A meta-analysis of leadership and workplace safety: Examining relative importance, contextual contingencies, and methodological moderators.

Abstract

Given the high human and economic costs of workplace safety, researchers and practitioners have paid increasing attention to how leadership behaviors relate to workplace safety. Previous research has demonstrated that leadership behaviors are important for workplace safety. In this meta-analysis, we extend our understanding of the leadership-workplace safety relationship by (a) examining the associations between a broader range of five leadership categories-change-oriented, relational-oriented, task-oriented, passive, and destructive-and seven workplace safety variables; (b) investigating the relative importance of these leadership categories in explaining variance in these workplace safety variables; and (c) testing contextual and methodological contingencies of the leadership-workplace safety relationship. Using effect sizes from 194 samples (N = 104,364), we find that although leadership behaviors are associated with workplace safety, the leadership categories vary considerably in their relative importance. Task-oriented leadership followed by relational-oriented leadership emerge as the most important contributors to workplace safety. Change-oriented leadership (which includes transformational leadership) does not emerge as the largest contributor for any of the seven tested safety variables, despite it being the most frequently examined leadership model in the workplace safety literature. Effectiveness of leadership behaviors in relation to workplace safety varies by national culture power distance, industry risk, workforce age, as well as by contextualized forms of leadership (i.e., safety-specific vs. generalized). Finally, there is meta-analytic evidence for publication bias and common-method variance.

Shared transformational leadership and safety behaviours of employees, leaders, and teams: A multilevel investigation

“…By doing so, this study extends the full‐range model of leadership (Bass, 1985) and highlights that employees may engage in transformational leadership. We also extend previous research that focused primarily on the role of vertical leaders in relation to workplace safety (e.g., Clarke, 2013; Lyubykh et al., 2022; Tucker et al., 2016; Zohar, Huang, Lee, & Robertson, 2014).…”

“…Leadership behaviours represent one answer to this question. Researchers have focused on the role of leadership in employee safety for almost 50 years (e.g., Dunbar, 1975), and empirical findings consistently demonstrate the link between leadership and safety behaviours (Christian, Bradley, Wallace, & Burke, 2009; Clarke, 2013; Lyubykh et al., 2022; Nahrgang, Morgeson, & Hofmann, 2011). Transformational leadership, in particular, is considered one of the most effective leadership types in the context of workplace safety (e.g., Barling, Loughlin, & Kelloway, 2002; Clarke, 2013).…”

“…In this regard, we reverse the traditional view of transformational leadership in relation to safety (e.g., Barling et al., 2002). Undoubtedly, leaders’ behaviours are important determinants of safety (Christian et al., 2009; Clarke, 2013; Lyubykh et al., 2022; Nahrgang et al., 2011). However, the assumption in the safety literature is that leadership behaviours are reserved for people with formal power and authority, while safety behaviours are the responsibility of followers.…”

“…This type of leadership dominates the landscape of leadership research (Zhu et al., 2019). Not surprisingly, transformational leadership has been linked to employee performance (e.g., Hoch, Bommer, Dulebohn, & Wu, 2018), including safety performance (i.e., safety behaviours; Clarke, 2013; Lyubykh et al., 2022). Transformational leadership represents a social influence process as it triggers changes in psychological states, feelings, and behaviours of followers (Bass et al., 2003).…”

A meta-analysis of leadership and intrinsic motivation: Examining relative importance and moderators

“…In line with early studies (Lee et al, 2020a,b;Lyubykh et al, 2022), power distance has been found to moderate leadership effectiveness. As such, leadership should be contingent according to culture.…”