اثرات مختلف جنبه های رهبری تحول گرا در ایمنی کارکنان

Transformational and transactional leadership have been associated with numerous positive safety outcomes, such as improved safety climate, increased safety behaviors, and decreased accidents and injuries. However, leadership is a complex, multidimensional construct, and there is reason to suspect that different facets of leadership may affect safety in different ways and for different reasons. Yet little research to date has considered the relationships between individual facets of transformational and transactional leadership and safety outcomes. The present study addressed this gap by using relative weights analysis to examine the unique influences of leadership facets on five employee safety outcomes. In a survey of 1167 construction pipefitters and plumbers, idealized attributes and behaviors accounted for the most variance in each of the safety outcomes, whereas individualized consideration and active management-by-exception frequently accounted for the least amount of variance. These results suggest that leadership development programs in construction should address multiple individual elements of leadership, such as core values, as well as concrete skills and behaviors.

To foster a proactive approach in the prevention of workplace injuries, organizations have turned towards key predictors of safety, such as leadership (e.g., Zohar, 2002). Due to their influence within an organization, leaders can play a pivotal role in the promotion of safety at work (Flin and Yule, 2004). Although research on the relationship between leadership and safety has progressed substantially over the last 30 years, the majority of studies have focused on the influence of overall effective leadership or general leadership styles on a variety of safety outcomes (Christian et al., 2009 and Nahrgang et al., 2011). For example, transformational leadership that emphasizes safety has been linked to increased employee safety behaviors (e.g., Barling et al., 2002 and Conchie and Donald, 2009). This research has established the broad influence of leadership on safety; however, it has not yet examined the role of more specific facets of leadership within these general leadership models (Inness et al., 2010). Understanding the links between individual leadership facets and safety is important for both theoretical and practical reasons. First, the underlying mechanisms by which leadership may influence safety are not yet well understood (Zohar, 2011). As leadership is often conceptualized as a multidimensional construct (Bass, 1985), it is quite possible that different aspects of leadership may affect safety in different ways and for different reasons. In other words, there may be multiple paths between leaders’ behavior and employees’ safety outcomes, which are obscured when leadership is treated as a unitary construct. Indeed, there is tentative evidence in the research literature to suggest several such paths (e.g., Bruch and Walter, 2007), which we will discuss in more detail below. Establishing whether one, some, or all facets of leadership have unique influences on safety can provide useful insight about the complexity of the relationship between these variables and provide a framework for future theory development. Further, from a pragmatic perspective, determining the relative contributions of individual leadership facets to safety can aid researchers and practitioners in developing better interventions. If some facets are much more important than others in predicting outcomes, it is logical to target resources toward developing the most important facets. If, however, all facets make unique contributions, a comprehensive development approach is needed. In this study, we examined the differential effects of seven facets of transformational and transactional leadership on five safety outcomes: safety climate, safety compliance, safety participation, work-related injuries, and work-related pain. We argue that individual facets of leadership are likely to relate to different outcomes to different degrees. In the following sections, we briefly introduce transformational and transactional leadership, and then review the theoretical and empirical links between these leadership models and safety. We then discuss the facets of transformational and transactional leadership in more detail, considering the limited existing evidence that suggests that each facet might have a unique relationship with employee safety outcomes, and propose specific hypotheses for the present study. 1.1. Transactional and transformational leadership Much of the leadership research in recent years has focused on transactional and transformational leadership (Avolio, 2011, Avolio et al., 2009, Bass and Riggio, 2006, Inness et al., 2010 and Zohar and Tenne-Gazit, 2008). The transactional leader recognizes the needs of employees and the needs of the organization, and then conveys to employees what they must do to meet both of these (Burns, 1978). Transformational leaders recognize the needs of both the organization and employees, but go beyond these to arouse and satisfy higher needs within each individual. To explain further, a transactional leader addresses employees’ separate, individual interests, but a transformational leader encourages employees to unite in the pursuit of higher goals aimed at significant positive change in an organization. Both transactional and transformational