumptions in managerial practice is that every workers can be motivated to high performance by satisfying his/her needs (Anikpas 1984).
The principle underling this assumption is that every workers has some interlining drives which pilots his behaviour in specific directions towards achieving self fulfillment not only on the job but also in the realization of entire life goals or ambitions. That perhaps underscores the continuous reference to meslow’s hierarchy of needs theory in industrial and business organizations.
Deci (1972), tested the performance of participants who were paid hourly or contingently to solve puzzle games which they found enjoyable. After the session, the participants were told to work on the puzzle as much as they want at their free time, but with no pay. Then that were secretly observed. The author found out that participants on contingency pay scheduled spent less time on the puzzle at the “no pay period” than those on hourly pay. He therefore concluded that when external reward is tied directly to performance intrinsic motivation decreases.
Substantial quantities of research efforts have been extended in attempt to determine the validity of fielder’s contingency approach to leadership. While a greater portion of these studies supported the predictions, a number of studies could not find support for the postulations. The theory was tested on the most readily criterion of leadership effectiveness and performance.
House (1971) believed that a leader’s behaviour will be accepted by sub-ordinators / workers only to the extent to that the behaviour helps them achieve their goals. Thus leader will be successful only if their sub-ordinations perceive them as working with them to meet certain goals and if those goals offer a favourable outcome for the subordinates. Because the needs of workers change with each new situation, supervisor must adjust their behaviour to meet the need of the workers. That is, in some situation subordinates need a leader to be directive and to set goals.
Henderson (1987) concluded that, rewarding workers performance leads to optimal performance. If workers are not rewarded for their performance, they will search for behaviour that will be rewarded.
The research literature abounds with studies demonstrating the effectiveness of reinforcement and feed back. Astin, Nessler, Niccorbono Baitey (1996) provided daity feedback and weekly monetary reinforcement to workers. This intervention resulted in a 64% labour cost reduction and an 80% improvement in safety. Lafleur and Hyten (1995) used a combination of goal setting, feedback and reinforcement to increase the quality of performance.
In an interesting use of reinforcement and feedback to enhance workers performance korlick and O’ Brien (1996) devised the “world series of quality control”, at a package delivery company in New York. The 104 workers were divided nito B terms of * workers each and competed against one another to have the best slipping accuracy and quantity. Performance information and team standings were posted each week with the winning team receiving pizzas. At the end of each month, the winning team received individual plaques and dinner at a local restaurant. The intervention resulted in promising increases in slipping accuracy. This result was dependent on reinforcement of workers performance.
Obviously, it is important to reward worker for productive work performance but different worker like different types of rewards which is why supervisors, should have access to and be trained to administer different types of reinforces. For example:- some workers can be rewarded with praise, others with awards, other with interesting work and still others with money (filipc 2ak, 1993). Infact, a meta- analysis by stakovic and mancial and social rewards all resulted in increase level of performance.
The use of money do motivate better worker performance has gain popularity (Schuster and Zingheim, 1992).
A compensation plan should include base pay and a benefit package to provide workers with security, salary adjustment to cover such conditions as undesirable shifts and geographical areas with high costs of living and variable pay to provide an incentive to perform better.
Incentive systems after result in higher levels of performance, but when designed poorly, they can result in such negative outcomes as increase stress, decrease health and decrease safety. (Schileifer and Amick, 1989, Achleifer and Okogbaa, 1995).
The entire process of measuring against standards requires effective communication. Much emphasis should be placed on how much information a worker absorbs and not how much information he/she gets. The worker should be able to control measures and guide his/her own performance. He/ she should know how his / her contributions to the organization are (Drucker 1955).
In an organization, performance night translate into measures of group task completion, quality be translate into behaviour and actions as related by superiors. A leadership effort of any manager in an organization is geared at ensuring peak performance. To ensure peak performance of workers, a proper job analysis of individual, job must be done for maximum efficiency. Careful analysis of the job may reveal these key point or critical incidents for which it may be possible to set performance standards expressed in measurable behaviour, (Graham 1982).
To motivate a worker for high performance his/her job must be engineered to fit his/her personality. Workers should not be regarded as machines, as done by the scientific management school, when a job is too large, complicated and too strenuous to be dons by a single individual. Performance might be adversely affected.
Bradain (1988) maintained that performance is a multiple of individual; attributes, work efforts and organizational support. He concluded that a leader/ manager should make sure that the work group is united enough for his workers together form than against each other. People who work together form and build social relationship. When the organization is in conflict with certain social demands the work force and the work itself suffers (Drucker 1955)
Deci (1975) predicted that workers perform high because the job interesting and enjoyable on itself than because the reward attached to it. As a result they are more committed and satisfied with their tasks. However, when external reward are tied to task performance, intrinsic motivation declines, An average worker wants to feel in control of his/ her actions and take pleasure in job that given him that feelings of competence and sense of control over incidents around him.
Field study involving 27 employees in delivery station showed that employees who strive to reach their quota where those under supervisors who are considerate and participative in their approach to work. However, experimental investigation suggests that consideration or participation may be not always produce positive results (Scales 1966).
