- Email: [email protected]
Reducing workplace accidents through the use of leadership interventions: A quasi-experimental field study
Accident Analysis and Prevention 121 (2018) 314–320
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Accident Analysis and Prevention journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/aap
Reducing workplace accidents through the use of leadership interventions: A quasi-experimental field study
T
⁎
Sharon Clarke , Ian Taylor Alliance Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Booth Street East, Manchester, M13 9SS, United Kingdom
A R T I C LE I N FO
A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Occupational safety Leadership Transformational Active transactional Intervention Training
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.
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 nonfatal 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 et al., 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
⁎
Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Clarke).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2018.05.010 Received 11 October 2017; Received in revised form 4 April 2018; Accepted 9 May 2018
0001-4575/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
climate perceptions, which in turn affects safety behavior (e.g., compliance with rules and regulations), and work accidents (Christian et al., 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 et al., 2002; Conchie and Donald, 2009; Inness et al., 2010; Nielsen et al., 2016). Another form of constructive leadership that is especially relevant for workplace safety is active transactional leadership, which emphasizes proactive monitoring and correcting leader behaviors (Clarke, 2013; Griffin and Hu, 2013; Willis et al., 2017a); recent evidence supports a positive association with safety climate and safety behaviors (Grill et al., 2017; Kark et al., 2015; Martínez-Córcoles and 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 et al., 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’
Accident Analysis and Prevention 121 (2018) 314–320
S. Clarke, I. Taylor
Leaders demonstrate willingness to listen to safety concerns (Hofmann and Morgeson, 1999; Mullen, 2005) supporting employees to provide feedback on safety issues, leading to greater understanding and enhanced communication (Conchie et al., 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 et al., 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 supervisors to engage in leader behaviors, have based their training on transformational leadership (Mullen and Kelloway, 2009; Von Thiele Schwarz et al., 2016), or supportive supervision (Hammer et al., 2015), rather than training leaders to use both transformational and active transactional behaviors in concert.
safety perceptions and safety behaviors in a safety-critical context. While leadership interventions have proven effectiveness (Avolio et al., 2009), including within an occupational health and safety context (Kelloway and Barling, 2010), previous work has focused on developing transformational leader behaviors in isolation (Mullen and 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 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.
2.2. 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 et al. (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 et al., 2010; Luria et al., 2008; Zohar, 2002; Zohar and Luria, 2003; Zohar and Polachek, 2014, Zohar and Polachek, 2017). With the theoretical basis of these studies rooted in reinforcement (Skinner, 1938) and goal-setting theories (Locke and 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 behavior, based on employee reports. Behaviorbased ‘safety coaching’ (an applied behavioral analysis technique, involving interpersonal interaction to understand / change environmental conditions that underlie safety behavior; Passmore et al., 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 et al., 2013; Nielsen et al., 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
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 and 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 and Hu, 2013; Rodriguez and Griffin, 2009). Such leader behavior 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 and 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 et al., 2015). The motivating and enthusing behavior of transformational leaders encourages employees to engage in higher levels of safety participation (Clarke, 2013; Griffin and Hu, 2013), and builds consensus amongst employees’ perceptions of the priority given to safety (Luria, 2008; Zohar and Tenne-Gazit, 2008). 315
Accident Analysis and Prevention 121 (2018) 314–320
S. Clarke, I. Taylor
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 et al., 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 et al., 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-up activity to training as they increase the self-efficacy of participants (Martin, 2000). 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 et al., 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.
contrast, Mullen and Kelloway (2009) trained supervisors in safetyspecific 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 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 be 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 posttraining (compared to pre-training) by both supervisors (H1a) and employees (H1b).
3.2. Measures 3.2.1. Leadership style The MLQ-5x (Avolio and 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 0.96 for transformational leadership and 0.70 for active transactional.
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
3.2.2. 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 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 0.94 and in our study, the Cronbach alpha for the safety climate scale was 0.95. Each safety dimension has three items (except coworker 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”).