leadership styles are related to leader effectiveness, with the best leaders demonstrating both transactional and transformational behaviors (Avolio, 1999, Bass, 1985 and Judge and Piccolo, 2004). Both transactional and transformational leadership are conceptualized as multidimensional constructs, comprised of related but theoretically distinct facets (Bass, 1985 and Burns, 1978). Transactional leadership behavior can be divided into three facets: contingent reward, active management-by-exception, and passive management-by-exception (Avolio, 1999). Contingent reward involves providing appropriate rewards and recognition for positive behaviors and clearly communicating those reward contingencies to employees. Both types of management-by-exception involve discouraging negative behavior; active management-by-exception is proactive and focused on prevention, whereas passive management-by-exception is reactive and focused on correction after the fact. Contingent reward and active management-by-exception are considered effective leadership and have been shown to have positive effects on employee outcomes (Bass, 1985); however, passive management-by-exception reflects ineffective leadership (Avolio, 1999). Transformational leadership consists of four major facets: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (Bass, 1985). Idealized influence is the degree to which employees look to the leader as an example and seek to emulate him or her. Inspirational motivation involves encouraging employees to strive for something beyond their individual goals. Intellectual stimulation means inspiring employees to think creatively and innovatively, and individualized consideration means showing respect and personal concern for employees as individuals. Although the facets of transformational leadership are highly correlated (Bass, 1985), recent research suggests that they can be distinguished empirically as well as conceptually (Hobman et al., 2012), and some studies have established differential links between specific facets and outcomes such as job satisfaction, productivity, and organizational commitment (e.g., Chiok Foong Loke, 2001, McNeese-Smith, 1995 and McNeese-Smith, 1997). This raises the important question of whether specific leadership facets might also show differential relationships with safety. 1.2. Evidence linking leadership and safety The link between leadership in general and safety is both theoretically logical and empirically supported (Christian et al., 2009 and Nahrgang et al., 2011). The behavior of managers and leaders reflects the priority they place on safety and health on the job, and workers can interpret these behaviors to create ideas and norms regarding the importance of safety to their leaders (Zohar, 2011 and Zohar and Tenne-Gazit, 2008). There is evidence to suggest that leaders play a key role in the creation of safety climate, which in turn influences workers to increase their safety behaviors, thereby decreasing their accidents and injuries (e.g., Barling et al., 2002). 1.2.1. Leadership and safety climate It has long been recognized that leaders create climates through their actions (Lewin et al., 1939), which provide the guidelines for how employees should act and interact with their work environment, colleagues, and supervisors. Safety climate can be defined as employees’ perceptions regarding the way an organization values safety (Zohar, 1980). Empirical studies have provided support for the importance of transformational leadership in particular in establishing the safety climate in an organization, with meta-analyses estimating corrected correlations as strong as r = .5 or .6 ( Christian et al., 2009 and Nahrgang et al., 2008). However, all of this research has treated transformational leadership as a unitary variable, using global measures of transformational leadership or aggregating across facets, and research on transactional leadership and safety climate is lacking. 1.2.2. Leadership and safety behaviors Employees that observe their leader behaving safely at work will be more likely themselves to behave in a safe manner with that leader as a role model (Hofmann and Morgeson, 2004). Employee safety behaviors can generally be characterized by two forms: safety compliance and safety participation (Griffin and Neal, 2000). Safety compliance refers to following safety policies and procedures and engaging in required safety behaviors. Safety participation is demonstrated by going beyond procedures to help coworkers, promote safety and its principles, taking initiative to be safe, and putting effort into improving safety at work (Neal et al., 2000). A recent meta-analysis (Christian et al., 2009) shows support for the link between leadership and safety compliance (mean corrected correlation: r = .24) and safety participation (mean corrected correlation: r = .35). However, leaders may engage in many different behaviors, and whether employees engage in safety participation and/or safety compliance may depend on the leader behavior they are modeling. It is therefore important to distinguish between these two types of safety behaviors, as they may be influenced by different facets of leader behavior. 