In a study tilled “Effects of performance on leadership cohesiveness, influence, satisfaction and subsequent performance. Farris and Lin (1969) suggests that a supervisor of productive competent work group can really be considerate, consultative and participative only because the work group is productive. On the other hand, if the employees are in competency is that the supervisor will attempt to be more directive imitative and in considerate.
In a study titled “psychometric properties of the Ohio state leadership scale, support for the Leader Behaviour Description Questionnaire (LEDQ) in predicting effective leaders. Stegdill and (rooms) 1957) reported that about 30% of leaders behaviour differences can be traced to initiating structure and consideration factors. Fleishman and Harris (1962) correlated the two leader behaviour initiating structure and consideration with workers grievances and performance. They found out that leaders who were rated low in consideration recorded highest grievance rate form their employees, which those who were rated high in consideration recorded the lowest grievance from their employees. In the same vein, leaders who were rated low in initiating structure had fewer grievance reports from their employees while those rated high on initiating structure had high grievance record from their employees. Scheriesheim, house and Kerr (1976), however, found that leaders who score high on initiating structures also had highly productive work force. The indication therefore is both consideration and initiating structure can equally be effective under varying circumstances. Since grievance and turn over are expressions of dissatisfaction, it may well be concluded from fleishuman and Harris (1962) findings that consideration increase job satisfaction among works.
Lowin (1968) found that subordinates competence, belief attributes, esteem, motives contribute to determining whether the supervision would adopt initiation/ direction on considerate/participative approach in dealing with the when workers perceive that they lack competence on the task to be handled, they prefer initiative and directive supervision, much more than when they are competent.
Hsu and Newton (1974) also found that supervisors of unskilled workers use more of initiation and directive approach than supervisions of skilled workers in the same company.
Heller (1969), equally reported that when mangers perceive a large skill differences, especially in terms of technical abilities, intelligence and decieveness between them and subordinates they are more prone to adoptine close monitoring and autocratic directive approaches to work. However, where workers are valued and esteemed because of their expertise and personal qualities, the supervisor often tends towards inviting them to participate in decision making.
Empirical evidence have also shown that participation increase job satisfaction, but only for subordinates who have democratic attitude than those have authoritarian attitudes, Coch and French (1969)
Child and Ellis (1973), also reported that leaders who where expressed to sensibility training were found to prefer participative leadership style, which those not exposed to such training tend to be more comfortable with initiating structure directive leadership style.
Empirical evidence also school that the more structured organization is the more rigid, closed and threatening will be the perceived climate. (marrow et at 1967). On the contrary, the more autonomy and discretion are permitted and concern shown by management, the more favourable will by the perceived climate (steer and porter 1979)
Koazka (1960), had pointed out that consultative, open, employee- centered leadership style are associated with more positive job attitudes. The indication is that job satisfaction to an extent is derived from the way managers shown concern for, and seek advice and participation of employees.
Litwin and Stringer (1963), also indicate that authoritarian climate in which decision making was centralized and employees behavior controlled largely by rules and standard procedures let not only to low productivity, but also low satisfaction, creativity and negative attitude to work.
On the other hand, an affirmative climate in which good inter- personal relation among employees was stressed, indeed led to high job satisfaction, positive attitude towards work, group coherence and moderate creative behaviour, though productivity remained low. Only in a achievement oriented climate will emphasis on goal attainment were both creativity and productivity high.
Achievement oriented climate was also found to result into high job satisfactory, positive group attitude and high achievement motivation level (steer 1975, 1976).
Empirically, evidence also showed that employee central climate, with employee centered climate, with emphasis on open communication, mutual support and decentralized decision making, generally led to in creased performance, reduce turn over or more commitment, lower manufacturing cost and reduced training time (marrow et at 1967).
The implication of this is that most favourable climate for attaining high performance and satisfaction include employee oriented, achievement oriented climate and consideration oriented climate. In other words, organizational effectiveness comes from the ability of a leader to design a climate that stresses goal attainment and which at the cooperation encourages mutual support, cooperation and participation. An employee or relation oriented leadership style is suggested to be the most likely style to achieve that objective.
Graham (182), submitted that leadership effort in organizations should be geared at measuring peak performance. To ensure peak performance a proper job analysis must be carried out for maximum efficiency. He concluded that for a worker to be motivated for high performed.
Lorcheet at (1998) contended that a leader is the vocal point of an organization. It is therefore his dusty to encourage and motivate his workers / employees and this can be done by ensuring that the phenomenon of goal contingency exists within the organization. Within the organizational frame work, performance might translate in to measure of group task completion, quality and efficiency. At the individual into behaviours as related by supervisors.
Drucker (1955), has the opinion that good or bad performance of an individual worker, cannot be determined except through the use of standards. The entire process of measuring performance against standards requires effective communication. Much emphasis should then be pad to how much information a subordinate absorbs be not how much information he gets. Through this process, a worker should be able to control measures and guide his own performance.