3.1. Participants and procedure Following ethics approval being granted by the University of Manchester, 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 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
3.2.3. 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 316
Accident Analysis and Prevention 121 (2018) 314–320
S. Clarke, I. Taylor
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
Leader behaviors Transformational Active transactional
Post-training
Pre-training
Post-training
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
3.26 3.09
0.95 0.98
3.41 3.17
1.06 1.04
3.86 3.35
0.43 0.79
3.96 3.44
0.43 0.75
Note: Employee group (N = 74); supervisor group (N = 65).
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. 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 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. 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 subscales (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.
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 0.85 for safety compliance and 0.67 for safety participation. In addition, each survey included measures of self-reported injuries (in past 12 months)1 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 = 0.001). Thus, H1a and H1b were not supported. 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. 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. 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
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 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 and 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
1 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.
317
Accident Analysis and Prevention 121 (2018) 314–320
S. Clarke, I. Taylor
Table 2 Zero-order correlations and reliabilities for employee reported variables at pre-training (T1) and post-training (T2).
Demographics 1. Age 2. Tenure 3. Prior Injuries Leader behaviors 4. Transformational leadership 5. Transactional leadership Employee safety measures 6. Safety Climate 7. Safety Compliance 8. Safety Participation
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
– .57** −.22
−.06
−.25* −.05
−.21 −.02
−.05 −.06
(.96) .71**
.68** (.70)
.68** .50**
.42** .52**
.70** .44**
−.27* −.02 −.22
−.16 .00 −.05
−.16 −.25* −.22
.40** .36** .43**
.18 .11 .15
(.95) .50** .78**
.58** (.85) .75**
.78** .61** (.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. 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
Experimental Group
Comparison Group
Pre-training
Safety climate Safety compliance Safety participation
Post-training
Pre-training
Post-training
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
90.53 4.23 3.99
16.07 0.51 0.51
95.03 4.36 4.09
17.26 0.64 0.67
99.78 4.26 4.10
11.14 0.50 0.53
97.00 4.11 4.06
11.01 0.43 0.34
Note: Experimental group (N = 74); comparison group (N = 65). 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 Group
Pre-training
Post-training
Pre-training
Post-training
Safety climate subscales
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Communication Equipment Management commitment Safety systems Co-worker support Management support Training Work environment Work pressure
3.46*** 3.57 3.51*** 3.61* 4.01* 3.93* 3.37* 3.49*** 3.73**
.85 .74 .83 .77 .57 .65 .76 .87 .89
3.75† 3.81 3.80† 3.79† 4.10† 3.98† 3.57† 3.63† 3.80†
0.88 0.76 0.87 0.83 0.74 0.85 0.75 0.90 0.90
3.92*** 3.76 4.08*** 3.88* 4.20* 4.18* 3.68* 4.15*** 4.19**
.65 .51 .62 .61 .54 .59 .63 .70 .57
4.00† 3.50 4.00† 3.78† 4.13† 3.89† 3.75† 3.88† 4.08†
0.45 0.46 0.65 0.50 0.43 0.59 0.62 0.77 0.67
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) †.
supervisors were unwilling to reduce active transactional communications with employees as a part of a safety intervention (Zohar and 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 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
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 et al., 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 318
Accident Analysis and Prevention 121 (2018) 314–320
S. Clarke, I. Taylor
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 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.
