Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Reducing workplace accidents through the use of leadership interventions: A quasi-
experimental field study
Sharon Clarke1 & Ian Taylor
University of Manchester, UK
Alliance Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Booth Street East,
Manchester, M13 9SS.
Email: [email protected]
1 Corresponding author: Prof Sharon Clarke, email: [email protected]
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
1
Reducing workplace accidents through the use of leadership interventions: A quasi-
experimental field study
Abstract
There is increasing evidence to suggest that leaders need to use a combination of leader
behaviors to successfully improve safety, including both transformational and transactional
styles, but there has been limited testing of this idea. We developed a leadership intervention,
based on supervisor training in both transformational and active transactional behaviors, and
implemented it with supervisors at a UK-based chemical processing company. The study
found that the supervisory training intervention led to significant improvements in perceived
employee safety climate, over an eight-week period, relative to the comparison group.
Although we found no change in the frequency of leader behaviors, the intervention was
effective in helping supervisors to apply active transactional leader behaviors in a safety-
critical context. The results indicated that transformational leader behaviors were already at a
high level and effectively linked to safety. Our findings suggest not only that employees may
be receptive to safety-related active transactional behaviors within high-risk situations, but
furthermore, leaders can be trained to adjust their behaviors to focus more on active
transactional behaviors in safety-critical contexts.
Keywords: occupational safety; leadership; transformational; active transactional;
intervention; training.
Conflict of interests: None
2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
1. Introduction
Despite advances in workplace safety (e.g., through new technology, automation and safety
systems), the International Labour Organization estimates that each year there are over 317
million non-fatal work accidents and 2.3 million fatalities resulting from work accidents and
work-related disease, with an annual financial cost estimated as equivalent to 4 per cent of
global GDP (ILO, 2016). These statistics highlight the ongoing need to address the
underlying factors contributing to work accidents and injuries, and to design effective
interventions to reduce them. Theoretical approaches to workplace safety suggest that the
most influential antecedents of work accidents are organizational and managerial in nature
(Reason, 1997). Leaders’ decision-making and allocation of resources feeds into the
organizational safety culture, creating a climate which reflects the relative priority that the
organization gives to safety. Climate theory suggests employee perceptions of the work
environment act as a mechanism for the impact of leadership on employee behaviors
(Schneider, Ehrhart, & Macey, 2013). A climate for safety, as a facet-specific climate
construct, reflects employee perceptions of the priority given to safety, and acts as a frame of
reference for safety behaviors (Zohar, 2010).
Building on these theoretical foundations, models of workplace safety have identifed
leadership style as a key antecedent of safety climate perceptions, which in turn affects safety
behavior (e.g., compliance with rules and regulations), and work accidents (Christian,
Bradley, Wallace, & Burke, 2009; Clarke, 2010). Constructive forms of leadership,
particularly transformational leadership (Bass, 1985), which emphasizes inspiring and
motivating leader behaviors, have been strongly associated with positive safety outcomes
(e.g., Barling, Loughlin, & Kelloway, 2002; Conchie & Donald, 2009; Inness, Turner,
Barling, & Stride, 2010; Nielsen, Skogstad, Matthiesen, & Einarsen, 2016). Another form of
constructive leadership that is especially relevant for workplace safety is active transactional
3
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
leadership, which emphasizes proactive monitoring and correcting leader behaviors (Clarke,
2013; Griffin & Hu, 2013; Willis, Clarke, & O’Connor, 2017a); recent evidence supports a
positive association with safety climate and safety behaviors (Grill, Pousette, Nielsen,
Grytnes, & Törner, 2017; Kark, Katz-Navon, & Delegach, 2015; Martínez-Córcoles, &
Konstantinos, 2017). Active transactional leadership is particularly relevant in safety-critical
environments, where the proactive identification and recovery of errors is important to
maintaining system safety (Clarke, 2013). Furthermore, there is increasing evidence to
suggest that leaders need to use a combination of leader behaviors to successfully improve
safety, including both transformational and transactional styles (Willis, Clarke, & O’Connor,
2017b), but to date few studies have tested this idea.
We develop and implement a leadership intervention, based on supervisor training in both
transformational and active transactional behaviors, to test the influence of these leader
behaviors on employees’ safety perceptions and safety behaviors in a safety-critical context.
While leadership interventions have proven effectiveness (Avolio, Reichard, Hannah,
Walumba, & Chan, 2009), including within an occupational health and safety context
(Kelloway & Barling, 2010), previous work has focused on developing transformational
leader behaviors in isolation (Mullen & Kelloway, 2009). Thus, we build on existing work to
examine the effectiveness of training supervisors to use a range of safety-related
transformational and transactional behaviors, with the aim of testing the effects of the training
intervention on safety outcomes. Our study will make a number of theoretical and practical
contributions: (1) provide insights into how leadership style influences employee safety using
a range of different leader behaviors, contributing to theoretically based models of workplace
safety; (2) extend knowledge regarding the design and implementation of supervisor training
as an effective safety intervention.
2. Theoretical Background
4
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
The interplay between transformational and transactional leadership styles is reflected in the
‘augmentation hypothesis’ which states that transformational leadership builds on the
foundations of transactional leadership (Bass, 1985). For example, a leader may establish
high levels of safety compliance through active monitoring, and maintain safety as a priority
through generating enthusiasm for safety initiatives. Clarke and Ward (2006) found that
leaders tended to use a variety of tactics, both transformational and transactional, to
encourage greater safety participation amongst employees. Taking a within-person
perspective, Willis et al. (2017b) found evidence of four latent profiles, which reflected
different combinations of leader behaviors that typified their leadership style. Each of these
profiles included a combination of transformational, active transactional, and passive
behaviors, with the stable-moderate profile (moderate levels of transformational and active
transactional, and low levels of passive leader behaviors) most associated with workplace
safety.
