The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0262-1711.htm
Leadership in the safety sense: Leadership inthe safety
where does perceived sense
organisational support fit?
Seth Ayisi Addo and Kwasi Dartey-Baah
Department of Organisation and Human Resource Management,
University of Ghana, Accra, Ghana Received 25 April 2019Revised 10 June 2019
10 September 2019
Accepted 4 October 2019
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine leaders’ influence on the safety behaviours of employees
and the possible mediating role of perceived organisational support (POS), focussing on transformational and
transactional leadership.
Design/methodology/approach – Data were gathered through a survey from 264 engineers and
technicians in the power transmission subsector in Ghana and analysed using structural equation modelling.
Findings – The analyses revealed that transformational leadership influenced safety behaviours positively
while transactional leadership had no significant influence on employees’ safety behaviours. POS also
mediated between the leadership styles and safety behaviours.
Practical implications – Supervisors need to exhibit more transformational leadership behaviours and
organisations need to show support for their employees’ wellbeing in order to aid supervisors’ influence on
employees’ safety behaviours, especially if the leaders are more transactional in nature.
Originality/value – The study addresses a dearth in literature and highlights the influences of leadership
styles on the safety behaviours of the employees, as well as the importance of the organisation to commit to
employees’ support and safety so as to enhance their good perceptions and consequently elicit better
performance from them.
Keywords Ghana, Mediation, Structural equation modelling, Perceived organizational support,
Employee safety behaviours, Transformational and transactional leadership
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Leadership is an irreplaceable component in the development and success of every
organisation. Indeed, in every organisation, leaders define the tone and culture
(Batista-Taran et al., 2009); thus, organisational performance is largely shaped by
leadership. Amagoh (2009) iterates that effective leadership is needed for organisations to be
competitive. However, research on leadership (Cullen-Lester et al., 2017; Day, 2001; DeRue
and Ashford, 2010; Eberly et al., 2013) has shown over the years that the concept of
leadership transcends individual leaders and involves subordinates or followers who
engage in processes of social relationships resulting in the formation of groups or dyads.
Indeed, more recent theories of leadership such as leader-member exchange (Dansereau
et al., 1975; Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995); transformational and transactional (Burns, 1978;
Bass, 1985); and authentic leadership (Luthans and Avolio, 2003; Avolio and Gardner, 2005)
lend credence to the importance of follower involvement and development in the leadership
process. However, leadership development, in ensuring successful goal attainment, must
necessarily consider the safety of followers. Martínez-Córcoles et al. (2012) maintain that
empirical literature on safety research highlight leadership as the strongest antecedent of
organisational safety performance. Furthermore, literature on safety leadership in
organisations have focussed greatly on transformational and transactional leadership
styles (Barling et al., 2002; Fernández-Muñiz et al., 2014; Griffin and Hu, 2013; Hoffmeister
et al., 2014; Lu and Yang, 2010); where these two leadership styles are regarded as the Journal of ManagementDevelopment
bedrock of the safety leadership construct (Wu et al., 2015). This study contributes to the © Emerald Publishing Limited
0262-1711
dearth in literature on safety leadership by examining influence of these leadership styles on DOI 10.1108/JMD-04-2019-0136
JMD safety behaviours, as well as examining another mechanism, perceived organisational
support (POS), through which leadership affects safety in organisations in the power
transmission subsector of Ghana. The study is needed in the Ghanaian context due to the
scanty literature on the subject matter. Also, the chosen sector presents some insightful and
new implications for the leadership-safety nexus, as well as the social exchange theory
(SET) and organisational support theory, due to its public nature and largely bureaucratic
systems of operations. The findings therefore inform actors in the energy sector in Ghana on
ways to ensure employee safety and reduce accidents, that is, through leaders’ appropriate
behaviours and adequate organisational support.
Problem statement
Indeed, even in the broader leadership literature, the safety of subordinates/followers has
not been adequately addressed. Donovan et al. (2016) maintain that the understanding of the
actual contribution of safety leadership to safety outcomes and behaviours is at best
considered elementary; further stating that in the current safety leadership literature, there
exists very minimal consensus on which leadership style has the most influence on safety,
with some of the findings revealing overlaps in safety leadership styles. This is
notwithstanding the millions of recorded deaths and accidents at work as a result of
inadequate safety and health management and the poor safety behaviours of employees in
organisations (Eurostat, 2015; ILO, 2013) as well as the billions of dollars that are lost to
workplace accidents and injuries annually in countries such as USA (Towers Watson, 2010).
It is therefore imperative to examine the influence of leadership styles on safety of followers.
Additionally, while majority of the safety leadership literature have examined the
influence of transformational and transactional leadership styles on safety behaviours, none
of the studies examined the mediating effect of POS on the relationships between the two
leadership styles and safety behaviours, considering the fact that POS has been found to
have a profound influence on employees’ safety behaviours (Mearns and Reader, 2008;
Michael et al., 2005; Puah et al., 2016).
Moreover, this study examines the relationships among these variables in the light of the
SET which has been greatly and directly associated with organisational support theory.
The SET which is considered as one of the oldest theories of social behaviour, has been
widely used in literature on social studies disciplines (Nunkoo, 2016). This theory is based on
social exchanges between humans, where one favourable treatment results in another
favourable treatment in return (Blau, 1964; Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005; Nunkoo, 2016).
In relation to this study, it can be explained that when leaders and the organisation exhibit
good, supportive behaviours towards employees and their safety, the employees respond in
like manner by exhibiting positive compliant and voluntary safety behaviours. However,
Cropanzano et al. (2017) critically reviewed this theory and concluded that although the SET
is widely employed, it lacks theoretical precision and therefore, reduces is utility in
predicting human behaviour in organisations. There is thus the need for more studies in
more contexts that reaffirm the relevance and implications of the SET in organisational
behaviours, thereby boosting its precision and utility.
The purpose of this study was therefore to investigate the relationships among
transformational leadership, transactional leadership and employee safety behaviours in the
Ghanaian power transmission subsector; and subsequently examine the effect of POS on
these relationships.
Theoretical underpinnings and hypotheses development
Transformational and transactional leadership styles
According to Nye (2014), research on leadership theory have focussed greatly on the
transformational leadership over the past few decades. Burns (1978) defined transformational
leadership as a style where “leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of Leadership in
morality and motivation” (p. 20). Bass (1985) builds on Burns’ theory and asserts that, the the safety
transformational leader acts on “deeply held personal value systems” (p. 150). Bass (1985) sense
further posits that the transformational leader motivates followers through creating
perceptions of the importance of specific organisational goals.
