Divergent effects of transformational and passive leadership on employee safety
ABSTRACT The authors concurrently examined the impact of safety-specific transformational leadership and safety-specific passive leadership on safety outcomes. First, the authors demonstrated via confirmatory factor analysis that safety-specific transformational leadership and safety-specific passive leadership are empirically distinct constructs. Second, using hierarchical regression, the authors illustrated, contrary to a stated corollary of transformational leadership theory (B. M. Bass, 1997), that passive leadership contributes incrementally to the prediction of organizationally relevant outcomes, in this case safety-related variables, beyond transformational leadership alone. Third, further analyses via structural equation modeling showed that both transformational and passive leadership have opposite effects on safety climate and safety consciousness, and these variables, in turn, predict safety events and injuries. Implications for research and application are discussed.
- SourceAvailable from: Patrick L. Yorio
The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, 7th Annual Conference, People and Organizations., Philadelphia, PA; 10/2014
- "Managerial pressure has a direct impact on employee safety habits (Westaby and Lowe, 2005), and passive management approaches are associated with lower levels of safety compliance and higher injury rates (Mullen et al., 2011; Kelloway et al., 2006). Dimensions of LMX are also associated with greater rule following and compliance with procedures (see Clarke 2013 for a meta-analytic review). "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "Among them, the former three measure transformational leadership, and the latter three concern transactional leadership (Zohar, 2002). The former three factors are usually combined into " an overall measure of transformational leadership " (Kelloway et al., 2006, p. 78 & 79). By inspirational appeals, e.g. using emotional language to highlight new tasks and arouse enthusiasm, leaders develop employee commitment (Clarke and Ward, 2006). "
ABSTRACT: The nature of construction projects and their delivery exposes participants to accidents and dangers. Safety climate serves as a frame of reference for employees to make sense of safety measures in the workplace and adapt their behaviors. Though safety climate research abounds, fewer efforts are made to investigate the formation of a safety climate. An effort to explore forming psychological safety climate, an operationalization of safety climate at the individual level, is an appropriate starting point. Taking the view that projects are social processes, this paper develops a conceptual framework of forming the psychological safety climate, and provides a preliminary validation. The model suggests that management can create the desired psychological safety climate by efforts from structural, perceptual, interactive, and cultural perspectives. Future empirical research can be built on the model to provide a more comprehensive and coherent picture of the determinants of safety climate.International Journal of Project Management 05/2014; 33(1). DOI:10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.04.009 · 1.53 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "Thus, charismatic leadership emphasises the ability of leaders to challenge and inspire their followers in such a way that they become eager and willing to contribute to the goals set by the organisation and to identify themselves with its mission and vision. Kelloway et al. (2005, 2006) support the idea that a leadership style demonstrating charismatic features leads to more positive feelings concerning available opportunities as well as to an improved sense of competence among followers ( Jex and Bliese, 1999; Jex et al., 2001; Stetz et al., 2006). A recent study among Turkish hotel employees found that perceived charismatic leadership style was positively related to a higher quality of IJCHM 26,1 work life and in turn, through the mediation of lower burnout levels, to higher life satisfaction levels (Kara et al., 2013). "
ABSTRACT: Purpose ‐ The purpose of this paper is to discuss the impact of leadership styles on negative work-home interference among highly educated employees in the hospitality industry. Design/methodology/approach ‐ A survey was conducted among a sample of 126 highly educated hospitality employees working in various different companies. Hierarchical regression analyses were carried out to examine the effects of leadership styles, work-home arrangements and overtime on perceived negative work-home interference. Findings ‐ Autocratic leadership style, working overtime and a lack of work-home arrangements contributed significantly to negative work-home interference. Research limitations/implications ‐ The study was conducted with a limited sample in a relatively limited part of the sector. Further research is needed in other layers of hospitality organisations. Practical implications ‐ The findings provide insight into the impact of leadership on negative work-home interference. A variety of studies have identified negative work-home interference as an important precursor for employee turnover, and this study helps managers in developing beneficial management styles as well as HR policies to address negative work-home interference and its subsequent organisational effects. Originality/value ‐ What is new in this paper is the measurement of leadership style in relation to negative work-home interference in the hospitality industry. In addition, next to charismatic and transactional leadership styles, autocratic leadership style is taken into account.International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 02/2014; 26(1). DOI:10.1108/IJCHM-04-2012-0058 · 0.93 Impact Factor