2.1 Effect of leadership style on workplace safety
In their meta-analysis, Judge and Piccolo (2004) found that transformational leadership was
universally effective, but active transactional leadership varied in effectiveness, suggesting
the possibility of contextual moderators. Given that safety-critical organizations are
characterized by complexity and uncertainty, it has been argued that active transactional
leadership may be particularly appropriate in this context, as it focuses on providing clear
guidance and feedback (Clarke, 2013; Willis et al., 2017a). Indeed, role clarity has been
identified as essential for ensuring compliance in safety-critical work environments, such as
offshore oil platforms (Dahl & Olsen, 2013). Active monitoring also allows leaders to
anticipate problems, and take proactive steps towards corrective actions. Engaging in this
form of leadership promotes learning in how to anticipate and prevent safety incidents and
adverse events (Griffin & Hu, 2013; Rodriguez & Griffin, 2009). Such leader behavior
5
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
should promote close attention to safety rules and regulations by employees, leading to
greater safety compliance and enhanced perceptions of the importance of safety (Clarke,
2013; Kark et al., 2015). Safety-monitoring leader behaviors, which align with active
transactional leadership, are most strongly related to employees’ safety compliance (Griffin
& Hu, 2013).
While compliance is a key aspect of safety performance, employee involvement and
commitment to safety generates participation (i.e., speaking up about safety issues, making
suggestions for improvements and engaging in safety citizenship behaviors, such as helping
coworkers), which plays an important role in reducing accidents and incidents (Curcuruto,
Conchie, Mariani, & Violante, 2015). The motivating and enthusing behavior of
transformational leaders encourages employees to engage in higher levels of safety
participation (Clarke, 2013; Griffin & Hu, 2013), and builds consensus amongst employees’
perceptions of the priority given to safety (Luria, 2008; Zohar & Tenne-Gazit, 2008). Leaders
demonstrate willingness to listen to safety concerns (Hofmann & Morgeson, 1999; Mullen,
2005) supporting employees to provide feedback on safety issues, leading to greater
understanding and enhanced communication (Conchie, Taylor, & Donald, 2012). Those
engaging in this type of behavior inspire confidence in their employees through acting as role
models and demonstrating their personal commitment to safety, which is particularly linked
to improved safety performance (Hoffmeister, Gibbons, Johnson, Cigularov, Chen, &
Rosecrance, 2014).
In safety-critical contexts, transformational and active transactional leader behaviors play
complementary roles in supporting safe behavior and reducing the likelihood of work
accidents. Willis et al. (2017b) have shown that a leader, who takes an active stance towards
safety, combining both transformational and active transactional behaviors, is most associated
with safe performance. Yet to date, safety interventions, which have focused on training
6
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
supervisors to engage in leader behaviors, have based their training on transformational
leadership (Mullen & Kelloway, 2009; von Thiele Schwarz, Hasson, & Tafvelin, 2016), or
supportive supervision (Hammer, Truxillo, Bodner, Rineer, Pytlovany, & Richman, 2015),
rather than training leaders to use both transformational and active transactional behaviors in
concert.
2.2 Design of leadership interventions
Kelloway and Barling (2010) reviewed the effectiveness of interventions that targeted
leadership behavior as a means of improving occupational health and safety in organizations,
and reported that leadership development (usually in the form of training) could be an
effective intervention. Avolio et al.’s (2009) meta-analysis revealed that leadership
interventions are generally successful in changing leader behaviors (ρ = .41), particularly
when targeted at the supervisory level (ρ = .69). For example, using half-day workshops to
train managers in transformational leadership techniques, Barling, Weber and Kelloway
(1996) found that employees reported a significant increase in transformational leader
behaviors three months later.
A number of previous safety intervention studies have targeted supervisors (or managers), but
have taken different theoretical and practical approaches. Studies that focus on changing
specific supervisory behaviors through the use of a feedback and goal-setting intervention are
most common (applied behavioral approach; e.g., Kines, Andersen, Spandenberg, Mikkelsen,
Dyreborg, & Zohar, 2010; Luria, Zohar & Erez, 2008; Zohar, 2002; Zohar & Luria, 2003;
Zohar & Polachek, 2014, 2017). With the theoretical basis of these studies rooted in
reinforcement (Skinner, 1938) and goal-setting theories (Locke & Latham, 1984), the
objective is to increase the relative frequency of a specific supervisor behavior, such as safety
exchanges with employees, and provide feedback to supervisors on the increase in this
7
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
behavior, based on employee reports. Behavior-based ‘safety coaching’ (an applied
behavioral analysis technique, involving interpersonal interaction to understand / change
environmental conditions that underlie safety behavior; Passmore, Krauesslar, & Avery,
2015; Wiegand, 2007) has also been used as a supervisory intervention, where the emphasis
is on identifying and changing specific behaviors through dialogue with the supervisor or
manager (e.g., Kines, Andersen, Andersen, Nielsen, & Pedersen, 2013; Nielsen, Kines,
Pedersen, Andersen, & Andersen, 2015). Only a few studies have taken a training approach,
with a theoretical basis in leadership theory (e.g., Bass, 1985), which focuses on increasing
supervisors’ awareness and knowledge of leader behaviors, and their motivation to use them
(e.g., Hammer et al., 2015; Mullen & Kelloway, 2009; von Thiele Schwarz et al., 2016). Both
Hammer et al. (2015) and von Thiele Schwarz et al. (2016) used supervisor training (e.g.,
online training, education workshops), but these were not safety-specific; Hammer et al.