On the other hand, transactional leadership, according to Burns (1978), appeals to
followers’ parochial interests. Dartey-Baah and Ampofo (2016) iterate that transaction
means an exchange between parties. This leadership style relies on “exchanges” between a
leader and subordinates, where the leaders specifies and provides rewards in exchange for
subordinates’ performance (Bass et al., 2003; Trottier et al., 2008).
Safety behaviours
Martínez-Córcoles et al. (2011) indicate that safety behaviours have been chosen
as a way of measuring safety outcomes. Researchers on safety behaviours generally agree
on Griffin and Neal’s (2000) classification of safety behaviours as safety compliance
and safety participation. Safety compliance deals with adherence to safety rules,
procedures and policies that actually improve the safety condition of an organisation.
On the other hand, Neal et al. (2000) explained safety participation as moving
beyond procedures to assist colleagues, engaging in voluntary safety activities,
promoting safety and its principles, taking safety initiatives and making efforts to
improve work safety.
Perceived organisational support (POS)
POS refers to “employees’ perceptions of how much their organisations value their presence
and contributions to work, and their general well-being” (Eisenberger et al., 1986, p. 501).
Epitropaki and Martin (2013) explain that POS is a reflection of an employer’s commitment
to employees in the forms of respect, care, affiliation and tangible resources such as benefits
and wages; whereby employees return such commitment in the form of increased efforts
towards organisational goals. Baran et al. (2012) state that POS regards the support given
by the organisation, as generally perceived by the employees while Rhoades and
Eisenberger (2002) see it as the degree of belief held by employees concerning the value
placed on their safety and wellbeing by their organisation.
Leadership styles and safety behaviours
Clarke (2013) indicates that the literature on safety leadership is skewed more towards a focus
on transformational leadership than on transactional leadership. The study conducted
by Lu and Yang (2010) found that aspects of transformational leadership, motivation and
concern, related positively to safety behaviours. Similarly, Kapp’s (2012) study revealed that
transformational leadership was associated with higher levels of safety behaviours. That of
Hoffmeister et al. (2014) also indicated that dimensions of transformational leadership such as
idealised influence and inspirational motivation predicted safety behaviours positively. Also,
the study by Dartey-Baah and Addo (2018) indicated that idealised influence positively
predicted safety behaviours. Furthermore, the study by Mullen et al. (2017) sought to assess
safety-specific transformational leadership as moderator on the relationship between perceived
employer safety obligations and employee safety performance. Drawing on SET, the study
showed in both a cross-sectional and longitudinal methods that safety-specific transformational
leadership positively influenced safety behaviours (compliance and participation). Additionally,
Molnar et al. (2019) conducted a study through a survey using 269 employees in a paper mill
company, and found that transformational leadership significantly and positively predicted
safety behaviours. Similarly, Lingard et al. (2019) found, in their study on leadership styles and
JMD safety behaviours in the Australian construction industry, that transformational leadership
influenced employee safety behaviours positively. Findings from other studies such as those of
Fernández-Muñiz et al. (2014) and Smith et al. (2016) similarly indicated that transformational
leadership predicted safety behaviours positively.
Based on these, the current study hypothesised that:
H1a. Transformational leadership style will significantly predict safety behaviours.
With regard to transactional leadership, findings are somewhat inconclusive. Some
studies such as those of Fernández-Muñiz et al. (2014) and Smith et al. (2016) found that
transactional leadership did not correlate significantly with the two safety behaviours.
Jiang and Probst (2016) similarly found no significant correlation between passive
leadership and safety participation. Nonetheless, other studies such as that of Clarke
(2013) found that transactional leadership had a significant relationship with safety
compliance; that of Lu and Yang (2010) which revealed that safety policy, an aspect of
transactional leadership, correlated positively with safety participation; and those of
Hoffmeister et al. (2014) and Kapp (2012) which revealed that contingent management, a
major dimension under transactional leadership, had significant relationships with
employee safety behaviours. Similarly, Lingard et al. (2019) found, in their study on
leadership styles and safety behaviours in the Australian construction industry, that
transactional leadership influenced employee safety behaviours positively. Dartey-Baah
and Addo found in their study that another dimension under transactional leadership,
active management-by-exception, had a positive influence on safety participation but did
not significantly predict safety compliance. However, Molnar et al. (2019) in their survey of
269 employees in a paper mill company found that active management-by-exception
influenced safety outcomes significantly but negatively.
Based on these, the current study hypothesised that:
H1b. Transactional leadership style will significantly predict safety behaviours.
Leadership styles and POS
Leaders are considered as representatives or agents of the organisation, acting on behalf of
the organisation (Armstrong, 2010; Wayne et al., 1997); having a duty to direct and evaluate
employees’ performance and giving support to employees (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Rhoades
and Eisenberger, 2002). Epitropaki and Martin (2013) in their study found that both
transformational leadership and transactional leadership were positively and significantly
correlated to POS. Additionally, Tremblay and Gibson (2016) assessed the role of humor use
by the supervisors in the relationship between transactional leader behaviours, perceived
supervisor and organisational support, and citizenship behaviours. The study found that
transactional behaviours positively predicted perceived supervisor and organisational
support among employees. More recently, Engelbrecht and Olorunjuwon (2019) conducted a
study to assess the influence of transformational leadership on turnover intention through
POS and organisational trust in public and private sectors in the Western Cape, Eastern
Cape and Gauteng provinces of South Africa. The results of the study showed that
transformational leadership influenced POS positively.
Although very little research has been done on the relationships between the two
leadership styles and POS, conclusions can be drawn from literature that positive
relationships exists between them.
Based on this, the current study hypothesised that:
H2a. Transformational leadership will significantly and positively predict POS.
H2b. Transactional leadership will significantly and positively predict POS.
POS and safety behaviours Leadership in
Organisations begin an exchange relationship with employees when they show genuine the safety
support and concern for their wellbeing, and value their contributions. Consequently, sense
employees, by the SET and the norm of reciprocity, are most likely return such gestures by
exhibiting positive work-related behaviours and attitudes, even going beyond what is
required of them to demonstrate extra-role behaviours. Therefore, when management shows
concerns for the employees’ safety and health, employees tend to believe that the
organisation is positively inclined towards their safety and health climate (Turner et al.,
2008); and the employees, in reciprocity, tend to improve and promote safety and health
behaviours (Puah et al., 2016; Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002). Empirical researches point to
the fact that POS has a significant influence on the safety behaviours of workers. The study
by Puah et al. (2016) in Malaysia revealed that support from the organisation, supervisor
and co-workers significantly predicted the safety compliance of employees. Similarly,
Gyekye and Salminen (2007) also found a positive association between POS and workers’
compliance with safety policies in their study in Ghana. Furthermore, Mearns and Reader
(2008) also found in UK that higher levels of perceived organisational and supervisory
health support were associated with higher levels of safety citizenship behaviours. In the
study by Mullen et al. (2017), employees were seen to perceive support from their
organisations through the performance of safety obligations by these organisations, and
this in turn influenced their safety behaviours and performance positively. Moreover,
Lee et al. (2019) showed in their study that organisations that facilitate knowledge sharing
and positive safety climate promote perceptions of support among the employees which can
enhance employees’ safety behaviours and attitudes. Lastly, Quartey (2017) examined
employee safety behaviours in the Ghanaian beverage industry and found that positive
organisational culture created a perception of support from organisations which positively
influenced employees’ safety behaviours.
