€¦ · web viewwithin the existing leadership literature, the role of context for shaping the...
TRANSCRIPT
Running head: CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
Contextualizing leadership: Transformational leadership and Management-By-Exception-Active in safety-critical contexts
Sara Willis*, Sharon Clarke, and Elinor O’Connor Alliance Manchester Business School, The University of Manchester, UK
*Correspondence should be addressed to Sara Willis, Alliance Manchester Business School, Booth Street West, Manchester, M15 6PB, UK (e-mail: [email protected]).
Accepted for publication in Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology on 13 February 2017
This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record.Please cite this article as Willis, Clarke, O’Connor (in press). Contextualizing leadership: Transformational leadership and Management-By-Exception-Active in safety-critical contexts. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. doi: 10.1111/joop.12172
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
2
Contextualizing Leadership: Transformational leadership and Management-By-Exception-
Active in safety-critical contexts
Abstract
Within the existing leadership literature, the role of context for shaping the effectiveness of
leadership is yet to be fully understood. One type of context that poses particular challenges
for leaders is an environment where safety is highly critical (i.e., high exposure to risk and
likelihood of an accident). We hypothesize that such environments call for specific
transformational and transactional leadership behaviors, which differ from those behaviors
most effective in less safety-critical contexts. We tested for moderating effects of perceptions
of hazard exposure and accident likelihood on the relationship between transformational
leadership and Management-By-Exception-Active with safety and job performance
outcomes. The moderation effects of accident likelihood on the link between transformational
/ MBEA leadership and subordinate performance were supported, demonstrating variation in
the effectiveness of leader behaviors dependent on followers’ perceptions about the
likelihood for an accident. MBEA leadership was found to be more strongly linked to
contextual performance and safety participation if accident likelihood was high, but not under
low accident likelihood conditions. Transformational leadership was found to be less strongly
related to these performance outcomes in contexts where safety was perceived as highly
critical. Our findings have important theoretical and practical implications, and call into
question the universality of the transformational-transactional leadership framework.
Practical considerations focus on the implications for managers and supervisors who operate
in safety-critical contexts.
Keywords: Transformational Leadership; Transactional Leadership; Management-By-
Exception-Active; Occupational Safety.
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
3
Practitioner Points
Safety-critical contexts pose particular challenges to leaders. If safety is perceived as
highly critical, leaders and/or followers may hold different expectations about
leadership and different leadership styles could be required compared to contexts
where safety is not critical.
Perceived effectiveness of transformational leadership and Management-By-
Exception-Active for employees’ safety participation and contextual performance is
influenced by employees’ perceptions of the risk for an accident within their work
context.
Management-By-Exception-Active is effective for enhancing team members’ extra
effort for safety and contextual performance if the perceived risk of an accident is
high, but less effective if perceptions of accident likelihood are low.
Managers and supervisors should therefore pay attention to employees’ perceptions of
risk of an accident and the factors that determine how employees perceive their
context.
Contextualizing Leadership: Transformational Leadership and Management-By-
Exception-Active in Safety-Critical Contexts
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
4
The transformational-transactional leadership framework (Bass, 1985) continues to
dominate the leadership literature and studies have linked transformational leadership to a
range of outcome variables, including workplace safety (e.g., Barling, Loughlin, & Kelloway,
2002; Clarke, 2013; Mullen & Kelloway, 2009; O’Dea & Flin, 2001). However, criticism has
been growing that current leadership thinking needs to consider further the context in which
the leadership process takes place (Antonakis, Avolio, & Sivasubramaniam, 2003; Liden &
Antonakis, 2009; Rowold, 2011; Schriesheim, Wu, & Scandura, 2009). Leadership styles that
are valued and effective in one work context might be less desired and less effective in
another context (Antonakis et al., 2003). Concerns have been raised that an approach that
advocates a universal way to lead oversimplifies the leadership process (Rowold, 2011).
While we recognize that stable personality characteristics (Bono & Judge, 2004; Lim &
Ployhart, 2004) and development of a personal style of leading (Johnson, Venus, Lanaj, Mao,
& Chang, 2012) will bring a degree of consistency, there is evidence to suggest that
leadership behaviors are adapted to the context (Denison, Hooijberg, & Quinn, 1995;
Hannah, Balthazard, Waldman, Jennings, & Thatcher, 2013; Vroom & Jago, 2007), and that
followers’ expectations about leadership vary in dependence of the context (Lord & Emrich,
2001; Smothers, Bing, White, Troccchia, & Absher, 2011).