(2015) focused on supportive supervisor behaviors (i.e., family-supportive and safety-
supportive) and von Thiele Schwarz et al. (2016) focused on general leadership behaviors
(i.e., transformational and contingent reward). The results were mixed; Hammer et al. (2015)
found no effect on safety behaviors, while von Thiele Schwarz et al. (2016) reported positive
increases in safety perceptions (pre and post comparison, but with no control group). In
contrast, Mullen and Kelloway (2009) trained supervisors in safety-specific leadership; they
found that safety-specific transformational leadership had a significant effect on safety
perceptions, participation and self-reported injuries (versus no effect in a general leadership
training group and a control). Thus, our study adds to the small number of studies that have
focused on training supervisors to use leader behaviors in safety-related work situations, and
extends this work by including active transactional leader behaviors. We also extend the
existing work on safety interventions by conducting our research in a high hazard, safety-
critical industry (chemical processing plant), rather than industries characterised by high
8
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
accident and injury rates (such as manufacturing and construction), where active transactional
leadership is expected to be particularly salient for workplace safety.
Using training interventions should increase supervisors’ awareness and knowledge of a
range of transformational and active transactional leader behaviors, and how these can used
in safety-related situations. Thus, we would expect that supervisors will engage in higher
levels of these leadership behaviors, that these behaviors will become more aligned with
workplace safety, and that employee safety perceptions and behaviors will improve as a
result. Thus, we hypothesized the following:
Hypothesis 1: Higher levels of constructive leadership behaviors (transformational and active
transactional) will be reported post-training (compared to pre-training) by both supervisors
(H1a) and employees (H1b).
Hypothesis 2: Constructive leadership behaviors (transformational and active transactional)
will be more strongly associated with employee safety perceptions (H2a) and safety behavior
(H2b) post-training (compared to pre-training).
Hypothesis 3: Employee safety behavior (H3a) and safety perceptions (H3b) will be
improved in the experimental group relative to the comparison group.
3. Method
3.1 Participants and procedure
Following ethics approval being granted by the [blinded], a chemical processing company in
the UK participated in the study. The study was conducted at a large chemical processing
plant involved in the processing and manufacture of chemicals for industrial use (e.g.,
petrochemical, agricultural). We considered the organization to be safety-critical, given the
nature of the chemicals and the process hazards, which posed a significant risk to employees
9
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
and public safety should a major incident occur (such as a fire or pressure release of
chemicals). Employees were either operations-based (high-risk work environment) or office-
based (low-risk work environment). All supervisors of the high-risk group (N = 65)
undertook safety leadership training (experimental group); there was no training for the low-
risk group (comparison group). Both groups worked on the same company site and were
subject to the same organizational changes ongoing in the organization. Employees in both
groups completed a workplace safety survey. After the completion of the survey, supervisors
of the experimental group participated in training. The survey was completed again, eight
weeks following the training, to evaluate the effect of the intervention. A total of 74
employees (207 distributed) in the high risk operational area and 65 employees (83
distributed) in the low risk office-based area participated in the study.
Employees in the experimental group completed both the leadership measures and safety
climate / safety behavior measures; while employees in the comparison group completed only
the safety climate / safety behavior measures. Supervisors in the experimental group
completed only the leadership measures; while supervisors in the comparison group were not
involved in the survey. In each case, the survey link was emailed to participants who were
assured of anonymity and given three weeks to respond.
After the survey window closed, those in the supervisor group participated in a safety-
specific training workshop on the use of active transactional and transformational leadership.
These workshops were three hours long and were based on previous leadership training
designs (Barling et al., 1996; Kelloway, Barling, & Helleur, 2000; Mullen & Kelloway,
2009). Regular exercises were included throughout the workshop so that leaders could apply
what was being taught to aid adjustments to their own behavior (Burke, Sarpy, Smith-Crowe,
Chan-Serafin, Salvador, & Islam, 2006). At the end of the workshop the supervisors were
required to record specific goals within an action plan. Action plans are an effective follow-
10
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
up activity to training as they increase the self-efficacy of participants (Martin, 2010).
Participants were asked to write down how, when and to whom they would apply their
learning so that they could envision the behaviors necessary for successful transfer and
increase confidence levels (Facteau, Dobbins, Russell, Ladd & Kudisch, 1995).
After eight weeks, a second survey was administered to the three groups. The measures
included in the post-training surveys were identical to those at pre-training. The participants’
action plans were recorded so that these could be referenced in follow-up meetings to
ascertain how the supervisors were progressing with their goals.
3.2 Measures
Leadership style
The MLQ-5x (Avolio & Bass, 1995) was used to measure leadership style. The scale consists
of 45 questions; for example, “I go beyond self-interest for the good of the group”
(transformational) and “I keep track of all mistakes” (active transactional). The survey uses a
5-point scale to rate the frequency of leader behaviors (where 1 = Not at all; 2 = Once in a
while; 3 = Sometimes; 4 = Fairly often; 5 = Frequently, if not always). The MLQ is well-
established as a measure of leadership style that consistently demonstrates good reliability; in
our study, Cronbach alpha was .96 for transformational leadership and .70 for active
transactional.
Safety climate
Safety climate scales developed and validated by Clarke and Flitcroft (2011) were utilized.