Supervising has a positive effect on an employee’s professional and career success (Noe (1988) and Ragins (1989). It is proved that “the degree of supervisory support may influence the subordinate’s motivation, job satisfaction, and performance (Babin and Boles, 1996; Michaels et al., 1987)”. Frone et al. (1997) found that job satisfaction increases when employee get a positive support from colleague and supervisor. Bennet et al. (2001) have also observed. The positive relationship among supervisory support and organizational acknowledgement to job satisfaction.
Recently, in a study with traffic police which is conducted by Baruch- Feldman et al. (2002) has also found that supervisor support is related to job satisfaction. Schavboreck and Fink (1998) also obtained positive relationship between support and organizational commitment of the employees.
Eisenberger et al. (2001) in his structural equation casual model, concluded that support has a direct and positive influence on affective commitment with the organization. again employee’s commitment towards organization and achieving it’s long term goal in service delivery is strongly influenced by the action taken by the manager (Zeithmal, 1990). When employees notice that their immediate supervisor is concerned for them and provides adequate support to get the job done, employees feel more positive towards their work (Babin and Boles, 1996; Kopelman et al., 1990; Michaels et al., 1987), which in turns, pulls out extra work effort enhance the service quality of the employees. Organization generally takes strategic decisions which generally create a wave of sub decisions. These sub decisions have to be carefully implemented in order to achieve the strategic goals (MiNtzber et al., 1976).
Typically, the manager- leader (Middle managers and supervisors) is held accountable for the implementation of these sub decisions.
Sub-decision implementation is defined as a sequence of tasks carefully executed so that a favorable business outcome can be achieved in the medium to short term. It is clear that the particulars of such implementation vary widely from decision to decision, but virtually all decisions require efficient implementation to be successful (Nutt, 1993).efficiency in implementing the decisions is crucial which is guided by the supervisor to the base level employees. Or in other words, a brilliant decision can prove worthless without it’s efficient implementation.
This implementation of decisions is a critical dimension of leadership role. Even the best decisions fail to be implementation due to the inadequate supervision of subordinates, among other reasons (Hill, 1978). From a contract perspective, interactions between an employee and specific organization agents such as supervisors result in psychological contracts between the employee and the organization (shore and Tetrick, 1994). As an agent the organization, the supervisor discharges the organization’s legal, moral and financial responsibilities (Robinsons and Morrison, 1995).
Therefore, how the supervisor upholds the psychological employee-employer contract significantly influences the elicitation (Robinson and Morrison, 1995). To enhance the service quality of the employee a supervisor helps the employees to enhance the service effort. Podsakoff et al. (1990) reported strong support for the direct influence of trust in supervisor. The employee’s commitment to the organization and it’s long- term goal of excellence in service delivery is, however, strongly influenced by managerial action (Zeithaml, V. A., Parasurama, A. and Berry, L.L.,1990; Young, M. 1991). An organization which truly pursues service excellence needs middle- level managers and supervisors who rise above more managing and leading.
It requires managers who establish and reinforce a service vision, who create a culture of teamwork and performance, and supervisors who remove obstacles from the paths of employees who want to satisfy the service quality provided by employees (Zeithaml, V.A; Parasuaman, A. and Berry, L. L., 1990). Supervisors behavior towards it’s employee also influence the service quality of the employees. Cohen et al. (1996) identified the supervisory behaviours in the same way that Manz and Sims (1987) had previously done. Manz and. Teams is a paradox that is dealt with by illuminating six leadership behaviors that assist self- managed teams in managing themselves. A supervisor must concentrate on these leadership behaviors. These behaviors are: encouraging self- observation/ self evaluation, encouraging self- goal setting- encouraging self expectation and encouraging rehearsal. Self- observation evaluation facilitates the performance evaluation process. In this behavior, the leader encourages the work group to monitor, be cognizant of, and continuously assess his / her performance levels. Self goals. This behavior allows for the group to set realistic but challenging goals. Self reinforcement facilitates the recognition and behavior the leader urges the group itself to be self-reinforcing of high performance standards.
Self-criticism facilitates critical self- evaluation and discouragement of poor performance. Self- expectation facilitates heightened expectations for group performance. Finally, rehearsal facilitates practicing an action before performing it. The leader encourages the group to review an activity and go through the steps involved in the activity before action occurs.
By encouraging these behaviors, leaders aid their subordinates in developing self- control (Manz and Angle, 1986). This self- control, or self- regulation, is the key component of self- management (Manz and Sims, 1987).
Self-management, in turn, enables team members to exhibit performance-enhancing behaviors that lead to increased group effectiveness. Once the positive performance norms are established, they eliminating the need to control members and instilling a sense of ownership for the quality of work, which reduces process loses (Leibowitz and Holden, 1995., Hackman and Oldhman, 1980). As group identity, grows, it should promote a healthy work cycle in which the supervisor takes on the role of facilitator (Hackman, 1977).
Perceived organizational support (POS) represents employee’s perception of the organization commitment to him or her. Earlier back in 1964, Blau narrates concept of POS as a means of social exchange interpretation of organizational commitment where by the employees amplify their efforts and allegiance by the to the organization in return for material commodities and social rewards.