Based on these studies, the current study hypothesised that:
H3. POS will significantly predict safety behaviours.
POS as a mediator between leadership styles and safety behaviours
Research on the mediating role of POS in the leadership-safety relationship is almost
non-existent. However, as indicated earlier, POS has been found to have a significant
positive influence on employees’ safety behaviours (Lee et al., 2019; Mearns and Reader,
2008; Michael et al., 2005; Mullen et al., 2017; Puah et al., 2016; Quartey, 2017). Rhoades and
Eisenberger (2002) have indicated that employees tend to associate support from their
leaders or supervisors with support from their organisations. This assertion has been
supported empirically as leadership styles such as transformational and transactional have
correlated positively with POS (Engelbrecht and Olorunjuwon, 2019; Epitropaki and Martin,
2013; Tremblay and Gibson, 2016). The study argues that due to the influence that POS has
been found to have on safety behaviours and the influence of leadership styles on POS,
when employees receive encouragement, motivation, inspiration, genuine concern for
individual wellbeing (transformational) as well as rewards (transactional) from their leaders,
these employees will perceive support from their organisations, and this POS will in turn
drive their behaviours and attitudes towards promoting safety and health at the workplace,
thus enhancing employees’ safety compliance and safety participation. Based on this, the
study hypothesised that:
H4a. POS will mediate the relationships between transformational leadership style and
safety behaviours.
H4b. POS will mediate the relationships between transactional leadership style and
safety behaviours.
JMD Method
Approach and procedure
The study was a cross-sectional one that sought to understand the relationships that exist
between leadership styles, safety behaviours and POS among engineers and technicians
from different organisations in the power transmission sector in Ghana; chosen because of
the nature of tasks they undertake as they are exposed and prone to health and safety
hazards. The study employed the quantitative approach to gather and analyse data. Data
were thus obtained from 264 respondents through a survey and the use of questionnaires,
out of a total of 300 questionnaires that were sent out, yielding a response rate of 88 per cent.
The respondents assessed the behaviours of their leaders (immediate supervisors), their own
safety behaviours as well as their perceptions of support from their organisations.
These respondents were conveniently sampled as a result of their busy schedule.
The questionnaires were administered and retrieved by the researchers taking all research
ethics into due consideration.
Measures
A structured questionnaire was used in collecting data in this study. Leadership styles of
supervisors were measured using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)
Short Form-5X. The MLQ (5X) is a 31 item scale developed by Avolio et al. (1999)
based on the original scale by Bass and Avolio (1990). The first 19 items measure
transformational leadership behaviours (α¼ 0.92) while the last 12 items measure
transactional leadership behaviours (α¼ 0.70) with their respective dimensions. Each
behaviour was rated on a five-point scale ranging from “Not at all” (1) to “Frequently, if
not always” (5). A sample of the items is: “[My supervisor] goes beyond self-interest for the
good of the group”. Safety behaviours were measured using the eight-item Safety
Behaviour Scale by Neal et al. (2000). The scale consists of two subscales;
safety compliance, four items (0.94) and safety participation, four items (0.89). The
items on both subscales were rated on a four-point Likert scale ranging from Never (1) to
Very Often (4). An example of items on the scale includes; “I attend safety meetings and
briefings”. POS was measured using the eight-item scale by Eisenberger et al. (1986),
which is a shorter version of the original 36 items developed by the researchers to measure
employees’ POS (α¼ 0.83). A sample of the items is: “My organisation cares about my
opinions”. Responses were obtained on a seven-point scale ranging from (1) “Strongly
Disagree” to (7) “Strongly Agree”.
Data analysis
Data obtained from the questionnaires were coded and analysed with the aid of the Statistical
Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20 and AMOS version 22.0. Covariance-based
structural equation modelling was employed in examining the relationships among the
variables and testing of the hypotheses. Babin et al. (2008) indicate that SEM has become
popular as a result of its ability to measure latent variables and test relationships between
several latent variables simultaneously. It is this ability that makes SEM a better tool for
analysis than tools such as regression (Bollen, 1989). This tool was thus used to test both the
directional and mediational hypotheses. However, the four-step procedure by Baron and
Kenny (1986) was followed in conducting the mediation; which was subsequently validated
and confirmed using the percentile confidence interval bootstrapping method as
recommended by some researchers (MacKinnon et al., 2007) that criticise the four-step
procedure for missing some true indirect effects. The structural model calculated the estimates
for the indirect effects and bootstrapping was employed in testing the significance of the
indirect effect estimates.
Results Leadership in
Preliminary analysis the safety
Simple frequencies were used in checking if any missing values were in the data set. The sense
analysis showed missing values under some of the observed variables. Little’s MCAR test
was done in SPSS and the result was insignificant for each latent construct indicating that
the missing values were missing not at random (Little and Rubin, 1987); hence needed to be
dealt with (Hair et al., 2006). The Expectation Maximisation method (Gold and Bentler, 2000)
was thus used to estimate the missing values for each of the latent constructs in the study;
transformational leadership, transactional leadership, safety compliance, safety
participation and POS; eventually showing no missing values in the data set.
Normality of the data obtained for this study was determined by using the absolute
values of the skewness and kurtosis of each latent construct. Data are normally distributed
if the absolute values of the skewness and kurtosis of the variables are between −2 and +2
(Tabachnick and Fidell, 1996). This analysis was performed in SPSS and the results are
presented in Table I showing that all the latent constructs had absolute skewness and
kurtosis values between −2 and +2 indicating a normal distribution in the data set.
Confirmatory factor analysis
In order to test the factor structure of the variables as well as the dimensions of the leadership
styles confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed. Thus, the initial CFA
(measurement) model was developed to be tested. To obtain good model fit indices, the
model was modified and the observed variables (items) that had low loading coefficients
(below 0.6) on their latent constructs were deleted. However, at least two observed variables
were maintained for each latent construct, based on the recommendation by Kenny (2016). All
factor loadings had high coefficients (above 0.6).