The survey measures nine safety climate dimensions (using 26 items) that were obtained
from thematic analysis based on a literature review and interviews with health and safety
managers. Within the development sample used by Clarke and Flitcroft (2011), three
11
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
companies were from the UK chemical industry, suggesting the survey would be well-suited
to the participating company in our study. The survey used a 5-point Likert scale (ranging
from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree). The overall reliability coefficient
reported by Clarke and Flitcroft (2011) for safety climate was .94 and in our study, the
Cronbach alpha for the safety climate scale was .95. Each safety dimension has three items
(except co-worker support which comprises two items), with example items as follows:
management commitment (“Safety is given a high priority by management”); communication
(“There is open communication between management and employees about safety issues”);
safety systems (“Workplace inspections are carried out regularly”); training (“Regular safety
training programmes are provided to refresh and update”); work environment (“My work area
is maintained to a safe standard”); work pressure (“When there is a lot of work it is
impossible to follow safety rules and regulations”); equipment (“Plant and equipment is
regularly safety checked”); co-worker support (“Employees support and look out for each
other’s well-being”); management support (“My manager encourages me to work in a safe
manner”).
Safety behavior
Safety behavior comprised separate three-item scales for safety compliance (e.g., “I follow all
safety rules and procedures when carrying out my job”) and safety participation (e.g., “Where
possible I help my colleagues to work in a safe manner”) developed by Griffin and Neal
(2000). Items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale (where 1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 =
Strongly Agree). Cronbach alpha was .85 for safety compliance and .67 for safety
participation.
12
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
In addition, each survey included measures of self-reported injuries (in past 12 months)2 and
demographics (age and tenure with the company).
4. Results
Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics for the leadership styles as reported by the
experimental group and their supervisors, both before and after the training intervention.
MANOVA showed a main effect of group for transformational leadership, with supervisors
rating their use of transformational behaviors higher than employees (F = 12.52, p < .001,
partial η2 = .076). However, there was no main effect of group for active transactional
leadership (F = 2.22, p > .05, partial η2 = .014). Although use of both types of leader behavior
increased over time, the main effect of time was not significant for the frequency of
transformational leader behaviors (F < 1.00, p > .05, partial η2 = .004) or active transactional
leader behaviors (F < 1.00, p > .05, partial η2 = .001). Thus, H1a and H1b were not
supported.
INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE
For both leadership styles, the relationships with safety variables strengthened at T2 relative
to the correlations reported at T1 (see Table 2), supporting H2. Fisher’s z-test was used to
determine the relative change in the strength of the correlations between T1 and T2. All of
these correlations were significantly stronger at T2 in comparison to T1 (p < .001), with the
exception of the relationship between transformational leadership and safety compliance,
which demonstrated a positive, but non-significant change (providing support for H2a and
partial support for H2b). For active transactional leadership style, the correlations between
leadership and safety variables were positive at both T1 and T2, but only significant at T2.
2 In a safety-critical organization, where the consequences of an accident or incident can be very significant, but injuries/accidents are relatively rare, we considered that a measure of injuries over the period of the intervention, would not be a suitable measure of change. Therefore, self-reported injuries was not included as an outcome.
13
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
234
Thus, while the frequency of active transactional leader behaviors did not change over time,
these behaviors were unrelated to safety variables at T1, but significantly related to safety
variables at T2.
INSERT TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE
Consistent with previous findings (e.g., Clarke, 2013), there was a stronger relationship
between active transactional leadership and safety compliance relative to transformational
leadership (.52 vs .42; z = 1.72, p < .10), and conversely, a stronger relationship between
transformational leadership and safety participation relative to active transactional leadership
(.70 vs .44; z = 5.09, p <. 001); although only the latter was significantly different at the 5%
level.
Descriptive statistics for the safety behavior and safety climate variables can be seen in Table
3. This shows an improvement in the experimental group across time for all three variables,
whereas the comparison group reported a decline on the same variables across the same time
interval. MANOVA showed that there was no significant interaction between group and time
on the dependent variables of compliance (F = 1.97, p > .05, partial η2 = .011) and
participation (F < 1.00, p > .05, partial η2 = .003). Therefore, H3a was not supported.
INSERT TABLE 3 ABOUT HERE
MANOVA revealed no significant interaction between group and time for overall safety
climate (F = 1.79, p > .05, partial η2 = .010), but a significant main effect for group (F = 4.25,
p < .05, partial η2 = .023). Further examination using univariate tests showed that the
experimental group had significantly lower perceptions of safety climate than the comparison
group at pre-training (F = 14.14, p <.001, partial η2 = .072), but after the training intervention,
the experimental and comparison groups did not differ significantly in their perception of
14
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
safety climate (F < 1.00, p > .05, partial η2 = .001) indicating that the experimental group had
improved perceptions of safety climate to a level similar to the comparison group (while the
comparison group had declined over time). Thus, there was support for H3b.
INSERT TABLE 4 ABOUT HERE
Relative to the comparison group, the experimental group had significantly lower scores for
eight out of nine safety climate subscales at T1: communication (t = 3.65, p < .001);
management commitment (t = 4.65, p < .001); safety systems (t = 2.23, p < .05); co-worker
support (t = 2.05, p < .05); management support (t = 2.32, p < .05); training (t = 2.54, p
< .05); work environment (t = 4.90, p < .001); work pressure (t = 3.75, p < .01). These eight
significant deficits were not present at T2, indicating that the experimental group’s scores had
increased to a level similar to the comparison group (see Table 4). Scores on seven of the
nine subscales for the comparison group declined over time. Despite two safety climate sub-
scales (communication and training) increasing between pre and post-training, examination
of their slope coefficients revealed that the experimental group’s score increased at a higher
rate than the comparison group for both communication (.295 vs .077) and training (.195
vs .073), providing support for the intervention’s effect on the experimental group for these
two subscales.