Churchill et al. (1985) in his studies found that organizational variable depends on specific organizational action which is exercised by the managers as a means of influencing employee job outcomes where as POS appears to be particularly rely on firm- administrative actions. Eisenberg et al. (1986) later urged that when employees develop their perceptions of organizational support, they depend highly on the frequency and extremity of formal organizational recognition such as payment, rank, job enrichment and influence over organizational policies.
One of the first studies on the influence of social support on work was run by La Rocco et al. (180). He pointed out whenever employees feel supported they tend to show better psychological well- being, higher job satisfaction and better performance. In terms of a social exchange of frame work, Mohr and Bitner (1995) shows that POS has a direct impact on contact employee’s service efforts which can be defined as the amount of energy put into service works. Thus, the more the employees perceive greater organizational support, their sense of obligation to reciprocate with helpful behaviors towards the organization increases (Betten court and Brown, 1997; shore and Wayne (1993). Thus organizational support generates further positive work attitude. Organizational support can be of different forms. Frone et al. (1997) found that colleague and supervisor support have a positive influence on job satisfaction. Bennet et al. (2001) have observed that the supervisory support and organizational acknowledgment are related to job satisfaction.
Moreover, there is wide evidence of social support related to organizational commitment (Eisenberger et al. 1990; Guzzo et al., 1994;. Wayne et al., 1997.
Frone et al. (1997) found that supervisory support is positively related to temporal work commitment. Schaubroeck and Fink (1998) also obtained positive relationship between support and organizational commitment. Fisenberger et al. (2001) using a structural equation causal model, concluded that support has a direct and positive influence on affective commitment with the organization. in a longitudinal research, Sting /hamber and vanderbergue (2003) found that organizational suppot have different links as well as highlighting the importance of distinguishing between both dimensions. The meta-analysis of Readhes and Eisenberger (2002) established evidence of the connection support-commitment: the relationship between organizational support and affective commitment with the organization is strong, where a the relationship between organizational support and job involvement is just moderated. However, even though most literature on organizational support is focused on relationship involving satisfaction and commitment (Randall et al., 1999), there is also evidence of positive relationships between organizational support and performance (Armeli et al., 1998; Eisenberger et al., 1986,1990). Organ (1988) points out that employee perceiving themselves as correctly treated by the organization will respond with extra-effort, which will affect. Their job performances as well as the extra-role behavior. Summarizing, the meta-analysis made by Roadher and Eisenberger (2002) shows that the relationships between organizational support and extra-role performance are positive which in terms exerts the quality services from the employees.
One way of supporting the teams is improving the group efficiency with training. The main models of group performance stustain this idea (Campion et al., 1993; Gladstein, 1984; Hackman, 1987; Sundstrom et al; 1990; Tannen baum et al; 1996). With the implementation of working teams, employees need specific training in different and team working skills, e. t. c). in this situation it has been found the those employees getting more support show higher job satisfaction (Campion et al., 1993; Hackman, 1987; Teague et al., 1995) and that satisfaction leads to higher work effort which results higher quality of the service. Training also improves group performance by means of providing the skills needed to work as apart of a team (Sundstrom et al., 1990). Another form of support is the appreciation and rewards offered to employees. Employee acknowledgment and rewarding on account of their group contribution is one of the most effective ways that organizations have to promote team working (Hackman, 1987; Larson and Lafasto, 1989). Hyatt and Ruddy (1997) found that the teams obtaining the necessary support of superiors and organization tended to be more effective.
Less evidence has been gathered concerning antecedents perceived organizational support, Guzzo et al; (1994) found among managers holding over seas assignments that the sufficiency of financial inducement, family
- Oriented actions, and other favorable job conditions was positively to POS. Also positively associated with POS were development training experiences, promotions and organizational tenure (Wayne et al, 1997) and procedural justice in performance appraisal decision (Faslol, 1995). In contract with these studies, the present research was not concerned with identifying specific job condition that contribution most to POS, Researchers investigated how employee beliefs concerning the organization’s motivation for treating them favourably or unfavourably might moderate the relationship between job- condition favourableness and POS.
- Social exchange theorists have argued that the receipt of resources from another person is valued more highly if thought to be discretionary rather than dictated by circumstances largely beyond the donor’s control. Such voluntary aid would be welcomed as an indication that the donor genuinely values and respects the recipient. Blau 1964, Cotterell and Marvel, (1987), Gouldner, 1960). Accordingly, recipients returned greater favourableness of job condition should contribute to POP more substantially if believed to be the result of voluntary action by the organization, thereby reflecting the organization’s valuation of the employee, (et Eisenberger et al, 1986: Shore and Shore, 1995).
In contras, the favourableness of job, condition over which employees believe the organization has low control should exert little influences on POS.
Hypothesis
There will be statistical influences of leadership styles on job involvement.
There will be a statistical significant influence of perceived organization support (POS) on job involvement.