1.2.3. Leadership, injuries, and pain Effective leadership can also lead to decreased occupational injuries and pain. In a meta-analysis by Christian et al. (2009), the uncorrected correlation between leadership and accidents and injuries was r = −.14. After correcting for artifactual error (i.e., sampling error, Raju and Brand, 2003), this correlation was r = −.16. In a more recent meta-analysis by Nahrgang et al. (2011), the uncorrected correlation between leadership and pain was r = −.12 (r = −.14 after correcting for unreliability). When leaders engage in safety-promoting behaviors, employees perceive a positive safety climate and engage in more safety behaviors themselves, thus avoiding more injuries and pain due to an increased awareness and focus on safety ( Griffin and Neal, 2000). 1.3. Specific leadership facets and safety As noted above, although the facets of transactional and transformational leadership are positively correlated, they are conceptually distinct (Bass, 1985), and research suggests that some facets may be more important than others for predicting specific organizational outcomes (e.g., organizational commitment, Bycio et al., 1995; job satisfaction, Bruch and Walter, 2007). Further, even when different facets of leadership predict the same outcome, they may do so via different mediating mechanisms (e.g., team performance, Dionne et al., 2004). All of this suggests the possibility that different leadership facets may relate in different ways to different safety outcomes (Inness et al., 2010). However, there is still very little theory or empirical research examining leadership and safety at the facet level. For some combinations of individual facets and outcomes, theory, logic, and research from other areas suggest specific predictions. In the following sections, we briefly discuss this evidence where it exists and offer tentative hypotheses. Where relevant research is lacking, we highlight the gaps and propose exploratory research questions. Taken together, however, we believe the pattern of previous research on leadership facets (or similar constructs) and safety supports two general hypotheses: Hypothesis 1. Each leadership facet should be individually associated with at least one safety outcome. Hypothesis 2. Different leadership facets will show different patterns of association with different safety outcomes; that is, not all facets will be equally related to all outcomes. 1.3.1. Transactional leadership Because contingent reward and active management-by-exception are viewed as positive and beneficial facets of transactional leadership (Bass, 1985), we focus on these positive facets as possible predictors of safety outcomes. 1.3.1.1. Contingent reward Contingent reward leadership involves clearly communicating which employee behaviors are desired by the organization and what the rewards for such behaviors will be, as well as following through to actually reinforce the desired behaviors. Leaders practicing contingent reward in relation to safety will help employees understand organizational safety-related goals, keep them focused on meeting these goals, and reward them for engaging in safety behaviors consistent with those goals (Bass, 1985). By providing rewards for specific safety-related behaviors, for example through recognition, promotion, increased salary, future job contracts, or job security, leaders encourage employees to continue those safe behaviors (Fogas et al., 2011). Therefore, it is plausible to expect that contingent reward behavior should be associated with increased employee safety compliance, and should also be associated with more positive safety climate, as safety climate can be defined in terms of perceived rewards for safe behavior (Zohar, 1980). However, it is not clear whether contingent reward leadership will increase safety participation, which tends to be more voluntary (Neal et al., 2000) and may not be explicitly rewarded by the organization. Although we might expect that encouraging safety-related behaviors should result in fewer injuries and less work-related pain, this relationship is indirect and there is as yet no empirical evidence to support it. Hypothesis 3. Contingent reward leadership will be associated with higher levels of safety climate and safety compliance. Research Question 1. Is contingent reward leadership associated with safety participation, injuries, and/or pain? 1.3.1.2. Active management-by-exception Active management-by-exception represents an active monitoring of employee performance to detect deviance from standards and procedures (Bass and Riggio, 2006). There appears to be no research linking active management-by-exception specifically to safety; however, it is plausible that enforcing safety policies may help to avoid safety mistakes and prevent accidents and injuries from occurring in the workplace. For this reason, leaders engaging in active management-by-exception should promote better safety compliance from employees, and might also see fewer injuries as a result of this preventive approach. However, it is not clear whether active management-by-exception would promote more active behaviors such as safety participation, or contribute to a positive safety climate. Hypothesis 4. Active management-by-exception leadership will be associated with higher levels of safety compliance and lower levels of injuries. Research Question 2. Is active management-by-exception associated with safety climate, safety participation, and/or pain? 1.3.2. Transformational leadership Transformational leaders go beyond rewarding and monitoring employees to help them combine their individual interests to promote overall organizational safety and an improved safety climate (e.g., Griffin and Neal, 2000 and Hofmann and Morgeson, 2004). Transformational leadership consists of four dimensions: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (Bass, 1985). 