5. Discussion
We implemented a safety leadership intervention, using supervisor training and action
planning, to increase transformational and active transactional leader behaviors in a safety
context. Although we found no change in the frequency of leader behaviors, the intervention
was effective in helping supervisors to apply both transformational and active transactional
leader behaviors to safety. The results suggested that transformational leader behaviors were
already at a high level and linked to safety. However, active transactional leader behaviors
15
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
were only linked to safety following the intervention. Consistent with previous research,
transformational behaviors were more closely linked to employee safety participation and
active transactional behaviors were more associated with employee safety compliance
(Clarke, 2013). In an extension of previous experimental field work, which has looked at the
effects of transformational leadership (e.g., Mullen & Kelloway, 2009), our study included
both transformational and active transactional forms of leader behavior. We demonstrated
that supervisory training in leadership behaviors related to safety led to significant
improvements in perceived safety climate relative to the comparison group. We hypothesized
that the experimental group would have higher perceived safety climate, but there were
differences between the experimental and the comparison groups pre-training in relation to
perceptions of safety climate. Nevertheless, following the training intervention, there was no
significant difference between the two groups: the experimental group had increased over
time whilst the comparison group had decreased slightly. One possible interpretation is that
the intervention helped to buffer employees against the general decline (Dejoy, Wilson,
Vandenberg, McGrath-Higgins, & Griffin-Blake, 2010).
Our study adds to the limited body of (quasi)experimental work that focuses on the
evaluation of safety interventions, and provides evidence for the efficacy of active
transactional leader behaviors in improving employee perceptions of the safety climate.
Although we also expected to find improvements in safety behavior, these were not
significant. Previous work has shown that changes in transformational and passive leader
behaviors are effective in reducing unsafe behavior, but that supervisors were unwilling to
reduce active transactional communications with employees as a part of a safety intervention
(Zohar & Polachek, 2017); the authors concluded that “having framed our training in the
context of safety leadership, trying to reduce transactive (corrective) messages to its
normative level made, apparently, little sense to participating supervisors” (p.23). We extend
16
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
these findings by demonstrating that reorienting active transactional leader behaviors towards
safety goals can lead to improved safety perceptions amongst employees; these adjustments
in leader behaviors lead to employee perceptions that safety has higher priority and this was
reflected across a number of safety dimensions, including the focus on management
commitment, communication, work environment, and work pressure. Although there was no
change in employee behavior, this may follow after a longer period as changed leader
behaviors become embedded. Willis et al. (2017a) argued that it is likely that employees
become more receptive to active transactional behaviors in high-risk contexts, rather than
leaders spontaneously adjusting their behaviors to match the situation. Our findings suggest
not only that employees may be receptive to safety-related active transactional behaviors
within high-risk contexts, but furthermore, leaders can be trained to adjust their behaviors to
focus more on active transactional behaviors in safety-critical contexts.
Our study has implications for the design and implementation of safety interventions based
on supervisor training. First, our findings suggest that interventions may not need to focus on
any particular leadership style, as the optimal style for safety, but that interventions
encouraging the combined use of both transformational and active transactional leadership
can be effective. Second, we found that the frequency of leader behaviors did not change
significantly, but active transactional behaviors became more aligned with safety outcomes,
and the intervention resulted in a significant change in employee safety perceptions (relative
to the comparison group). This finding is consistent with Willis et al. (2017b) who found that
moderate (rather than high) levels of transformational and active transactional behaviors were
most associated with safety; thus interventions that focus on increasing the frequency of such
behaviors beyond this level may not be optimal. Willis et al. (2017b) found that the highly
active profile (characterised by high levels of both transformational and active transactional
behaviors, and low levels of passive leadership) had no additional value over the moderate
17
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
profile. Thus, our findings would suggest that safety leadership interventions might focus
more on the orientation of leader behaviors relative to the situation (e.g., learning how to use
active transactional behaviors, such as proactive monitoring, to improve safety compliance),
rather than frequency of behaviors.
5.1 Limitations & Further Research
Our study has a number of limitations that should be taken into account in the interpretation
of the findings, and in the consideration of further research. In terms of the methodology, our
comparison group lacked some features of a formal control group (such as random allocation,
matched participants); however, we were able to use this group to control for a number of
important factors external to the intervention (i.e., organizational culture and policy,
organizational changes). As there was only one site available for the intervention, we decided
against a design where the high-risk employees were divided into two subgroups, because
this presented the risk of cross-contamination between groups (which has been noted as a
concern in other similar interventions; Zohar & Polachek, 2017). In addition, the perceived
frequency of leader behaviors did not increase significantly over the intervention period.
Future research might consider the use of measures with increased sensitivity, which are less
likely to demonstrate ‘ceiling effects’in rating scales.
Although we found changes in safety perceptions, we did not find changes in safety behavior.