Model fit indices for the CFA model
The fit indices used in this study were; the ratio of the χ2 to the Degree of freedom (CMIN/
DF; χ2/df ), the goodness of fit (GFI), the comparative fit index (CFI), the root mean square
error of approximation (RMSEA) and the standardised root mean square residual (SRMR).
The figures for these fit indices were measured against the benchmarks according to Hu and
Bentler (1999) and Hair et al. (1998). The final CFA (measurement) model, comprising five
factors, had good model fit indices ( χ2/df¼ 2.775, GFI¼ 0.907, CFI¼ 0.916, RMSEA¼
0.082, SRMR¼ 0.064).
These fit measures indicate that the model fits the data obtained. This final model was
compared with four other models; a four-factor model (transformational and transactional
leadership were combined into one factor); a three-factor model (transformational,
transactional and safety compliance were combined into one factor); a two-factor model
(transformational, transactional, safety compliance and safety participation were combined
into one factor); and a one-factor model (all variables were combined into a single factor).
The fit indices of these subsequent models were; for the four-factor model ( χ2/df¼ 2.891,
Variable Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis
Transformational 71.16 10.68 0.030 −0.558
Transactional 33.25 4.94 −0.102 −0.538
Safety comp 16.72 2.50 −0.305 −0.758
Safety part 13.35 1.86 −0.402 −1.068
POS 33.44 3.36 0.721 0.326 Table I.
Notes: Safety Comp, Safety compliance; Safety Part, safety participation; POS, perceived organisational support Test for normality
JMD GFI¼ 0.903, CFI¼ 0.907, RMSEA¼ 0.085, SRMR¼ 0.067); for the three-factor model ( χ2/
df¼ 6.386, GFI¼ 0.777, CFI¼ 0.722, RMSEA¼ 0.143, SRMR¼ 0.122); for the two-factor
model ( χ2/df¼ 6.590, GFI¼ 0.736, CFI¼ 0.705, RMSEA¼ 0.146, SRMR¼ 0.155); and for
the one-factor model ( χ2/df¼ 6.820, GFI¼ 0.724, CFI¼ 0.690, RMSEA¼ 0.149, SRMR¼
0.151), indicating that the first model with five factors had the best fit indices.
Validity and reliability
Validity in this study was ascertained using convergent and discriminant validity. The
average variance extracted (AVE) was used to check convergent validity. As generally
recommended, the AVE must be at least 0.50 indicating that at least half of the variance in
the items is explained by their construct. Malhotra and Dash (2011) maintained however
that the AVE is too strict and thus may be difficult to obtain 0.50 for some constructs.
With regard to discriminant validity, the Fornell-Larcker procedure was employed; where
discriminant validity is supported when the square roots of the AVEs of the constructs are
greater than the squared correlation coefficients between the constructs (Fornell and
Larcker, 1981). Reliability was tested using the composite reliability values. As generally
recommended, a composite reliability of at least 0.70 is enough to establish reliability.
The results of the validity and reliability analyses are presented in Table II.
It is seen that all the variables had CR of at least 0.70 thus ascertaining their reliabilities.
Apart from transactional leadership and POS, all other variables had AVE values above
0.50. Notwithstanding the strictness of the AVE (Malhotra and Dash, 2011), it is seen that
the AVEs for all the variables were all greater than the squared correlation coefficients
between the constructs thus ascertaining discriminant validity for all the constructs,
according to Fornell and Larcker (1981).
Correlation analysis
Correlation analysis was done in SPSS among the latent constructs computed using the
retained items after the CFA, as well as the demographic variables. Table III presents the
zero-order correlation coefficients among all the variables in the study. It was observed that
positive significant correlations exist between all the latent constructs under study, all at 1
per cent level of significance. With regard to the two leadership styles, a positive
relationship is also seen and the correlation coefficient (r) of 0.46 indicates low
multicollinearity between the two independent variables in this study.
The structural models
Structural models were subsequently developed using the computed latent variables with
their retained items in the final CFA (measurement) model. Precisely, two models were
developed to test the hypothesised relationships between the latent constructs in this study;
the first model consisted of the direct hypothesised relationships and the second model
Variable CR AVE 1 2 3 4 5
1. Transformational 0.81 0.59 0.76
2. Transactional 0.70 0.45 −0.57 0.67
3. Safety comp 0.84 0.73 0.31 −0.23 0.85
4. Safety part 0.79 0.66 0.39 −0.26 0.80 0.81
Table II. 5. POS 0.72 0.49 0.53 −0.65 0.55 0.66 0.70
Assessment of Notes: Safety Comp, Safety compliance; Safety Part, safety participation; POS, perceived organisational
reliability and validity support; CR, composite reliability; AVE, average variance extracted. Fornell-Lacker procedure for dis-
of retained items criminant validity (square roots of AVE in italic)
Leadership in
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 the safety
1. TR 1 sense
2. TS 0.46** 1
3. SC 0.29** 0.19** 1
4. SP 0.31** 0.18** 0.71** 1
5. POS 0.39** 0.38** 0.42** 0.46** 1
6. Gender −0.06 −0.15** −0.16** −0.17** −0.10 1
7. Age −0.03 −0.02 0.16** 0.04 0.12* −0.28** 1
8. Education 0.02 0.17** −0.12* −0.05 0.12* −0.02 −0.22** 1
9. Years −0.07 −0.05 0.11* 0.04 0.04 −0.19** 0.85** −0.22** 1 Table III.
Notes: TR, Transformational; TS, transactional; SC, safety compliance; SP, safety participation; POS, Summary of bivariate
perceived organisational support. *,**Significant at 5 and 1 per cent, respectively correlation analysis
consisted of the direct as well as mediational hypothesised relationships. Transformational
and transactional leadership were the predictors, safety compliance and safety participation
were the outcomes variables, and POS was the mediating variable. These are represented in
the models as TF, TS, SC, SP and POS, respectively. Age of respondents as well as the
number of years that respondents have worked were used as control variables in order to
obtain good fit measures, and also because of their perceived effects on the safety
behaviours of the respondents. The models are presented as Figures 1 and 2.
Model fit indices of the structural models
The structural models were also checked for model fit using the same fit indices used for
validating the CFA model. The figures for these fit indices for both the direct relationships
model and the mediational relationships model were measured against the benchmarks by
e2
TF
0.28
0.11
0.20
SC 0.69 Age
0.33
0.66 –0.03
0.01 e1 –0.03 0.85
0.10
0.10 Figure 1.
–0.02 SP Final structural model
TS Years Worked (directional)
e2
TF
0.20
0.20
0.10
0.24 e3 0.35 SC 0.65 Age
0.18 0.22
0.66 POS –0.06 –0.15e1 0.02 0.85
0.42
0.22
0.25
0.17 Figure 2.
–0.12 SP Final structural model
TS Years Worked with mediation
JMD Hu and Bentler (1999) and Hair et al. (1998). The figures for all the fit indices were excellent
for both models ( χ2/df¼ 1.548, 1.818; GFI¼ 0.997, 0.988; CFI¼ 1.000, 0.994; RMSEA¼
0.000; 0.056, SRMR¼ 0.029, 0.039).