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. Conflict of interests None References Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M., 1995. MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Mind Garden, Redwood City, CA. 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. Leadersh. Q. 20 (5), 764–784. http://dx.doi.org/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. J. Appl. Psychol. 87 (3), 488–496. http://dx.doi.org/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. J. Appl. Psychol. 81 (6), 827–832. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.6.827. Bass, B.M., 1985. Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. Free Press, New York, NY. 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. Am. J. Public Health 96 (2), 315–324. http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2004.059840. Christian, M.S., Bradley, J.C., Wallace, J.C., Burke, M.J., 2009. Workplace safety: a metaanalysis of the roles of person and situation factors. J. Appl. Psychol. 94 (5), 1103–1127. http://dx.doi.org/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. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 83 (3), 553–578. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/096317909X452122. Clarke, S., 2013. Safety leadership: a meta-analytic review of transformational and transactional leadership styles as antecedents of safety behaviors. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 86 (1), 22–49. http://dx.doi.org/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. Available at:. Report published by Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH), UK. 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 Anal. 26 (5), 1175–1186. http://dx.doi. org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00824.x. 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. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 14 (2), 137–147. http://dx.doi.org/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. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 17 (1), 105–115. http://dx.doi.org/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. Saf. Sci. 80, 317–323. http://dx.doi.org/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. Saf. Sci. 54, 17–26. http://dx.doi.org/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. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 83 (1), 139–165. http://dx.doi.org/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. J. Manage. 21 (1), 1–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ 0149-2063(95)90031-4. Griffin, M.A., Hu, X., 2013. How leaders differentially motivate safety compliance and
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 and 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 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 et al., 2013) and authentic leadership (Nielsen et al., 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, 319
Accident Analysis and Prevention 121 (2018) 314–320
S. Clarke, I. Taylor
Behav. Sci. 37 (4), 273–282. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0087262. Mullen, J.E., Kelloway, E.K., 2009. Safety leadership: a longitudinal study of the effects of transformational leadership on safety outcomes. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 82 (2), 253–272. http://dx.doi.org/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. Saf. Sci. 71, 142–150. http://dx.doi.org/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. Leadersh. Organiz. Dev. J. 34 (4), 308–325. http://dx.doi.org/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. Leadersh. Q. 27 (1), 142–155. http://dx.doi.org/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. Ind. Commer. Train. 47 (4), 195–200. http://dx. doi.org/10.1108/ICT-12-2014-0080. Reason, J.T., 1997. Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents. Ashgate, Aldershot, UK. Rodriguez, M.A., Griffin, M.A., 2009. From error prevention to error learning: the role of error management in global leadership. In: In: Mobley, W.H., Wang, Y., Li, M. (Eds.), Advances in Global Leadership, vol. 5. Emerald Publishing, pp. 93–112. http://dx. doi.org/10.1108/S1535-1203(2009)0000005008. Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M.G., Macey, W.H., 2013. Organizational climate and culture. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 64, 361–388. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych113011-143809. Skinner, B.F., 1938. The Behavior of Organisms: An Experimental Analysis. AppletonCentury, New York. Von Thiele Schwarz, U., Hasson, H., Tafvelin, S., 2016. Leadership training as an occupational health intervention: improved safety and sustained productivity. Saf. Sci. 81, 35–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2015.07.020. Wiegand, D.M., 2007. Exploring the role of emotional intelligence in behavior-based safety coaching. J. Saf. Res. 38 (4), 391–398. http://dx.doi.org/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. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 90 (3), 281–305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/joop.12172. Willis, S., Clarke, S., O’Connor, E., 2017b. Who is the optimal safety leader? A personcentered perspective Atlanta, Georgia, USA (August, 2017). Paper Presented to the Academy of Management Annual Conference. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP. 2017.256. Zohar, D., 2002. Modifying supervisory practices to improve subunit safety: a leadershipbased intervention model. J. Appl. Psychol. 87 (1), 156–163. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1037/0021-9010.87.1.156. Zohar, D., 2010. Thirty years of safety climate research: reflections and future directions. Accid. Anal. Prev. 42 (5), 1517–1522. http://dx.doi.org/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. J. Saf. Res. 34, 567–577. http://dx.doi. org/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. J. Appl. Psychol. 93 (4), 744–757. http://dx.doi.org/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. J. Appl. Psychol. 99 (1), 113–124. http://dx.doi.org/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 Organ. Manage. 42 (3), 419–449. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 1059601115619079.