It is possible that the intervention period of eight weeks was not sufficient to see behavioral
change. Indeed, future research should consider a longer-term evaluation period to allow for
the impact on behavior and subsequent incident-rates to be observed. A further possibility is
that the measurement scales lacked sensitivity, and in future researchers might employ scales
that tap a broader range of behaviors (e.g., distinguishing between proactive and prosocial
behaviors; Curcuruto et al., 2015), or perhaps capture objective data, such as behavioral
18
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
observations and safety audit outcomes. Our theoretical focus was on transformational-
transactional leadership, but while this is the most widely researched leadership framework, it
does not capture all aspects of leader behavior, such as empowering (Martínez-Córcoles,
Gracia, Tomás, Peiró, & Schöbel, 2013) and authentic leadership (Nielsen, Eid, Mearns, &
Larsson, 2013). Expanding the leadership styles measured may help to identify other aspects
of leader behavior that are important to improving safety. A future extension of our work
would be to focus on measures of employee characteristics (such as core self-evaluations) to
take account of employees’ receptivity to different forms of leadership. This would allow
greater understanding of how employees respond to different leader behaviors, so that
interventions can be tailored to take account of such contextual information.
6. Conclusions
Overall, the study provides evidence that the safety leadership intervention was effective in
changing employees’ perceptions of safety over an eight-week period, relative to the
comparison group. The intervention was based on training supervisors to use both
transformational and active transactional leader behaviors in safety-critical contexts.
Although we did not find that the frequency of leader behaviors increased relative to the
comparison group, the relationship between active transactional leader behaviors and safety-
related variables strengthened over time. Our findings suggest not only that employees may
be receptive to safety-related active transactional behaviors within high-risk situations, but
furthermore, leaders can be trained to adjust their behaviors to focus more on active
transactional behaviors in safety-critical contexts, leading to improved safety climate over
time.
19
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
References
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1995). MLQ Multifactor leadership questionnaire. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.
Avolio, B. J., Reichard, R. J., Hannah, S. T., Walumba, F. O., & Chan, A. (2009). A meta-analytic review of leadership impact research: Experimental and quasi-experimental studies. Leadership Quarterly, 20(5), 764–784. DOI:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.06.006
Barling, J., Loughlin, C., & Kelloway, E. K. (2002). Development and test of a model linking safety-specific transformational leadership and occupational safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 488–496. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.488
Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E.K. (1996). Effects of transformational leadership training on attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(6), 827-832. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.81.6.827
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free Press.
Burke, M.J., Sarpy, S.A., Smith-Crowe, K., Chan-Serafin, S., Salvador, R.O., & Islam, G. (2006). Relative effectiveness of worker safety and health training methods. American Journal of Public Health, 96(2), 315-324. DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2004.059840
Christian, M. S., Bradley, J. C., Wallace, J. C., & Burke, M. J. (2009). Workplace safety: A meta-analysis of the roles of person and situation factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1103–1127. DOI: 10.1037/a0016172
Clarke, S. (2010). An integrative model of safety climate: Linking psychological climate and work attitudes to individual safety outcomes using meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(3), 553–578. DOI: 10.1348/096317909X452122
Clarke, S. (2013). Safety leadership: A meta-analytic review of transformational and transactional leadership styles as antecedents of safety behaviors. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 86(1), 22–49. DOI: 10.1111/j.2044-8325.2012.02064.x
Clarke, S. & Flitcroft, C. (2011). The effectiveness of occupational health and safety training in the promotion of a positive OSH culture. Report published by Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH), UK. Available at: http://www.iosh.co.uk/en/Books%20and%20resources/The%20effectiveness%20of%20training
Clarke, S., & Ward, K. (2006). The role of leader influence tactics and safety climate in engaging employee safety participation. Risk Analysis, 26(5), 1175-1186. DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00824.x
20
442
443444
445446447
448449450
451452453
454455
456457458
459460461
462463464465
466467468469
470471472473474
475476477
Conchie, S. M., & Donald, I. J. (2009). The moderating role of safety-specific trust on the relation between safety-specific leadership and safety citizenship behaviors. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14(2), 137-147. DOI: 10.1037/a0014247
Conchie, S. M., Taylor, P. J., & Donald, I. J. (2012). Promoting safety voice with safety-specific transformational leadership: The mediating role of two dimensions of trust. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17(1), 105–115. DOI:10.1037/a0025101
Curcuruto, M., Conchie, S.M., Mariani, M.G., & Violante, F.S. (2015). The role of prosocial and proactive safety behaviors in predicting safety performance. Safety Science, 80, 317–323. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2015.07.032
Dahl, Ø., & Olsen, E. (2013). Safety compliance on offshore platforms: A multi-sample survey on the role of perceived leadership involvement and work climate. Safety Science, 54, 17–26. DOI:10.1016/j.ssci.2012.11.003
DeJoy, D.M., Wilson, M.G., Vandenberg, R.J., McGrath-Higgins, A.L. & Griffin-Blake, C.S. (2010). Assessing the impact of healthy work organization intervention. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(1), 139-165. DOI: 10.1348/096317908X398773
Facteau, J.D., Dobbins, G.H., Russell, J.E.A., Ladd, R.T., & Kudisch, J.D. (1995). The influence of general perceptions of the training environment on pretraining motivation and perceived training transfer. Journal of Management, 21(1), 1-25. DOI: 10.1016/0149-2063(95)90031-4
Griffin, M. A., & Hu, X. (2013). How leaders differentially motivate safety compliance and safety participation: The role of monitoring, inspiring, and learning. Safety Science, 60, 196–202. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2013.07.019
Griffin, M. A., & Neal, A. (2000). Perceptions of safety at work: A framework for linking safety climate to safety performance, knowledge, and motivation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(3), 347-358. DOI: 10.1037/1076-8998.5.3.347
Grill, M., Pousette, A., Nielsen, K., Grytnes, R., & Törner, M. (2017). Safety leadership at construction sites: The importance of rule-oriented and participative leadership. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 43(4), 375-384. DOI: 10.5271/sjweh.3650
Hammer, L.B., Truxillo, D.M., Bodner, T., Rineer, J., Pytlovany, A.C., & Richman, A. (2015). Effects of a workplace intervention targeting psychosocial risk factors on safety and health outcomes. BioMed Research International, 1-12. DOI: 10.1155/2015/836967
Hoffmeister, K., Gibbons, A. M., Johnson, S. K., Cigularov, K. P., Chen, P. Y., & Rosecrance, J. C. (2014). The differential effects of transformational leadership facets on employee safety. Safety Science, 62, 68–78. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2013.07.004
21
478479480
481482483
484485486
487488489
490491492493
494495496497
498499500
501502503
504505506507
508509510511
512513514
Hofmann, D. A., & Morgeson, F. P. (1999). Safety-related behavior as a social exchange: The role of perceived organizational support and leader–member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(2), 286-296. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.84.2.286
Inness, M., Turner, N., Barling, J., & Stride, C. B. (2010). Transformational leadership and employee safety performance: A within-person, between-jobs design. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15(3), 279–290. DOI:10.1037/a0019380
International Labour Organization (2016). Safety and Health at Work. Available at: http://www.ilo.org/global/topics/safety-and-health-at-work/lang--en/index.htm (accessed: April 2016).