The present study contributes to the occupational safety leadership literature by
investigating whether the degree to which safety is perceived as critical within a work
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
5
environment impacts on the effectiveness of transformational leadership (TFL) and
Management-By-Exception-Active (MBEA) as a dimension of transactional leadership. TFL
is concerned with inspiring followers, providing a positive vision and challenging existing
standards, and a leader practicing MBEA vigilantly monitors performance and corrects
irregularities as soon as these occur (Bass, 1985; Bass & Riggio, 2006). The present study
also makes contributions to the wider leadership literature by examining leadership in a
prevention-focused setting, by exploring contextual boundaries of transformational-
transactional leadership and by combining behavioral and contingency approaches to
leadership.
Contexts where safety is highly critical, such as oil and gas installations, mining or
construction sites, are inherently hazardous and errors, deviations from standards and other
failures can have severe consequences. In addition, safety-critical contexts, have been
described as ambiguous, given that safety often competes with other goals, such as cost
(Zohar, 2010). Yet, our understanding of leadership in contexts where the risk for accidents is
pervasive and employees face dangerous hazards, is less developed than that of leadership in
more common workplace contexts were safety is not a strong concern (Baran & Scott, 2010).
Unstable, high-risk situations engender particular expectations about leadership (Lord &
Emrich, 2001) and require emphasis on particular actions in the leadership process (Baron &
Scott, 2010). Results by Antonakis et al. (2003) for example indicate that the relationships
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
6
between dimensions of the transformational-transactional leadership model vary when
comparing samples from higher and lower risk environments. Thus, contexts where safety is
highly critical might trigger different expectations about leadership amongst followers and/or
can bring about an adjustment in leaders’ behavior. We propose that in safety-critical
conditions, leader practices such as correcting errors and active monitoring of safety behavior
(MBEA) will be more strongly associated with performance whilst inspirational leader
behaviors (TFL) will be less strongly related to performance. We use the term safety-critical
to refer to employees’ perceptions of the level of exposure to hazards and the degree of
likelihood for experiencing an accident in their work environment. Accident likelihood refers
to more subjective perceptions about the risk to be involved in an accident, and the possibility
to be injured at work. Hazard exposure relates to perceptions about the physical presence of
hazards in one’s work environment. By choosing these two characteristics, the level of
hazards present within a work environment as well as the degree of risk for an accident
stemming from these, which can differ depending on how hazards are handled, are
represented.
We empirically test the proposition that perceptions of accident likelihood and hazard
exposure will moderate the effectiveness of TFL and MBEA using leaders’ ratings of
subordinate job performance (i.e., task performance, and contextual performance) and safety
performance (i.e., safety compliance and safety participation). Figure 1 illustrates a summary
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
7
of the study’s hypotheses and the conceptual integration of contingency and behavioral
leadership perspective.
Theory Integration: Merging Contingency and Behavioral Leadership
Conceptualizations
DeRue, Nahrgang, Wellman, and Humphrey (2011) warn that proliferation of
leadership theories has hampered research in developing an understanding of leadership that
matches the complexities of reality where different approaches to leadership, such as
contingency and behavioral elements, take effect concurrently.
We borrow tenets from substitutes for leadership theory (Kerr & Jermier, 1978) and
integrate these with the transformational-transactional leadership framework. Kerr and
Jermier (1978; Howell, Dorfman, & Kerr, 1986) suggested that certain conditions diminish or
amplify the effect of leadership behaviors. It was suggested that empirical evidence for
traditional contingency theories (e.g., Fiedler, 1964; Kerr & Jermier, 1978) failed to flourish
because the theories’ propositions were too rigid, disorganized and centered on contingency
factors that were too abstract and lacking in real-world value (Arvonen & Ekvall, 1999; Villa,
Howell, Dorfman, & Daniel, 2003). In addition, whilst traditional contingency frameworks
identify context factors, the leader behavior categories of substitutes for leadership theory
have been criticized as too crude and incomprehensive (Yukl, 2010). To overcome some of
the above shortcomings of traditional contingency theories, we examine perceptions of
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
8
hazard exposure and accident likelihood as contingency factors that have applied value and
test these as moderators of transformational-transactional leadership as a framework with
established behavioral dimensions.