safety participation: the role of monitoring, inspiring, and learning. Saf. Sci. 60, 196–202. http://dx.doi.org/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. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 5 (3), 347–358. http://dx.doi.org/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. Scand. J. Work, Environ. Health 43 (4), 375–384. http://dx.doi.org/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 Res. Int. 1–12. http://dx.doi.org/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. Saf. Sci. 62, 68–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2013.07.004. Hofmann, D.A., Morgeson, F.P., 1999. Safety-related behavior as a social exchange: the role of perceived organizational support and leader–member exchange. J. Appl. Psychol. 84 (2), 286–296. http://dx.doi.org/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. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 15 (3), 279–290. http://dx.doi.org/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 metaanalytic test of their relative validity. J. Appl. Psychol. 89 (5), 755–768. http://dx. doi.org/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. J. Appl. Psychol. 100 (5), 1332. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038818. Kelloway, E.K., Barling, J., 2010. Leadership development as an intervention in occupational health psychology. Work Stress 24 (3), 260–279. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1080/02678373.2010.518441. Kelloway, E.K., Barling, J., Helleur, J., 2000. Enhancing transformational leadership: the roles of training and feedback. Leadersh. Organiz. Dev. J. 21 (3), 145–149. http://dx. doi.org/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. J. Saf. Res. 41 (5), 399–406. http://dx.doi.org/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. J. Saf. Res. 44, 87–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2012.08.022. Locke, E.A., Latham, G.P., 1984. Goal Setting: A Motivational Technique that Works. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Luria, G., 2008. Climate strength – how leaders form consensus. Leadersh. Q. 19 (1), 42–53. http://dx.doi.org/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. J. Saf. Res. 39 (3), 273–280. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2007.12.003. Martin, H.J., 2000. Improving training impact through effective follow‐up: techniques and their application. J. Manage. Dev. 29 (6), 520–534. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ 02621711011046495. Martínez-Córcoles, M., Konstantinos, S., 2017. Linking active transactional leadership and safety performance in military operations. Saf. Sci. 96, 93–101. http://dx.doi.org/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. Saf. Sci. 51 (1), 293–301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci. 2012.08.001. Mullen, J., 2005. Testing a model of employee willingness to raise safety issues. Can. J.
320
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Accident Analysis and Prevention journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/aap
Reducing workplace accidents through the use of leadership interventions: A quasi-experimental field study
T
⁎
Sharon Clarke , Ian Taylor Alliance Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Booth Street East, Manchester, M13 9SS, United Kingdom
A R T I C LE I N FO
A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Occupational safety Leadership Transformational Active transactional Intervention Training
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.
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 nonfatal 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 et al., 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
⁎
Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Clarke).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2018.05.010 Received 11 October 2017; Received in revised form 4 April 2018; Accepted 9 May 2018
0001-4575/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
climate perceptions, which in turn affects safety behavior (e.g., compliance with rules and regulations), and work accidents (Christian et al., 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 et al., 2002; Conchie and Donald, 2009; Inness et al., 2010; Nielsen et al., 2016). Another form of constructive leadership that is especially relevant for workplace safety is active transactional leadership, which emphasizes proactive monitoring and correcting leader behaviors (Clarke, 2013; Griffin and Hu, 2013; Willis et al., 2017a); recent evidence supports a positive association with safety climate and safety behaviors (Grill et al., 2017; Kark et al., 2015; Martínez-Córcoles and 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 et al., 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’
Accident Analysis and Prevention 121 (2018) 314–320
S. Clarke, I. Taylor
Leaders demonstrate willingness to listen to safety concerns (Hofmann and Morgeson, 1999; Mullen, 2005) supporting employees to provide feedback on safety issues, leading to greater understanding and enhanced communication (Conchie et al., 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 et al., 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 supervisors to engage in leader behaviors, have based their training on transformational leadership (Mullen and Kelloway, 2009; Von Thiele Schwarz et al., 2016), or supportive supervision (Hammer et al., 2015), rather than training leaders to use both transformational and active transactional behaviors in concert.
safety perceptions and safety behaviors in a safety-critical context. While leadership interventions have proven effectiveness (Avolio et al., 2009), including within an occupational health and safety context (Kelloway and Barling, 2010), previous work has focused on developing transformational leader behaviors in isolation (Mullen and 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 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.