Judge, T.A., & Piccolo, R.F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755–768. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755
Kark, R., Katz-Navon, T., & Delegach, M. (2015). The dual effects of leading for safety: The mediating role of employee regulatory focus. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(5), 1332. DOI: 10.1037/a0038818
Kelloway, E. K., & Barling, J. (2010). Leadership development as an intervention in occupational health psychology. Work & Stress, 24(3), 260–279. DOI: 10.1080/02678373.2010.518441
Kelloway, E.K., Barling, J., & Helleur, J. (2000). Enhancing transformational leadership: The roles of training and feedback. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 21(3), 145-149. DOI: 10.1108/01437730010325022
Kines, P., Andersen, L.P.S., Spandenberg, S., Mikkelsen, K.L., Dyreborg, J., & Zohar, D. (2010). Improving construction site safety through leader-based verbal safety communication. Journal of Safety Research, 41(5), 399-406. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsr.2010.06.005
Kines, P., Andersen, D., Andersen, L. P., Nielsen, K., & Pedersen, L. (2013). Improving safety in small enterprises through an integrated safety management intervention. Journal of Safety Research, 44, 87-95. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsr.2012.08.022
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1984). Goal setting: A motivational technique that works. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Luria, G. (2008). Climate strength – How leaders form consensus. Leadership Quarterly, 19(1), 42–53. DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.12.004
Luria, G., Zohar, D., & Erev, I. (2008). The effect of workers’ visibility on effectiveness of intervention programs: Supervisory-based safety interventions. Journal of Safety Research, 39(3), 273–280. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsr.2007.12.003
22
515516517
518519520
521522523
524525526
527528529
530531532
533534535
536537538539
540541542
543544
545546
547548549
Martin, H.J. (2000). Improving training impact through effective follow‐up: Techniques and their application. Journal of Management Development, 29(6), 520-534. DOI: 10.1108/02621711011046495
Martínez-Córcoles, M., & Konstantinos, S. (2017). Linking active transactional leadership and safety performance in military operations. Safety Science, 96, 93–101. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2017.03.013
Martínez-Córcoles, M., Gracia, F.J., Tomás, I., Peiró, J.M., & Schöbel, M. (2013). Empowering team leadership and safety performance in nuclear power plants: A multilevel approach. Safety Science, 51(1), 293-301. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2012.08.001
Mullen, J. (2005). Testing a model of employee willingness to raise safety issues. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 37(4), 273-282. DOI: 10.1037/h0087262
Mullen, J. E., & Kelloway, E. K. (2009). Safety leadership: A longitudinal study of the effects of transformational leadership on safety outcomes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82(2), 253–272. DOI: 10.1348/096317908X325313
Nielsen, K. J., Kines, P., Pedersen, L. M., Andersen, L. P., & Andersen, D. R. (2015). A multicase study of the implementation of an integrated approach to safety in small enterprises. Safety Science, 71, 142-150. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2013.11.015
Nielsen, M.B., Eid, J., Mearns, K., & Larsson, G. (2013). Authentic leadership and its relationship with risk perception and safety climate. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 34(4), 308-325. DOI: 10.1108/LODJ-07-2011-0065
Nielsen, M.B., Skogstad, A., Matthiesen, S.B., & Einarsen, S. (2016). The importance of a multidimensional and temporal design in research on leadership and workplace safety. Leadership Quarterly, 27(1), 142–155. DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.08.003
Passmore, J., Krauesslar, V., & Avery, R. (2015). Safety coaching: A literature review of coaching in high hazard industries. Industrial and Commercial Training, 47(4), 195-200. DOI:10.1108/ICT-12-2014-0080
Reason, J. T. (1997). Managing the risks of organizational accidents. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
Rodriguez, M. A., & Griffin, M. A. (2009). From error prevention to error learning: The role of error management in global leadership. In: W.H. Mobley, Y. Wang, & M. Li (Eds.) Advances in Global Leadership (Vol. 5), pp. 93-112. Emerald Publishing. DOI: 10.1108/S1535-1203(2009)0000005008
Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M.G., & Macey, W.H. (2013). Organizational climate and culture. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 361-388. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143809
23
550551552
553554555
556557558
559560
561562563
564565566
567568569
570571572
573574575
576577
578579580581
582583584
Skinner, B.F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. New York: Appleton-Century.