Hypotheses testing
The evaluation of the structural models produced estimates for each hypothesised path.
The summary of findings is presented in Table IV:
H1a. Transformational leadership style will significantly predict safety behaviours.
The analysis revealed that transformational leadership significantly and positively
predicted safety compliance (β¼ 0.282, t¼ 3.630, p¼ 0.00) and safety participation
(β¼ 0.325, t¼ 4.158, p¼ 0.00). Thus, H1a was accepted:
H1b. Transactional leadership style will significantly predict safety behaviours.
It was shown in the analysis that transactional leadership had no statistically significant
influence on safety compliance (β¼ 0.013, t¼ 0.165, p W 0.05) and safety participation
(β¼−0.023, t¼ −0.298, p W 0.05). Thus, H1b was rejected:
H2a. Transformational leadership will significantly influence POS.
The analysis revealed that transformational leadership significantly and positively
predicted POS (β¼ 0.241, t¼ 3.226, p¼ 0.00). H2a was therefore accepted:
H2b. Transactional leadership will significantly influence POS.
The analysis of this hypothesis indicated that transactional leadership predicted POS
positively and significantly (β¼ 0.219, t¼ 2.931, p¼ 0.00). H2b was similarly accepted:
H3. POS will influence safety behaviours significantly.
Model 1 (Direct) Estimate CR SE
TF→SC 0.282** 3.630 0.014
TF→SP 0.325** 4.158 0.017
TS→SC 0.013 0.165 0.034
TS→SP −0.023 −0.298 0.043
Age→SC 0.202 1.829 0.109
Age→SP −0.030 −0.270 0.138
Years→SC 0.034 −0.311 0.146
Years→SP 0.096 0.864 0.114
Model 2 (Mediational) Estimate CR SE
TF→SC 0.199** 2.656 0.013
TF→SP 0.223** 3.061 0.016
TS→SC −0.064 −0.858 0.032
TS→SP −0.116 −1.601 0.040
TF→POS 0.241** 3.226 0.022
TS→POS 0.219** 2.931 0.054
POS→SC 0.423** 5.784 0.036
POS→SP 0.351** 7.186 0.045
Age→SC 0.105 0.999 0.102
Age→SP −0.148 −1.462 0.127
Years→SC 0.024 0.230 0.108
Years→SP 0.166 1.637 0.134
Notes: TR, Transformational; TS, transactional; SC, safety compliance; SP, safety participation; POS,
Table IV. perceived organisational support; Years, number of years worked; CR, critical ratio. *,**Significant at 5 and
Summary of results 1 per cent, respectively
The testing of this hypothesis revealed that POS significantly and positively influenced Leadership in
safety compliance (β¼ 0.423, t¼ 5.784, p¼ 0.00) and safety participation (β¼ 0.351,
¼ the safetyt 7.186, p¼ 0.00). Thus, H3 was accepted: sense
H4a. POS will mediate the relationship between transformational leadership style and
safety behaviours.
After the mediating variable was included in the model, it was revealed that
transformational leadership still significantly and positively predicted safety compliance
(β¼ 0.199, t¼ 2.656, p¼ 0.00) and safety participation (β¼ 0.223, t¼ 3.061, p¼ 0.00). This
indicated that POS partially mediated the relationships between transformational
leadership and the safety behaviours. It is seen in Table V that the indirect effect
estimate from transformational leadership through POS to safety compliance was
significant (0.016, p o 0.01). Similarly, the indirect effect estimate from transformational
leadership through POS to safety participation was also significant (0.025, p o 0.01). This
strengthens and validates the partial mediation result obtained from the Baron and Kenny
(1986) procedure. Thus, H4a is accepted:
H4b. POS will mediate the relationship between transactional leadership style and
safety behaviours.
Since transactional leadership did not significantly predict the safety behaviours, it failed to
satisfy the first condition by Baron and Kenny (1986) for mediation test. Nonetheless, the
study went further to analyse and calculate the indirect effects estimates and test them for
significance using the bootstrapping method. Therefore, although the Baron and Kenny
(1986) approach indicated no possible mediation, the results in Table VI shows that the
indirect effect estimate from transactional leadership through POS to safety compliance was
significant (0.032, p o 0.01). Similarly, the indirect effect estimate from transactional
leadership through POS to safety participation was also significant (0.049, p o 0.01). This
indicates that there exist some indirect effects between transactional leadership and safety
behaviours through POS, contrary to the result from the Baron and Kenny (1986) approach.
On this basis, H4b was accepted.
Discussion
The first finding of the study showed that transformational leadership had a positive
influence on safety behaviours of the engineers and technicians. This finding is in line with
Relationship Estimate LP UP Sig. Table V.
Percentile
TF→POS→SC 0.016 0.005 0.030 0.001 bootstrapping CI
TF→POS→SP 0.025 0.009 0.044 0.001 method (indirect
Notes: TR, Transformational; SC, safety compliance; SP, safety participation; POS, perceived organisational effects) for
support; LP, lower percentile; UP, upper percentile transformational
Relationship Estimate LP UP Sig. Table VI.
Percentile
TS→POS→SC 0.032 0.011 0.054 0.003 bootstrapping CI
TS→POS→SP 0.049 0.017 0.081 0.003 method (indirect
Notes: TS, Transactional; SC, safety compliance; SP, safety participation; POS, perceived organisational effects) for
support; LP, lower percentile; UP, upper percentile transactional
JMD several other empirical studies (Dartey-Baah and Addo, 2018; Fernández-Muñiz et al., 2014;
Hoffmeister et al., 2014; Kapp, 2012; Lu and Yang, 2010; Mullen et al., 2017; Smith et al., 2016)
that found that transformational leadership style and its aspects and dimensions predicted
and related positively to safety behaviours. However, these findings go partially contrary to
those of Clarke (2013) and Jiang and Probst (2016) who only found a positive influence of
transformational leadership on safety participation but not on safety compliance.