There will be a joint significant influence of perceived organizational support and leadership style on job involvement.
The principle underling this assumption is that every workers has some interlining drives which pilots his behaviour in specific directions towards achieving self fulfillment not only on the job but also in the realization of entire life goals or ambitions. That perhaps underscores the continuous reference to meslow’s hierarchy of needs theory in industrial and business organizations.
Deci (1972), tested the performance of participants who were paid hourly or contingently to solve puzzle games which they found enjoyable. After the session, the participants were told to work on the puzzle as much as they want at their free time, but with no pay. Then that were secretly observed. The author found out that participants on contingency pay scheduled spent less time on the puzzle at the “no pay period” than those on hourly pay. He therefore concluded that when external reward is tied directly to performance intrinsic motivation decreases.
Substantial quantities of research efforts have been extended in attempt to determine the validity of fielder’s contingency approach to leadership. While a greater portion of these studies supported the predictions, a number of studies could not find support for the postulations. The theory was tested on the most readily criterion of leadership effectiveness and performance.
House (1971) believed that a leader’s behaviour will be accepted by sub-ordinators / workers only to the extent to that the behaviour helps them achieve their goals. Thus leader will be successful only if their sub-ordinations perceive them as working with them to meet certain goals and if those goals offer a favourable outcome for the subordinates. Because the needs of workers change with each new situation, supervisor must adjust their behaviour to meet the need of the workers. That is, in some situation subordinates need a leader to be directive and to set goals.
Henderson (1987) concluded that, rewarding workers performance leads to optimal performance. If workers are not rewarded for their performance, they will search for behaviour that will be rewarded.
The research literature abounds with studies demonstrating the effectiveness of reinforcement and feed back. Astin, Nessler, Niccorbono Baitey (1996) provided daity feedback and weekly monetary reinforcement to workers. This intervention resulted in a 64% labour cost reduction and an 80% improvement in safety. Lafleur and Hyten (1995) used a combination of goal setting, feedback and reinforcement to increase the quality of performance.
In an interesting use of reinforcement and feedback to enhance workers performance korlick and O’ Brien (1996) devised the “world series of quality control”, at a package delivery company in New York. The 104 workers were divided nito B terms of * workers each and competed against one another to have the best slipping accuracy and quantity. Performance information and team standings were posted each week with the winning team receiving pizzas. At the end of each month, the winning team received individual plaques and dinner at a local restaurant. The intervention resulted in promising increases in slipping accuracy. This result was dependent on reinforcement of workers performance.
Obviously, it is important to reward worker for productive work performance but different worker like different types of rewards which is why supervisors, should have access to and be trained to administer different types of reinforces. For example:- some workers can be rewarded with praise, others with awards, other with interesting work and still others with money (filipc 2ak, 1993). Infact, a meta- analysis by stakovic and mancial and social rewards all resulted in increase level of performance.
The use of money do motivate better worker performance has gain popularity (Schuster and Zingheim, 1992).
A compensation plan should include base pay and a benefit package to provide workers with security, salary adjustment to cover such conditions as undesirable shifts and geographical areas with high costs of living and variable pay to provide an incentive to perform better.
Incentive systems after result in higher levels of performance, but when designed poorly, they can result in such negative outcomes as increase stress, decrease health and decrease safety. (Schileifer and Amick, 1989, Achleifer and Okogbaa, 1995).
The entire process of measuring against standards requires effective communication. Much emphasis should be placed on how much information a worker absorbs and not how much information he/she gets. The worker should be able to control measures and guide his/her own performance. He/ she should know how his / her contributions to the organization are (Drucker 1955).
In an organization, performance night translate into measures of group task completion, quality be translate into behaviour and actions as related by superiors. A leadership effort of any manager in an organization is geared at ensuring peak performance. To ensure peak performance of workers, a proper job analysis of individual, job must be done for maximum efficiency. Careful analysis of the job may reveal these key point or critical incidents for which it may be possible to set performance standards expressed in measurable behaviour, (Graham 1982).
To motivate a worker for high performance his/her job must be engineered to fit his/her personality. Workers should not be regarded as machines, as done by the scientific management school, when a job is too large, complicated and too strenuous to be dons by a single individual. Performance might be adversely affected.
Bradain (1988) maintained that performance is a multiple of individual; attributes, work efforts and organizational support. He concluded that a leader/ manager should make sure that the work group is united enough for his workers together form than against each other. People who work together form and build social relationship. When the organization is in conflict with certain social demands the work force and the work itself suffers (Drucker 1955)
Deci (1975) predicted that workers perform high because the job interesting and enjoyable on itself than because the reward attached to it. As a result they are more committed and satisfied with their tasks. However, when external reward are tied to task performance, intrinsic motivation declines, An average worker wants to feel in control of his/ her actions and take pleasure in job that given him that feelings of competence and sense of control over incidents around him.
Field study involving 27 employees in delivery station showed that employees who strive to reach their quota where those under supervisors who are considerate and participative in their approach to work. However, experimental investigation suggests that consideration or participation may be not always produce positive results (Scales 1966).