2.2. 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 et al. (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 et al., 2010; Luria et al., 2008; Zohar, 2002; Zohar and Luria, 2003; Zohar and Polachek, 2014, Zohar and Polachek, 2017). With the theoretical basis of these studies rooted in reinforcement (Skinner, 1938) and goal-setting theories (Locke and 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 behavior, based on employee reports. Behaviorbased ‘safety coaching’ (an applied behavioral analysis technique, involving interpersonal interaction to understand / change environmental conditions that underlie safety behavior; Passmore et al., 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 et al., 2013; Nielsen et al., 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
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 and 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 and Hu, 2013; Rodriguez and Griffin, 2009). Such leader behavior 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 and 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 et al., 2015). The motivating and enthusing behavior of transformational leaders encourages employees to engage in higher levels of safety participation (Clarke, 2013; Griffin and Hu, 2013), and builds consensus amongst employees’ perceptions of the priority given to safety (Luria, 2008; Zohar and Tenne-Gazit, 2008). 315
Accident Analysis and Prevention 121 (2018) 314–320
S. Clarke, I. Taylor
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 et al., 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 et al., 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-up activity to training as they increase the self-efficacy of participants (Martin, 2000). 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 et al., 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.
contrast, Mullen and Kelloway (2009) trained supervisors in safetyspecific 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 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 be 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 posttraining (compared to pre-training) by both supervisors (H1a) and employees (H1b).
3.2. Measures 3.2.1. Leadership style The MLQ-5x (Avolio and 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 0.96 for transformational leadership and 0.70 for active transactional.
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
3.2.2. 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 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 0.94 and in our study, the Cronbach alpha for the safety climate scale was 0.95. Each safety dimension has three items (except coworker 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”).
3.1. Participants and procedure Following ethics approval being granted by the University of Manchester, 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 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
3.2.3. 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 316
Accident Analysis and Prevention 121 (2018) 314–320
S. Clarke, I. Taylor
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
Leader behaviors Transformational Active transactional
Post-training
Pre-training
Post-training
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
3.26 3.09
0.95 0.98
3.41 3.17
1.06 1.04
3.86 3.35
0.43 0.79
3.96 3.44
0.43 0.75
Note: Employee group (N = 74); supervisor group (N = 65).
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. 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 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. 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 subscales (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.
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 0.85 for safety compliance and 0.67 for safety participation. In addition, each survey included measures of self-reported injuries (in past 12 months)1 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 = 0.001). Thus, H1a and H1b were not supported. 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. 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. 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
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 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 and 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
1 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.
317
Accident Analysis and Prevention 121 (2018) 314–320
S. Clarke, I. Taylor
Table 2 Zero-order correlations and reliabilities for employee reported variables at pre-training (T1) and post-training (T2).
Demographics 1. Age 2. Tenure 3. Prior Injuries Leader behaviors 4. Transformational leadership 5. Transactional leadership Employee safety measures 6. Safety Climate 7. Safety Compliance 8. Safety Participation
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
– .57** −.22
−.06
−.25* −.05
−.21 −.02
−.05 −.06
(.96) .71**
.68** (.70)
.68** .50**
.42** .52**
.70** .44**
−.27* −.02 −.22
−.16 .00 −.05
−.16 −.25* −.22
.40** .36** .43**
.18 .11 .15
(.95) .50** .78**
.58** (.85) .75**
.78** .61** (.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. 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
Experimental Group
Comparison Group
Pre-training
Safety climate Safety compliance Safety participation
Post-training
Pre-training
Post-training
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
90.53 4.23 3.99
16.07 0.51 0.51
95.03 4.36 4.09
17.26 0.64 0.67
99.78 4.26 4.10
11.14 0.50 0.53
97.00 4.11 4.06
11.01 0.43 0.34
Note: Experimental group (N = 74); comparison group (N = 65). 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 Group
Pre-training
Post-training
Pre-training
Post-training
Safety climate subscales
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Communication Equipment Management commitment Safety systems Co-worker support Management support Training Work environment Work pressure
3.46*** 3.57 3.51*** 3.61* 4.01* 3.93* 3.37* 3.49*** 3.73**
.85 .74 .83 .77 .57 .65 .76 .87 .89
3.75† 3.81 3.80† 3.79† 4.10† 3.98† 3.57† 3.63† 3.80†
0.88 0.76 0.87 0.83 0.74 0.85 0.75 0.90 0.90
3.92*** 3.76 4.08*** 3.88* 4.20* 4.18* 3.68* 4.15*** 4.19**
.65 .51 .62 .61 .54 .59 .63 .70 .57
4.00† 3.50 4.00† 3.78† 4.13† 3.89† 3.75† 3.88† 4.08†
0.45 0.46 0.65 0.50 0.43 0.59 0.62 0.77 0.67
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) †.