Hoffmeister et al. (2014) iterates that transformational leadership, due to its particular
dimensions has the tendency to influence safety behaviours positively, especially safety
participation, because it inspires and motivates subordinates go beyond task requirements
and exhibit citizenship behaviours. This finding reaffirms the SET, in that, when leaders
exhibit transformational leadership behaviours, they initiate an exchange relationship
based on favourable treatment as a result of dimensions such as individualised
consideration and inspirational motivation. The employees, in turn, are compelled by the
principle of reciprocity to respond in favourable manner by exhibiting positive safety
behaviours in the organisations.
The second finding indicated that transactional leadership did not have any significant
influence on safety behaviours. This finding is consistent with that of Fernández-Muñiz
et al. (2014) and Smith et al. (2016) who found that transactional leadership and its passive
dimension did not correlate significantly with the two safety behaviours. Additionally, the
current finding is in partial agreement with that of Jiang and Probst (2016) who found no
significant correlation between passive leadership and safety participation. However, this
finding goes contrary to those of Clarke (2013), Hoffmeister et al. (2014), Kapp (2012), Lu
and Yang (2010) who found that transactional leadership and its dimension of contingent
reward had a significant relationship and influence on safety behaviours; and
partially contrary to that of Dartey-Baah and Addo (2018) which indicated that active
management-by-exception predicted safety participation but not safety compliance. This
finding is however not too surprising with regard to the context of the study. The power
transmission subsector is largely state-owned and highly bureaucratic; thus, the
supervisors are not so much empowered to specify rewards for performance. Thus, that
“exchange” relationship of rewards for performance which is the crux of transactional
leadership (Burns, 1978; Bass, 1985) is largely absent. This perhaps contributed
greatly to this finding. Also, it could be inferred from the SET that perhaps the
management-by-exception dimensions under transactional leadership do not create
adequate favourable treatments towards employees that warrant a reciprocal response of
positive safety behaviours from these employees.
The third and fourth findings of this study indicated that transformational leadership
and transactional leadership, respectively, had positive significant influences on POS. This
current finding is in line with that of Epitropaki and Martin (2013) who found that both
transformational leadership and transactional leadership positively and significantly
correlated with POS. This confirms the assertion made by Armstrong (2010) and Wayne
et al. (1997) that leaders are considered as representatives or agents of the organisation who
act on behalf of the organisation.
Furthermore, the study found that POS had positive influences on the safety behaviours.
This means that when employees perceive that the organisation has their wellbeing at heart
and shows concern for their safety by providing needed assistance, they tend to exhibit
good safety behaviours at work by complying with safety rules and undertaking voluntary
safety behaviours and initiatives. This current finding is in agreement with other studies
(Gyekye and Salminen, 2007; Mearns and Reader, 2008; Puah et al., 2016) who found that
support from the organisation significantly related with and predicted the safety behaviours
of employees positively. Inference can also be drawn from the SET, as POS has been linked
to the SET and the principle of reciprocity, in that, when organisations show support and
concern, employees in turn exhibit good behaviours and better performance such as safety Leadership in
compliance and safety participation. the safety
The last two findings of the study indicated that POS partially mediated the sense
relationships between transformational leadership and safety behaviours, as well as the
relationships between transactional leadership and safety behaviours. This meant that
when employees receive supports from their supervisors in terms of coaching,
mentoring, inspiration and active monitoring, they cause them to exhibit good safety
behaviours directly; these supports from the supervisors also cause them to develop
greater positive perceptions about the organisation’s concern and support for their safety
and wellbeing, and in turn causes them to exhibit good safety behaviours at work.
Taking the previous findings into consideration, this current finding is not surprising.
POS has been found to have a significant positive influence on employees’ safety
behaviours (Mearns and Reader, 2008; Michael et al., 2005; Puah et al., 2016) and
transformational and transactional leadership have been found to correlate positively
with POS (Epitropaki and Martin, 2013). By inference, transformational and
transactional leadership can cause employees to exhibit good behaviours by influencing
good and positive perceptions that they have about the organisation; hence the current
finding of the study. These last findings similarly give credence to SET. It could
be said that when leaders exhibit supportive behaviours in the light of transformational
and to some extent, transactional leadership, they create a positive image of support from
the organisation in the eyes of the employees thus initiating an exchange relationship;
and the employees reciprocate this by exhibiting good safety behaviours which contribute
to the organisation.
Practical implications
The study presents real implications for organisations that seek to embark on leadership
and follower development. Seeing the importance attached to followers in the organisation,
and the seemingly inadequate and inconclusive literature on employee safety as an
antecedent of leadership in organisations, this study brings to light interesting findings to
enhance the influence of leadership on employee safety in organisations. These findings
indicate that transformational leadership is more likely to elicit safety behaviours from
workers compared to transactional leadership. The practical implications for leaders in
organisation is that in relating with their subordinates, supervisors may want to exhibit
more charisma and idealised behaviours and attitudes, motivation, inspiration and
consideration for employees’ individual needs if they wish to elicit safety behaviours from
their workers, especially behaviours that are voluntary. The results also imply that
organisations need to show support for their employees’ wellbeing in order to aid
supervisors’ influence on employees’ safety behaviours, especially if the leaders are more
transactional in nature such that they closely monitor their subordinates in order to correct
errors and mistakes in the conduct of their work.
Furthermore, the study and its findings serve as an educational material for
organisations, reaffirming the relevance of organisations to consider their subordinates and
their safety and health when developing their leaders. In other words, the study provokes
the thoughts of managements of organisations in the Ghanaian power sector as well as other
sectors in the country on the importance of leadership development; and more essentially, on
the importance to necessarily consider the safety of their employees, in their quests to
develop the employees in their organisations.
Socially, this study creates the awareness of the inextricable nature of leadership and
followership in any social setting including organisations; and thus the imperative nature of
ensuring followers’ safety through the development of the leadership practice and
framework in every social setting.
JMD Theoretical implications
The study presents compelling arguments for the consideration of employee safety at
work in the entire leadership and follower development process of every organisation.
Furthermore, it elaborates on two well-known styles of leadership, highlighting their
influence on the safety behaviours of the employees. Notably, the study contributes to the
inconclusive literature on leadership-safety relationship. Also, the role of the organisation
in ensuring good leadership that considers employees’ safety at work is indicated clearly in
this study. The study also lends credence to the SET, affirming its arguments in the
leadership, safety and organisational support nexus in the Ghanaian setting.
Conclusion
In a nutshell, leaders are needed to set the direction for every organisation, and the
development of the entire leadership process in an organisation is not a matter of choice but
a necessity for every organisation. Literature has shown that followers are essential for
every leadership process, and an integral part of the organisation. By extension, their health
and safety at work is non-negotiable and must be ensured by their organisations. This study
highlights the influences of leadership styles on the safety behaviours of the employees, as
well as the importance of the organisation to commit to employees’ support and safety so as
to enhance their good perceptions. The implications of this study are therefore real and
useful for practice and literature on the development of leadership and employees in
ensuring organisational success.