1.3.2.1. Idealized influence Leaders attain idealized influence by evoking feelings of integrity, trust, and respect in employees, who ultimately view them as role models. Current research suggests that idealized influence can be separated into two distinct sub-facets: idealized attributes, or character qualities that employees attribute to the leader, and idealized behaviors, or things the leaders do to earn such attributions (Bass and Riggio, 2006). For example, instilling pride in employees is an idealized attribute, whereas expressing one’s values to subordinates is considered an idealized behavior. Both types of idealized influence are challenging to study because they are more abstract and less behavioral than other aspects of transformational leadership. Although leadership research has not examined specific links between either type of idealized influence and safety outcomes, there is some evidence to suggest that constructs related to idealized influence, such as trust and integrity, might be related to health outcomes. Studies by Dellve et al. (2007) and Nyberg et al. (2008) both found that leaders who were viewed as more trustworthy and as having higher levels of integrity had employees that took fewer sick days. Although the number of sick days taken is not a direct measure of employee injury and illness, it does suggest that idealized influence is related to employee outcomes. However, many questions remain about the nature of this relationship. In some cases, idealized influence might operate in an unhealthy direction, if employees follow a supervisor who sets an example of working through pain or illness or taking risks. At present, there is no evidence to suggest the type of effect that idealized influence would have on employee safety compliance, safety participation, or safety climate, or if idealized influence could be separated from more concrete leadership facets such as individualized consideration or intellectual stimulation. Research Question 3. Is idealized influence associated with safety climate, safety compliance, safety participation, injuries, and/or pain? 1.3.2.2. Inspirational motivation Inspirational motivation reflects a leader’s clear articulation of a compelling vision and the need for employees to work towards this mission, resulting in more inspired employees (Bass, 1985). Leader inspirational motivation has been associated with employees’ willingness to voice opinions and be open about their thoughts (Detert and Burris, 2007). Based on this limited research, it is possible that leader inspirational motivation could have an important effect on employee safety participation, which requires that employees speak up and take initiative to promote a safe environment. Inspirational motivation might promote a positive safety climate if safety is part of the leader’s vision; however, a leader who promotes a vision of high productivity might actually reduce safety climate perceptions. It is not clear whether inspirational motivation would have substantial effects on safety compliance, because following existing rules and procedures may not require “inspiration,” and this inspiration (or lack thereof) may or may not translate to reduced injuries and pain in employees. Hypothesis 5. Inspirational motivation will be associated with safety participation. Research Question 4. Is inspirational motivation associated with safety climate, safety compliance, injuries, and/or pain? 1.3.2.3. Intellectual stimulation Intellectual stimulation reflects the extent to which a leader solicits employees’ perspectives on problems and considers a wide variety of opinions in making decisions (Bass, 1985). Again, no empirical research reports a specific relationship between intellectual stimulation and safety performance. However, leader intellectual stimulation might reasonably be expected to contribute to employee safety participation. Leaders who ask for new ideas and encourage innovation will convey to employees that their opinions are valued, and they may be more likely to generate unique and valuable solutions to safety issues in the workplace. Intellectual stimulation should be related to safety participation, as it encourages employees to creatively envision new ways to perform the job safely and effectively, but may be unrelated to safety compliance, which implies following existing rules. Further, intellectual stimulation may contribute to safety climate by empowering employees (cf. Wiegmann et al., 2002, who argued that empowerment is a critical element of safety culture). However, any link between intellectual stimulation and injuries or pain seems likely to be indirect at best. Hypothesis 6. Intellectual stimulation will be associated with safety participation and safety climate. Research Question 5. Is intellectual stimulation associated with safety compliance, injuries, and/or pain? 1.3.2.4. Individualized consideration Leaders engaging in individualized consideration attend to the individual differences in the needs of their employees and seek to coach or mentor them in an effort to help them reach their full potential (Avolio, 1999 and Bass and Riggio, 2006). There is a plausible conceptual link between individualized consideration and safety, but a lack of empirical evidence to