In a study tilled “Effects of performance on leadership cohesiveness, influence, satisfaction and subsequent performance. Farris and Lin (1969) suggests that a supervisor of productive competent work group can really be considerate, consultative and participative only because the work group is productive. On the other hand, if the employees are in competency is that the supervisor will attempt to be more directive imitative and in considerate.
In a study titled “psychometric properties of the Ohio state leadership scale, support for the Leader Behaviour Description Questionnaire (LEDQ) in predicting effective leaders. Stegdill and (rooms) 1957) reported that about 30% of leaders behaviour differences can be traced to initiating structure and consideration factors. Fleishman and Harris (1962) correlated the two leader behaviour initiating structure and consideration with workers grievances and performance. They found out that leaders who were rated low in consideration recorded highest grievance rate form their employees, which those who were rated high in consideration recorded the lowest grievance from their employees. In the same vein, leaders who were rated low in initiating structure had fewer grievance reports from their employees while those rated high on initiating structure had high grievance record from their employees. Scheriesheim, house and Kerr (1976), however, found that leaders who score high on initiating structures also had highly productive work force. The indication therefore is both consideration and initiating structure can equally be effective under varying circumstances. Since grievance and turn over are expressions of dissatisfaction, it may well be concluded from fleishuman and Harris (1962) findings that consideration increase job satisfaction among works.
Lowin (1968) found that subordinates competence, belief attributes, esteem, motives contribute to determining whether the supervision would adopt initiation/ direction on considerate/participative approach in dealing with the when workers perceive that they lack competence on the task to be handled, they prefer initiative and directive supervision, much more than when they are competent.
Hsu and Newton (1974) also found that supervisors of unskilled workers use more of initiation and directive approach than supervisions of skilled workers in the same company.
Heller (1969), equally reported that when mangers perceive a large skill differences, especially in terms of technical abilities, intelligence and decieveness between them and subordinates they are more prone to adoptine close monitoring and autocratic directive approaches to work. However, where workers are valued and esteemed because of their expertise and personal qualities, the supervisor often tends towards inviting them to participate in decision making.
Empirical evidence have also shown that participation increase job satisfaction, but only for subordinates who have democratic attitude than those have authoritarian attitudes, Coch and French (1969)
Child and Ellis (1973), also reported that leaders who where expressed to sensibility training were found to prefer participative leadership style, which those not exposed to such training tend to be more comfortable with initiating structure directive leadership style.
Empirical evidence also school that the more structured organization is the more rigid, closed and threatening will be the perceived climate. (marrow et at 1967). On the contrary, the more autonomy and discretion are permitted and concern shown by management, the more favourable will by the perceived climate (steer and porter 1979)
Koazka (1960), had pointed out that consultative, open, employee- centered leadership style are associated with more positive job attitudes. The indication is that job satisfaction to an extent is derived from the way managers shown concern for, and seek advice and participation of employees.
Litwin and Stringer (1963), also indicate that authoritarian climate in which decision making was centralized and employees behavior controlled largely by rules and standard procedures let not only to low productivity, but also low satisfaction, creativity and negative attitude to work.
On the other hand, an affirmative climate in which good inter- personal relation among employees was stressed, indeed led to high job satisfaction, positive attitude towards work, group coherence and moderate creative behaviour, though productivity remained low. Only in a achievement oriented climate will emphasis on goal attainment were both creativity and productivity high.
Achievement oriented climate was also found to result into high job satisfactory, positive group attitude and high achievement motivation level (steer 1975, 1976).
Empirically, evidence also showed that employee central climate, with employee centered climate, with emphasis on open communication, mutual support and decentralized decision making, generally led to in creased performance, reduce turn over or more commitment, lower manufacturing cost and reduced training time (marrow et at 1967).
The implication of this is that most favourable climate for attaining high performance and satisfaction include employee oriented, achievement oriented climate and consideration oriented climate. In other words, organizational effectiveness comes from the ability of a leader to design a climate that stresses goal attainment and which at the cooperation encourages mutual support, cooperation and participation. An employee or relation oriented leadership style is suggested to be the most likely style to achieve that objective.
Graham (182), submitted that leadership effort in organizations should be geared at measuring peak performance. To ensure peak performance a proper job analysis must be carried out for maximum efficiency. He concluded that for a worker to be motivated for high performed.
Lorcheet at (1998) contended that a leader is the vocal point of an organization. It is therefore his dusty to encourage and motivate his workers / employees and this can be done by ensuring that the phenomenon of goal contingency exists within the organization. Within the organizational frame work, performance might translate in to measure of group task completion, quality and efficiency. At the individual into behaviours as related by supervisors.
Drucker (1955), has the opinion that good or bad performance of an individual worker, cannot be determined except through the use of standards. The entire process of measuring performance against standards requires effective communication. Much emphasis should then be pad to how much information a subordinate absorbs be not how much information he gets. Through this process, a worker should be able to control measures and guide his own performance.