Limitations and suggestions for future studies
The sample size and the focus on one subsector poses some limitations to this study with
regard to generalisation. Future studies could replicate this study in other sectors as well as
in non-state controlled contexts. Also, future studies could employ qualitative techniques to
investigate the reasons for the found relationships in this study.
References
Amagoh, F. (2009), “Leadership development and leadership effectiveness”, Management Decision,
Vol. 47 No. 6, pp. 989-999.
Armstrong, M. (2010),AHandbook of Human ResourceManagement Practice, 4th ed., Kogan Page, London.
Avolio, B.J. and Gardner, W.L. (2005), “Authentic leadership development: getting to the root of positive
forms of leadership”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 315-338.
Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M. and Jung, D.I. (1999), “Re-examining the components of transformational and
transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership questionnaire”, Journal of Occupational
and Organisational Psychology, Vol. 72 No. 4, pp. 441-462.
Babin, B.J., Hair, J.F. and Boles, J.S. (2008), “Publishing research in marketing journals using structural
equations modeling”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 279-285.
Baran, B.E., Shanock, L.R. and Miller, L.R. (2012), “Advancing organisational support theory into the
twenty-first century world of work”, Journal of Business Psychology, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 123-147.
Barling, J., Loughlin, C.A. and Kelloway, E.K. (2002), “Development and test of a model linking safety-
specific transformational leadership and occupational safety”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 87 No. 3, pp. 74-85.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1182.
Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1990), Transformational Leadership Development: Manual for the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Consulting Psychologist Press, Palo Alto, CA.
Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J., Jung, D.I. and Berson, Y. (2003), “Predicting unit performance by assessing Leadership in
transformational and transactional leadership”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 2, the safety
pp. 207-218. sense
Batista-Taran, L.C., Shuck, M.B., Gutierrez, C.C. and Baralt, S. (2009), “The role of leadership style in
employee engagement”, in Plakhotnik, M.S., Nielsen, S.M. and Pane, D.M. (Eds), Proceedings of
the Eighth Annual College of Education and GSN Research Conference, Florida International
University, Miami, FL, pp. 15-20, available at: http://coeweb.fiu.edu/research_conference
(accessed 12 September 2016).
Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York, NY.
Bollen, K.A. (1989), Structural Equations with Latent Variables, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Burns, J.M. (1978), Leadership, Harper and Row, New York, NY.
Clarke, S. (2013), “Safety leadership: a meta-analytic review of transformational and transactional
leadership styles as antecedents of safety behaviours”, Journal of Occupational and
Organisational Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 86, pp. 22-49.
Cropanzano, R. and Mitchell, M.S. (2005), “Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review”, Journal
of Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 874-900.
Cropanzano, R., Anthony, E.L., Daniels, S.R. and Hall, A.V. (2017), “Social exchange theory: a critical
review with theoretical remedies”, Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 1-38.
Cullen-Lester, K.L., Maupin, C.K. and Carter, D.R. (2017), “Incorporating social networks into leadership
development: a conceptual model and evaluation of research and practice”, The Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 130-152.
Dansereau, F., Graen, G.B. and Haga, W.J. (1975), “A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership
within formal organisations: a longitudinal investigation of the role-making process”,
Organisational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 46-78.
Dartey-Baah, K. and Addo, S.A. (2018), “Charismatic and corrective leadership dimensions as antecedents
of employee safety behaviours: a structural model”, Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 186-201.
Dartey-Baah, K. and Ampofo, E. (2016), “Carrot and stick’ leadership style: Can it predict employees’
job satisfaction in a contemporary business organisation”, African Journal of Economic and
Management Studies, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 328-345.
Day, D.V. (2001), “Leadership development: a review in context”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 11 No. 4,
pp. 581-613.
DeRue, D.S. and Ashford, S.J. (2010), “Who will lead and who will follow? A social process of leadership
identity construction in organisations”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 35 No. 4,
pp. 627-647.
Donovan, S., Salmon, P.M. and Lenné, M.G. (2016), “Leading with style: a literature review of the
influence of safety leadership on performance and outcomes”, Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics
Science, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 423-442.
Eberly, M.B., Johnson, M.D., Hernandez, M. and Avolio, B.J. (2013), “An integrative process model of
leadership: examining loci, mechanisms, and event cycles”, American Psychologist, Vol. 68 No. 6,
pp. 427-443.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S. and Sowa, D. (1986), “Perceived organisational support”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 500-507.
Engelbrecht, A. and Olorunjuwon, M.S. (2019), “The effect of transformational leadership on intention
to quit through perceived organisational support, organisational justice and trust”, South
African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 1-8.
Epitropaki, O. and Martin, R. (2013), “Transformational–transactional leadership and upward
influence: the role of Relative Leader–Member Exchanges (RLMX) and Perceived Organisational
Support (POS)”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 299-315.
JMD Eurostat (2015), “Accidents at work statistics: Eurostat Statistics Explained”, available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Accidents_at_work_statistics
(accessed 30 January 2017).
Fernández-Muñiz, B., Montes-Peón, J.M. and Vázquez-Ordás, J.C. (2014), “Safety leadership, risk
management and safety performance in Spanish firms”, Safety Science, Vol. 70, pp. 295-307.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39.
Gold, M.S. and Bentler, P.M. (2000), “Treatments of missing data: a Monte Carlo comparison of RBHDI,
iterative stochastic regression imputation, and expectation-maximization”, Structural Equation
Modeling, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 319-355.
Graen, G.B. and Uhl-Bien, M. (1995), “Relationship-based approach to leadership: development of
leader–member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: applying a multi-level
multi-domain perspective”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 219-247.
Griffin, M.A. and Hu, X. (2013), “How leaders differentially motivate safety compliance and
safety participation: the role of monitoring, inspiring, and learning”, Safety Science, Vol. 60,
pp. 196-202.
Griffin, M.A. and Neal, A. (2000), “Perceptions of safety at work: a framework for linking safety climate
to safety performance, knowledge, and motivation”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 347-358.
Gyekye, S.A. and Salminen, S. (2007), “Workplace safety perceptions and perceived organisational
support: do supportive perceptions influence safety perceptions?”, International Journal of
Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 189-200.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis with
Readings, 5th ed., Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis,
Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hoffmeister, K., Gibbons, A.M., Johnson, S.K., Cigularov, K.P., Chen, P.Y. and Rosecrance, J.C. (2014),
“The differential effects of transformational leadership facets on employee safety”, Safety
Science, Vol. 62, pp. 68-78.
Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55.
ILO (2013), Safety and Health at Work, International Labour Organisation Convention, Geneva.
