TABLE 8-5: REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF SUPPORTIVE LEADERSHIP ON JOB SATISFACTION
Table 8.5 demonstrates that the interaction term Supportive leadership with Orglevel2 adds significant
extra variance. Moreover, the negative value of the interaction term, hints that there is a negative
relationship. Hence, one may conclude that the relationship between Supportive leadership of middle
managers and subordinate¶ (lower-level managers) job satisfaction is significantly different, in
comparison to the other organizational levels. This finding is supported by the correlations found per
organizational level (Table 8.2), where the correlation between VXERUGLQDWH¶ job satisfaction and
Supportive leadership by middle managers is negative, yet positive for Supportive leadership by top-
level managers and lower-level managers.
8.5 DISCUSSION
The results from the regression analysis showed that only Inspirational communication and
,QWHOOHFWXDO VWLPXODWLRQ KHOG VLJQLILFDQW SUHGLFWLYH YDOXH IRUVXERUGLQDWH¶ MRE VDWLVIDFWLRn. In other
words, only transformational leadership sub-dimensions showed to be an important predictor for job
satisfaction.
TKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ OHDGHUVKLS DQG VXERUGLQDWH¶ MRE VDWLVIDFWLRQ ZDV QRW PRGHUDWHG E\
organizational level, except for the transformational leadership sub-dimension, Supportive leadership.
For this dimension, middle managers showed a significant different relationship than lower- and top-
level managers. Supportive leadership behaviors displayed by middle managers were negatively
correlated with the job satisfaction of their subordinates (lower-level managers). For both lower-level
and top-level managers this relationship was positive. The job satisfaction of non-manager employees
and middle managers was equally affected by the Supportive leadership behaviors of their superiors
(hence rejecting H2).