Leadership in Safety-Critical Contexts
There is considerable evidence that leaders play a pivotal role in shaping workplace
safety and can influence employee safety behaviors and safety attitudes (Barling et al., 2002
Clarke, 2013, 2010; Mullen & Kelloway, 2009; Zohar, 2002), which in turn relate to bottom-
line safety criteria such as accident and incident rates (Clarke, 2013; Kelloway, Mullen, &
Francis, 2006; Zohar, 2002). However, the type of leadership behaviors that are effective in
contexts where safety is perceived as critical might differ from leadership practices that are
effective if perceptions of risk and hazards are lower.
Work context refers to the ‘backdrop’ that entails a variety of moderating factors that
impact on job role requirements and work behaviors (Dierdorff, Rubin, & Morgeson, 2009).
Johns (2006, p. 386) defines context as “situational opportunities and constraints that affect
the occurrence and meaning of organizational behavior as well as functional relationships
between variables.” It has been shown that contextual factors can influence cognitive
tendencies such as regulatory-focus orientation (Kark & van Dijk, 2007). Regulatory focus
theory (Crowe & Higgins, 1997) postulates that actions are guided by a prevention focus,
which is oriented towards avoidance of loss, or a promotion focus, which regulates behavior
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
9
towards gain and accretion. Leaders’ behavior is influenced through their inherent regulatory
focus and their situational regulatory focus, with the former being relatively stable, but the
latter being altered by contextual cues (Crowe & Higgins, 1997; Kark & van Dijk, 2007).
Thus, even if a leader’s inherent regulatory focus is more promotion-oriented, contextual
factors can elicit this to shift towards a prevention-oriented focus.
The heightened importance of reliability and avoidance of failure in highly safety-
critical contexts, might act as a trigger to activate a more prevention focus compared to less
safety-critical contexts. In support of this argument, Wallace, Johnson, and Frazier (2009)
have linked a prevention regulatory focus to increased safety performance. In contexts where
errors do not have the potential for catastrophic outcomes, the focus might be more
persistently on promoting gain and a prevention focus might be less activated (Rodriguez &
Griffin, 2009). Moreover, Wallace et al.’s (2009) results showed that in a model where
workplace-situational regulatory focus and inherent regulatory focus were entered
simultaneously, only workplace-situational focus was significantly related to safety
performance. This indicates that regulatory focus orientations that were prompted through
contextual factors such as work surroundings are most relevant in predicting behavior
(Wallace et al., 2009).
Transformational leadership has been associated with a promotion focus and
transactional leadership with a prevention focus (Kark & van Dijk, 2007). If promotion and
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
10
prevention regulatory focus are differently balanced depending on how critical safety is
perceived within a work context, then this implies that the effectiveness of transformational
and transactional leadership will vary accordingly. Based on the foregoing conceptualization
that work context influences regulatory focus, our research investigates whether the level to
which safety is perceived as critical is a context factor that impacts on the relationship
between leadership style and employee safety and job performance.
Call for Context: Transactional Leadership in Safety-Critical Contexts
Transactional leadership has received considerably less attention from researchers
than transformational, with studies that have examined the effectiveness of transactional
leadership producing mixed evidence. In a meta-analytic review, Judge and Piccolo (2004)
note that positive, neutral as well as negative relationships between transactional leadership
and leader effectiveness criteria have been reported. They suggest that these inconsistencies
on the effectiveness of transactional leadership could be explained by context differences. For
example, Antonakis et al. (2003) argued that MBEA is unnecessarily controlling in some
contexts, whilst in other contexts such practices are beneficial for performance (Antonakis et
al., 2003). If a prevention-oriented focus is activated in contexts where safety is perceived as
highly critical, then leadership practices related to MBEA might be more relevant given that
MBEA has been associated with a prevention-oriented focus (Antonakis et al., 2003;
Rodriguez & Griffin, 2009). In line with this, research has demonstrated that fit between
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
11
followers’ prevalent regulatory focus and leadership style leads to beneficial outcomes
(Hamstra, Van Yperen, Wisse, & Sassenberg, 2015).
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
12
In Bass’ (1985) original framework, transactional leadership consisted of MBEA (i.e.,
monitoring for problems as they arise and correcting these proactively) as well as
Management-By-Exception-Passive (i.e., not taking action until issues occur, waiting for
things to go wrong before interfering) and Contingent Reward (clarifying what followers can
expect in exchange for their efforts and rewarding achievements). However, examinations of
the structure of transactional leadership have repeatedly identified MBEA as a single factor,
with Contingent Reward representing a dimension of transformational leadership and
Management-By-Exception-Passive representing a passive leadership factor together with
laissez-faire leadership (Den Hartog, Van Muijen, & Koopman, 1997; Hinkin & Schriesheim,
2008). Hence, there is evidence that MBEA is the only dimension of transactional leadership
and we therefore focus on MBEA. We do not include passive leadership in our study as
empirical evidence has consistently shown that passive leadership is negatively related to job
performance and workplace safety outcomes (Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Kelloway et al., 2006).