Von Thiele Schwarz, U., Hasson, H., & Tafvelin, S. (2016). Leadership training as an occupational health intervention: Improved safety and sustained productivity. Safety Science, 81, 35-45. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2015.07.020
Wiegand, D.M. (2007). Exploring the role of emotional intelligence in behavior-based safety coaching. Journal of Safety Research, 38(4), 391-398. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsr.2007.03.010
Willis, S., Clarke, S., & O'Connor, E. (2017a). Contextualizing leadership: Transformational leadership and Management-By-Exception-Active in safety-critical contexts. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 90(3), 281-305. DOI: 10.1111/joop.12172
Willis, S., Clarke, S., & O’Connor, E. (2017b). "Who is the optimal safety leader? A person-centered perspective", Paper presented to the Academy of Management annual conference, Atlanta, Georgia, USA (August, 2017). DOI: 10.5465/AMBPP.2017.256
Zohar, D. (2002). Modifying supervisory practices to improve subunit safety: A leadership-based intervention model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 156–163. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.156
Zohar, D. (2010). Thirty years of safety climate research: Reflections and future directions. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 42(5), 1517–1522. DOI: 10.1016/j.aap.2009.12.019
Zohar, D., & Luria, G. (2003). The use of supervisory practices as leverage to improve safety behavior: A cross-level intervention model. Journal of Safety Research, 34, 567-577. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsr.2003.05.006
Zohar, D., & Tenne-Gazit, O. (2008). Transformational leadership and group interaction as climate antecedents: A social network analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(4), 744–757. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.4.744
Zohar, D., & Polachek, T. (2014). Discourse-based intervention for modifying supervisory communication as leverage for safety climate and performance improvement: A randomized field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(1), 113–124. DOI: 10.1037/a0034096
Zohar, D., & Polachek, T. (2017). Using event-level data to test the effect of verbal leader behavior on follower leadership perceptions and job performance: A randomized field experiment. Group & Organization Management, 42(3), 419-449. DOI: 10.1177/1059601115619079
24
585586
587588589
590591
592593594595
596597598
599600601
602603604
605606607
608609610
611612613614
615616617618
619
Table 1: Means and standard deviations for leader behavior measures for employee group and supervisor group at pre-training (T1) and post-training (T2)
Employee Group Supervisor Group
Pre-training Post-training Pre-training Post-trainingMean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Leader behaviors
Transformational 3.26 .95 3.41 1.06 3.86 .43 3.96 .43
Active transactional 3.09 .98 3.17 1.04 3.35 .79 3.44 .75
Note: Employee group (N = 74); supervisor group (N = 65)
25
620621
622
623
624
625
Table 2: Zero-order correlations and reliabilities for employee reported variables at pre-training (T1) and post-training (T2)
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.Demographics
1. Age -
2. Tenure .57**
3. Prior Injuries -.22 -.06
Leader behaviors
4. Transformational leadership -.25* -.21 -.05 (.96) .68** .68** .42** .70**
5. Transactional leadership -.05 -.02 -.06 .71** (.70) .50** .52** .44**
Employee safety measures
6. Safety Climate -.27* -.16 -.16 .40** .18 (.95) .58** .78**
7. Safety Compliance -.02 .00 -.25* .36** .11 .50** (.85) .61**
8. Safety Participation -.22 -.05 -.22 .43** .15 .78** .75** (.67)
Note: N = 139 (except leadership behaviors, N= 74); * p < .05, ** p < .01; T1 below the diagonal, T2 above the diagonal; Cronbach alpha shown in brackets on the diagonal
26
626
627
628629
630
Table 3: Means and standard deviations for safety climate and safety behavior measures for experimental group and comparison group at pre-training (T1) and post-training (T2)
Employee safety measures
ExperimentalGroup
ComparisonGroup
Pre-training Post-training Pre-training Post-trainingMean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Safety climate 90.53 16.07 95.03 17.26 99.78 11.14 97.00 11.01
Safety compliance 4.23 .51 4.36 .64 4.26 .50 4.11 .43
Safety participation 3.99 .51 4.09 .67 4.10 .53 4.06 .34
Note: Experimental group (N = 74); comparison group (N = 65)
27
631632
633
634
635
636
Table 4: Means and standard deviations for safety climate sub-scales for experimental and comparison groups at pre-training (T1) and post-training (T2)
Experimental Group Comparison GroupPre-training Post-training Pre-training Post-training
Safety climate subscales Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Communication 3.46*** .85 3.75† .88 3.92*** .65 4.00† .45
Equipment 3.57 .74 3.81 .76 3.76 .51 3.50 .46
Management commitment 3.51*** .83 3.80† .87 4.08*** .62 4.00† .65
Safety systems 3.61* .77 3.79† .83 3.88* .61 3.78† .50
Co-worker support 4.01* .57 4.10† .74 4.20* .54 4.13† .43
Management support 3.93* .65 3.98† .85 4.18* .59 3.89† .59
Training 3.37* .76 3.57† .75 3.68* .63 3.75† .62
Work environment 3.49*** .87 3.63† .90 4.15*** .70 3.88† .77
Work pressure 3.73** .89 3.80† .90 4.19** .57 4.08† .67
Note: Experimental group (N = 74); comparison group (N = 65); scores significantly different at T1 (pre-training), *p <.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001; scores not significantly different at T2 (post-training) †
28
637638
639
640641
642