Supervising has a positive effect on an employee’s professional and career success (Noe (1988) and Ragins (1989). It is proved that “the degree of supervisory support may influence the subordinate’s motivation, job satisfaction, and performance (Babin and Boles, 1996; Michaels et al., 1987)”. Frone et al. (1997) found that job satisfaction increases when employee get a positive support from colleague and supervisor. Bennet et al. (2001) have also observed. The positive relationship among supervisory support and organizational acknowledgement to job satisfaction.
Recently, in a study with traffic police which is conducted by Baruch- Feldman et al. (2002) has also found that supervisor support is related to job satisfaction. Schavboreck and Fink (1998) also obtained positive relationship between support and organizational commitment of the employees.
Eisenberger et al. (2001) in his structural equation casual model, concluded that support has a direct and positive influence on affective commitment with the organization. again employee’s commitment towards organization and achieving it’s long term goal in service delivery is strongly influenced by the action taken by the manager (Zeithmal, 1990). When employees notice that their immediate supervisor is concerned for them and provides adequate support to get the job done, employees feel more positive towards their work (Babin and Boles, 1996; Kopelman et al., 1990; Michaels et al., 1987), which in turns, pulls out extra work effort enhance the service quality of the employees. Organization generally takes strategic decisions which generally create a wave of sub decisions. These sub decisions have to be carefully implemented in order to achieve the strategic goals (MiNtzber et al., 1976).
Typically, the manager- leader (Middle managers and supervisors) is held accountable for the implementation of these sub decisions.
Sub-decision implementation is defined as a sequence of tasks carefully executed so that a favorable business outcome can be achieved in the medium to short term. It is clear that the particulars of such implementation vary widely from decision to decision, but virtually all decisions require efficient implementation to be successful (Nutt, 1993).efficiency in implementing the decisions is crucial which is guided by the supervisor to the base level employees. Or in other words, a brilliant decision can prove worthless without it’s efficient implementation.
This implementation of decisions is a critical dimension of leadership role. Even the best decisions fail to be implementation due to the inadequate supervision of subordinates, among other reasons (Hill, 1978). From a contract perspective, interactions between an employee and specific organization agents such as supervisors result in psychological contracts between the employee and the organization (shore and Tetrick, 1994). As an agent the organization, the supervisor discharges the organization’s legal, moral and financial responsibilities (Robinsons and Morrison, 1995).
Therefore, how the supervisor upholds the psychological employee-employer contract significantly influences the elicitation (Robinson and Morrison, 1995). To enhance the service quality of the employee a supervisor helps the employees to enhance the service effort. Podsakoff et al. (1990) reported strong support for the direct influence of trust in supervisor. The employee’s commitment to the organization and it’s long- term goal of excellence in service delivery is, however, strongly influenced by managerial action (Zeithaml, V. A., Parasurama, A. and Berry, L.L.,1990; Young, M. 1991). An organization which truly pursues service excellence needs middle- level managers and supervisors who rise above more managing and leading.
It requires managers who establish and reinforce a service vision, who create a culture of teamwork and performance, and supervisors who remove obstacles from the paths of employees who want to satisfy the service quality provided by employees (Zeithaml, V.A; Parasuaman, A. and Berry, L. L., 1990). Supervisors behavior towards it’s employee also influence the service quality of the employees. Cohen et al. (1996) identified the supervisory behaviours in the same way that Manz and Sims (1987) had previously done. Manz and. Teams is a paradox that is dealt with by illuminating six leadership behaviors that assist self- managed teams in managing themselves. A supervisor must concentrate on these leadership behaviors. These behaviors are: encouraging self- observation/ self evaluation, encouraging self- goal setting- encouraging self expectation and encouraging rehearsal. Self- observation evaluation facilitates the performance evaluation process. In this behavior, the leader encourages the work group to monitor, be cognizant of, and continuously assess his / her performance levels. Self goals. This behavior allows for the group to set realistic but challenging goals. Self reinforcement facilitates the recognition and behavior the leader urges the group itself to be self-reinforcing of high performance standards.
Self-criticism facilitates critical self- evaluation and discouragement of poor performance. Self- expectation facilitates heightened expectations for group performance. Finally, rehearsal facilitates practicing an action before performing it. The leader encourages the group to review an activity and go through the steps involved in the activity before action occurs.
By encouraging these behaviors, leaders aid their subordinates in developing self- control (Manz and Angle, 1986). This self- control, or self- regulation, is the key component of self- management (Manz and Sims, 1987).
Self-management, in turn, enables team members to exhibit performance-enhancing behaviors that lead to increased group effectiveness. Once the positive performance norms are established, they eliminating the need to control members and instilling a sense of ownership for the quality of work, which reduces process loses (Leibowitz and Holden, 1995., Hackman and Oldhman, 1980). As group identity, grows, it should promote a healthy work cycle in which the supervisor takes on the role of facilitator (Hackman, 1977).
Perceived organizational support (POS) represents employee’s perception of the organization commitment to him or her. Earlier back in 1964, Blau narrates concept of POS as a means of social exchange interpretation of organizational commitment where by the employees amplify their efforts and allegiance by the to the organization in return for material commodities and social rewards.