Jiang, L. and Probst, T.M. (2016), “Transformational and passive leadership as cross-level moderators
of the relationships between safety knowledge, safety motivation, and safety participation”,
Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 57, pp. 27-32.
Kapp, E.A. (2012), “The influence of supervisor leadership practices and perceived group safety climate
on employee safety performance”, Safety Science, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 1119-1124.
Kenny, A.D. (2016), “Multiple latent variable models: confirmatory factor analysis”, available at: http://
davidakenny.net/cm/mfactor.htm (accessed 17 April 2017).
Lee, Y., Lu, T., Yang, C.C. and Chang, G. (2019), “A multilevel approach on empowering leadership and
safety behavior in the medical industry: the mediating effects of knowledge sharing and safety
climate”, Safety Science, Vol. 117, pp. 1-9.
Lingard, H., Zhang, P.R. and Oswald, D. (2019), “Effect of leadership and communication practices on
the safety climate and behaviour of construction workgroups”, Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 886-906.
Little, R.J.A. and Rubin, D.B. (1987), Statistical Analysis with Missing Data, John Wiley and Sons,
New York, NY.
Lu, C. and Yang, C. (2010), “Safety leadership and safety behaviour in container terminal operations”,
Safety Science, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 123-134.
Luthans, F. and Avolio, B.J. (2003), “Authentic leadership development”, in Cameron, K.S., Dutton, J.E. Leadership in
and Quinn, R.E. (Eds), Positive Organizational Scholarship, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA, the safety
pp. 241-258. sense
MacKinnon, D.P., Fairchild, A.J. and Fritz, M.S. (2007), “Mediation analysis”, Annual Review of
Psychology, Vol. 58, pp. 593-614.
Malhotra, N.K. and Dash, S. (2011), Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation, Pearson, London.
Martínez-Córcoles, M., Gracia, F., Tomás, I. and Peiró, J.M. (2011), “Leadership and employees’
perceived behaviours in a nuclear power plant: a structural equation model”, Safety Science,
Vol. 49 Nos 8-9, pp. 1118-1129.
Martínez-Córcoles, M., Gracia, F.J., Tomás, I., Peiró, J.M. and Schöbel, M. (2012), “Linking empowering
leadership to safety participation in nuclear power plants: a multilevel approach”, Safety Science,
Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 293-301.
Mearns, K.J. and Reader, T. (2008), “Organisational support and safety outcomes: an un-investigated
relationship?”, Safety Science, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 388-397.
Michael, J.H., Evans, D.D. and Jansen, K.J. (2005), “Management commitment to safety as organisational
support: relationships with non-safety outcomes in wood manufacturing employees”, Journal of
Safety Research, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 171-179.
Molnar, M.M., Schwarz, U.T., Hellgren, J., Hasson, H. and Tafvelin, S. (2019), “Leading for safety: a
question of leadership focus”, Safety and Health at Work, Vol. 10, pp. 180-187.
Mullen, J., Kelloway, E.K. and Teed, M. (2017), “Employer safety obligations, transformational
leadership and their interactive effects on employee safety performance”, Safety Science, Vol. 91,
pp. 405-412.
Neal, A., Griffin, M.A. and Hart, P.M. (2000), “The impact of organisational climate on safety climate
and individual behaviour”, Safety Science, Vol. 34 Nos 1-3, pp. 99-109.
Nunkoo, R. (2016), “Toward a more comprehensive use of social exchange theory to study residents’
attitudes to tourism”, Procedia Economics and Finance, Vol. 39, pp. 588-596.
Nye, J.S. Jr (2014), “Transformational and transactional presidents”, Leadership, Vol. 10 No. 1,
pp. 188-124.
Puah, L.N., Ong, L.D. and Chong, W.Y. (2016), “The effects of perceived organisational support, perceived
supervisor support and perceived co-worker support on safety and health compliance”,
International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 333-339.
Quartey, S.M. (2017), “Examining employees’ safety behaviours: an industry-level investigation from
Ghana”, Personnel Review, Vol. 46 No. 8, pp. 1915-1930.
Rhoades, L. and Eisenberger, R. (2002), “Perceived organisational support: a review of the literature”,
Journal Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 4, pp. 698-714.
Smith, T.D., Eldridge, F. and DeJoy, D.M. (2016), “Safety-specific transformational and passive
leadership influences on firefighter safety climate perceptions and safety behaviour outcomes”,
Safety Science, Vol. 86, pp. 92-97.
Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (1996), Using Multivariate Statistics, 3rd ed., Harper Collins,
New York, NY.
Towers Watson (2010), “Building a safer workplace: minimize risk, maximize safety”, available at:
www.towerswatson.com/research/1353 (accessed 8 August 2016).
Tremblay, M. and Gibson, M. (2016), “The role of humor in the relationship between transactional
leadership behavior, perceived supervisor support, and citizenship behavior”, Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 39-54.
Trottier, T., VanWart, M. andWang, X. (2008), “Examining the nature and significance of leadership in
government organisations”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 68 No. 2, pp. 319-333.
Turner, N., Tucker, S. and Chmiel, N. (2008), “Perceived organisational support for safety and employee
safety voice: the mediating role of coworker support for safety”, Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 319-330.
JMD Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M. and Liden, R.C. (1997), “Perceived organisational support and leader-member
exchange: a social exchange perspective”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 82-111.
Wu, C., Fang, D. and Li, N. (2015), “Roles of owners’ leadership in construction safety: the case of high-
speed railway construction projects in China”, International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 33 No. 8, pp. 1665-1679.
Further reading
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1999), Full Range Leadership Development, Mind Garden, Palo Alto, CA.
Dartey-Baah, K. (2015), “Resilient leadership: a transformational-transactional leadership mix”, Journal
of Global Responsibility, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 99-112.
Dartey-Baah, K. (2016), “Goal Integration through transformational leadership: a panacea to Ghana’s
public sector corruption menace”, Journal of Global Responsibility, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 4-25.
Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P. and Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990), “Perceived organisational support
and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75
No. 1, pp. 51-59.
Limsila, K. and Ogunlana, S.O. (2008), “Performance and leadership outcome correlates of leadership
style and subordinate commitment”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management,
Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 164-184.
Neal, A. and Griffin, M.A. (2006), “A study of the lagged relationships among safety climate, safety
motivation, safety behavior, and accidents at the individual and group levels”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 4, pp. 946-953.
Zohar, D. (2002), “The effects of leadership dimensions, safety climate, and assigned priorities on minor
injuries in work groups”, Journal of Organisational Behaviour, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 75-92.
Corresponding author
Seth Ayisi Addo can be contacted at: addojnr77@yahoo.com
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com