supervisors were unwilling to reduce active transactional communications with employees as a part of a safety intervention (Zohar and 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 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
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 et al., 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 318
Accident Analysis and Prevention 121 (2018) 314–320
S. Clarke, I. Taylor
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 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.
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. Conflict of interests None References Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M., 1995. MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Mind Garden, Redwood City, CA. 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. Leadersh. Q. 20 (5), 764–784. http://dx.doi.org/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. J. Appl. Psychol. 87 (3), 488–496. http://dx.doi.org/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. J. Appl. Psychol. 81 (6), 827–832. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.6.827. Bass, B.M., 1985. Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. Free Press, New York, NY. 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. Am. J. Public Health 96 (2), 315–324. http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2004.059840. Christian, M.S., Bradley, J.C., Wallace, J.C., Burke, M.J., 2009. Workplace safety: a metaanalysis of the roles of person and situation factors. J. Appl. Psychol. 94 (5), 1103–1127. http://dx.doi.org/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. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 83 (3), 553–578. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/096317909X452122. Clarke, S., 2013. Safety leadership: a meta-analytic review of transformational and transactional leadership styles as antecedents of safety behaviors. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 86 (1), 22–49. http://dx.doi.org/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. Available at:. Report published by Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH), UK. 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 Anal. 26 (5), 1175–1186. http://dx.doi. org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00824.x. 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. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 14 (2), 137–147. http://dx.doi.org/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. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 17 (1), 105–115. http://dx.doi.org/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. Saf. Sci. 80, 317–323. http://dx.doi.org/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. Saf. Sci. 54, 17–26. http://dx.doi.org/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. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 83 (1), 139–165. http://dx.doi.org/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. J. Manage. 21 (1), 1–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ 0149-2063(95)90031-4. Griffin, M.A., Hu, X., 2013. How leaders differentially motivate safety compliance and
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 and 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 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 et al., 2013) and authentic leadership (Nielsen et al., 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, 319
Accident Analysis and Prevention 121 (2018) 314–320
S. Clarke, I. Taylor
Behav. Sci. 37 (4), 273–282. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0087262. Mullen, J.E., Kelloway, E.K., 2009. Safety leadership: a longitudinal study of the effects of transformational leadership on safety outcomes. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 82 (2), 253–272. http://dx.doi.org/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. Saf. Sci. 71, 142–150. http://dx.doi.org/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. Leadersh. Organiz. Dev. J. 34 (4), 308–325. http://dx.doi.org/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. Leadersh. Q. 27 (1), 142–155. http://dx.doi.org/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. Ind. Commer. Train. 47 (4), 195–200. http://dx. doi.org/10.1108/ICT-12-2014-0080. Reason, J.T., 1997. Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents. Ashgate, Aldershot, UK. Rodriguez, M.A., Griffin, M.A., 2009. From error prevention to error learning: the role of error management in global leadership. In: In: Mobley, W.H., Wang, Y., Li, M. (Eds.), Advances in Global Leadership, vol. 5. Emerald Publishing, pp. 93–112. http://dx. doi.org/10.1108/S1535-1203(2009)0000005008. Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M.G., Macey, W.H., 2013. Organizational climate and culture. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 64, 361–388. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych113011-143809. Skinner, B.F., 1938. The Behavior of Organisms: An Experimental Analysis. AppletonCentury, New York. Von Thiele Schwarz, U., Hasson, H., Tafvelin, S., 2016. Leadership training as an occupational health intervention: improved safety and sustained productivity. Saf. Sci. 81, 35–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2015.07.020. Wiegand, D.M., 2007. Exploring the role of emotional intelligence in behavior-based safety coaching. J. Saf. Res. 38 (4), 391–398. http://dx.doi.org/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. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 90 (3), 281–305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/joop.12172. Willis, S., Clarke, S., O’Connor, E., 2017b. Who is the optimal safety leader? A personcentered perspective Atlanta, Georgia, USA (August, 2017). Paper Presented to the Academy of Management Annual Conference. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP. 2017.256. Zohar, D., 2002. Modifying supervisory practices to improve subunit safety: a leadershipbased intervention model. J. Appl. Psychol. 87 (1), 156–163. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1037/0021-9010.87.1.156. Zohar, D., 2010. Thirty years of safety climate research: reflections and future directions. Accid. Anal. Prev. 42 (5), 1517–1522. http://dx.doi.org/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. J. Saf. Res. 34, 567–577. http://dx.doi. org/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. J. Appl. Psychol. 93 (4), 744–757. http://dx.doi.org/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. J. Appl. Psychol. 99 (1), 113–124. http://dx.doi.org/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 Organ. Manage. 42 (3), 419–449. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 1059601115619079.
safety participation: the role of monitoring, inspiring, and learning. Saf. Sci. 60, 196–202. http://dx.doi.org/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. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 5 (3), 347–358. http://dx.doi.org/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. Scand. J. Work, Environ. Health 43 (4), 375–384. http://dx.doi.org/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 Res. Int. 1–12. http://dx.doi.org/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. Saf. Sci. 62, 68–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2013.07.004. Hofmann, D.A., Morgeson, F.P., 1999. Safety-related behavior as a social exchange: the role of perceived organizational support and leader–member exchange. J. Appl. Psychol. 84 (2), 286–296. http://dx.doi.org/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. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 15 (3), 279–290. http://dx.doi.org/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 metaanalytic test of their relative validity. J. Appl. Psychol. 89 (5), 755–768. http://dx. doi.org/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. J. Appl. Psychol. 100 (5), 1332. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038818. Kelloway, E.K., Barling, J., 2010. Leadership development as an intervention in occupational health psychology. Work Stress 24 (3), 260–279. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1080/02678373.2010.518441. Kelloway, E.K., Barling, J., Helleur, J., 2000. Enhancing transformational leadership: the roles of training and feedback. Leadersh. Organiz. Dev. J. 21 (3), 145–149. http://dx. doi.org/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. J. Saf. Res. 41 (5), 399–406. http://dx.doi.org/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. J. Saf. Res. 44, 87–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2012.08.022. Locke, E.A., Latham, G.P., 1984. Goal Setting: A Motivational Technique that Works. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Luria, G., 2008. Climate strength – how leaders form consensus. Leadersh. Q. 19 (1), 42–53. http://dx.doi.org/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. J. Saf. Res. 39 (3), 273–280. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2007.12.003. Martin, H.J., 2000. Improving training impact through effective follow‐up: techniques and their application. J. Manage. Dev. 29 (6), 520–534. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ 02621711011046495. Martínez-Córcoles, M., Konstantinos, S., 2017. Linking active transactional leadership and safety performance in military operations. Saf. Sci. 96, 93–101. http://dx.doi.org/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. Saf. Sci. 51 (1), 293–301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci. 2012.08.001. Mullen, J., 2005. Testing a model of employee willingness to raise safety issues. Can. J.
320