Churchill et al. (1985) in his studies found that organizational variable depends on specific organizational action which is exercised by the managers as a means of influencing employee job outcomes where as POS appears to be particularly rely on firm- administrative actions. Eisenberg et al. (1986) later urged that when employees develop their perceptions of organizational support, they depend highly on the frequency and extremity of formal organizational recognition such as payment, rank, job enrichment and influence over organizational policies.
One of the first studies on the influence of social support on work was run by La Rocco et al. (180). He pointed out whenever employees feel supported they tend to show better psychological well- being, higher job satisfaction and better performance. In terms of a social exchange of frame work, Mohr and Bitner (1995) shows that POS has a direct impact on contact employee’s service efforts which can be defined as the amount of energy put into service works. Thus, the more the employees perceive greater organizational support, their sense of obligation to reciprocate with helpful behaviors towards the organization increases (Betten court and Brown, 1997; shore and Wayne (1993). Thus organizational support generates further positive work attitude. Organizational support can be of different forms. Frone et al. (1997) found that colleague and supervisor support have a positive influence on job satisfaction. Bennet et al. (2001) have observed that the supervisory support and organizational acknowledgment are related to job satisfaction.
Moreover, there is wide evidence of social support related to organizational commitment (Eisenberger et al. 1990; Guzzo et al., 1994;. Wayne et al., 1997.
Frone et al. (1997) found that supervisory support is positively related to temporal work commitment. Schaubroeck and Fink (1998) also obtained positive relationship between support and organizational commitment. Fisenberger et al. (2001) using a structural equation causal model, concluded that support has a direct and positive influence on affective commitment with the organization. in a longitudinal research, Sting /hamber and vanderbergue (2003) found that organizational suppot have different links as well as highlighting the importance of distinguishing between both dimensions. The meta-analysis of Readhes and Eisenberger (2002) established evidence of the connection support-commitment: the relationship between organizational support and affective commitment with the organization is strong, where a the relationship between organizational support and job involvement is just moderated. However, even though most literature on organizational support is focused on relationship involving satisfaction and commitment (Randall et al., 1999), there is also evidence of positive relationships between organizational support and performance (Armeli et al., 1998; Eisenberger et al., 1986,1990). Organ (1988) points out that employee perceiving themselves as correctly treated by the organization will respond with extra-effort, which will affect. Their job performances as well as the extra-role behavior. Summarizing, the meta-analysis made by Roadher and Eisenberger (2002) shows that the relationships between organizational support and extra-role performance are positive which in terms exerts the quality services from the employees.
One way of supporting the teams is improving the group efficiency with training. The main models of group performance stustain this idea (Campion et al., 1993; Gladstein, 1984; Hackman, 1987; Sundstrom et al; 1990; Tannen baum et al; 1996). With the implementation of working teams, employees need specific training in different and team working skills, e. t. c). in this situation it has been found the those employees getting more support show higher job satisfaction (Campion et al., 1993; Hackman, 1987; Teague et al., 1995) and that satisfaction leads to higher work effort which results higher quality of the service. Training also improves group performance by means of providing the skills needed to work as apart of a team (Sundstrom et al., 1990). Another form of support is the appreciation and rewards offered to employees. Employee acknowledgment and rewarding on account of their group contribution is one of the most effective ways that organizations have to promote team working (Hackman, 1987; Larson and Lafasto, 1989). Hyatt and Ruddy (1997) found that the teams obtaining the necessary support of superiors and organization tended to be more effective.
Less evidence has been gathered concerning antecedents perceived organizational support, Guzzo et al; (1994) found among managers holding over seas assignments that the sufficiency of financial inducement, family
- Oriented actions, and other favorable job conditions was positively to POS. Also positively associated with POS were development training experiences, promotions and organizational tenure (Wayne et al, 1997) and procedural justice in performance appraisal decision (Faslol, 1995). In contract with these studies, the present research was not concerned with identifying specific job condition that contribution most to POS, Researchers investigated how employee beliefs concerning the organization’s motivation for treating them favourably or unfavourably might moderate the relationship between job- condition favourableness and POS.
- Social exchange theorists have argued that the receipt of resources from another person is valued more highly if thought to be discretionary rather than dictated by circumstances largely beyond the donor’s control. Such voluntary aid would be welcomed as an indication that the donor genuinely values and respects the recipient. Blau 1964, Cotterell and Marvel, (1987), Gouldner, 1960). Accordingly, recipients returned greater favourableness of job condition should contribute to POP more substantially if believed to be the result of voluntary action by the organization, thereby reflecting the organization’s valuation of the employee, (et Eisenberger et al, 1986: Shore and Shore, 1995).
In contras, the favourableness of job, condition over which employees believe the organization has low control should exert little influences on POS.
Hypothesis
There will be statistical influences of leadership styles on job involvement.
There will be a statistical significant influence of perceived organization support (POS) on job involvement.
There will be a joint significant influence of perceived organizational support and leadership style on job involvement.