support this claim. Similar to inspirational motivation, individualized consideration has an influence on employee expression of opinions and being open to new ideas (Detert and Burris, 2007). This suggests that that when leaders consider their employees individually, employees are more open to generating ideas and solutions to safety-related problems (safety participation). However, it is not evident based on the current research whether individualized consideration would influence safety compliance, safety climate, injuries, or pain. Employees who believe their leader cares about their needs might be more willing to mention minor injuries or pain, and considerate leaders might be more responsive to such reports, allowing earlier intervention and preventing more significant injury or pain in the long term. However, there is as yet no evidence regarding this relationship. Hypothesis 7. Individualized consideration will be associated with safety participation. Research Question 6. Is individualized consideration associated with safety climate, safety compliance, injuries, and/or pain? In summary, it seems clear that different logical paths can be drawn between individual facets of leadership and particular safety outcomes. Transactional leadership behaviors (contingent reward and active management-by-exception) appear to have most potential to influence employee safety compliance, and also appear to have the most direct links to injury and pain. Transformational leadership behaviors (particularly, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration) seem most likely to influence safety participation. Contingent reward and intellectual stimulation have the clearest conceptual links to safety climate. However, there is minimal empirical evidence that can be used even as indirect support for these arguments; at present, they are speculative at best. Before we can develop strong theory about how individual leadership facets relate to safety, it seems wise to establish whether each facet accounts for unique variance in safety outcomes, independent of the effects of other facets. 1.4. Current study Based on a large-scale survey, we used relative weights analysis (Johnson, 2000) to estimate the unique impact of each of the transactional and transformational leadership facets on each safety outcome (safety climate, safety behaviors, injury, and pain) after accounting for the effects of the other facets. This analysis allowed us to identify which facet was most strongly associated with each safety outcome, providing preliminary evidence that can inform both theory development and empirical research on the impact of leadership on safety. To ensure that we used a sample where both safety and leadership were important, we focused this study on construction workers. Construction is a dynamic and complex industry that plays an important role in the US economy, as this sector is responsible for building, renovating, and improving the buildings in which we live and work (Behm, 2008). In 2011, the construction industry employed roughly 4% of the entire workforce; however, it accounted for 17.5% of all work-related fatalities in the United States, as well as 5% of all workdays lost to injuries (BLS, 2012). Most construction jobsites involve several different contractors at once, and so much of the exposure to risks is episodic and unpredictable (Ringen et al., 1995a). The environment is rapidly changing, as the supervisors, employers, work assignments, and jobsites vary continuously (Ringen et al., 1995b). The job of a construction worker is therefore characterized by the simultaneous presence of a number of physical and social stressors that are harmful to safety on the job. Leadership is a key element in construction work because trade training is primarily built upon a mentorship model for apprentices (Meliá and Becerril, 2007, Rogers, 2007 and Sobeih et al., 2006). Novice workers (i.e., apprentices) are usually mentored by their more experienced coworkers, journeymen. Senior journeymen work with apprentices in order to help them become accustomed to the industry, learn and hone their skills, and serve as a role model during the apprenticeship training. Journeymen, in turn, are usually overseen by even more experienced workers, who are typically in the position of foremen or general foremen (Rogers, 2007). This industry provides a unique situation for the development of leadership and the potential for leadership to influence safety, and so construction will be the population of focus for the present study.

In this study, we used relative weights analysis to investigate the influence of individual facets of leader behavior on safety. Idealized attributes and behaviors emerged as consistently important predictors of multiple safety outcomes, whereas inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration and contingent reward were less influential and related to different outcomes in different ways. These results support our argument that the relationship between leadership and safety is complex and that emphasizing different aspects of leadership may produce different results. Further, the less concrete aspects of leadership (e.g., idealized attributes and behaviors) were often the most important. Understanding the precise mechanisms by which individual facets of leadership affect safety is an important strategy for improving both theory and practice related to safety in organizations.