The purpose of our study is to examine whether different active leadership styles are more or
less effective in dependence of the extent to which safety is perceived as critical within a
work context.
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
13
Cognitive assumptions about leadership are dynamic with contextual attributes
influencing leaders’ and followers’ schemas of effective leadership (Shondrick & Lord,
2010). Implicit leadership theories postulate that a change in context can shift followers’ as
well as leaders’ implicit expectations about aspects of leadership (Derler & Weibler, 2013;
Lord & Emrich, 2001; Smothers et al., 2011). As a consequence, leaders might adjust their
behavior and followers can become more or less receptive towards certain leadership
practices (Lord, Hannah, & Jennings, 2001). Therefore, in safety-critical contexts, the
effectiveness of MBEA might be enhanced because: 1) leaders perceive MBEA behaviors as
more apt and adjust their use of MBEA accordingly, and/ or 2) followers increase their
receptiveness towards MBEA. Thus, high hazard and high accident risk conditions may
activate a prevention focus and in conjunction sway leaders’ and/or followers’ implicit
expectations of MBEA, leading to a stronger positive relationship with safety and job
performance.
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
14
There is evidence from leadership research in crisis and disaster contexts, which share
characteristics with safety-critical contexts, that leadership styles akin to MBEA have
increased relevance under such conditions. For example, DeChurch et al. (2001) discussed
the importance for leaders to structure work and to provide coordination in disaster
conditions. Others have discussed facilitation of sensemaking (Baran & Scott, 2010;
Mumford, Friedrich, Caughron, & Byrne, 2007) and pragmatic leadership (Yammarino,
Mumford, Connelly, & Dionne, 2010) as key for effective leadership in dangerous contexts.
MBEA behaviors such as clarifying responsibilities are likely to aid sensemaking, and by
monitoring task execution for problems leaders can be pragmatic and put solutions into place.
Drawing on this body of research in dangerous contexts, it can be asserted that MBEA
becomes relevant for effective leadership if safety is perceived as highly critical, as it
addresses issues of sensemaking and pragmatic problem solving.
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
15
Consistent with this proposition, Clarke (2013) in her meta-analysis showed that
active transactional leadership was positively related to safety compliance (ρ = .41) and
safety participation (ρ = .36). Griffin and Talati (2011) showed in their meta-analysis that the
mean level of MBEA within a sample moderated the correlation between MBEA and
employees’ extra effort and satisfaction with leadership. The authors explained that high
mean levels are a proximal indicator for MBEA practices being favorably perceived within
the work context, and therefore have a stronger impact on leadership outcomes (Griffin &
Talati, 2011). This is in line with our proposition that the effectiveness of MBEA varies
across different work settings. Yet, the understanding of the influence of specific context
factors on relationships between variables is little developed (Johns, 2006). Thus, we further
advance Griffin and Talati’s (2011) work by investigating exposure to hazards and likelihood
for an accident as concrete contextual factors that may impact on the relationship between
MBEA and performance outcomes.
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
16
Whilst we argue that MBEA plays a particularly important role if safety is perceived
as highly critical, it can be suggested that these leadership tactics have no effect or might
even be detrimental for performance if safety is perceived as less critical as the need for
continuous correction of errors is reduced (Antonakis et al., 2003). As argued above, context
can alter followers’ and leaders’ evaluations of what constitutes effective leadership (Emrich,
1999; Lord et al., 2011). Just as fit between leadership style and followers’ prominent
regulatory focus fosters a positive impact by leaders, mismatch between leadership behavior
and followers’ prevention-promotion focus prohibits such desirable effects (Hamstra et al.,
2015). Therefore, if employees perceive lower hazard-levels and assess little threat for an
accident, a consequently more promotion-oriented regulatory focus could clash with MBEA
leader behaviors, so that these might be less positively related to safety and job performance.
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
17
We expect that followers’ perceptions of hazard exposure and accident likelihood will
moderate the relationship between MBEA with both safety performance and job
performance, as both performance types take place under the same contextual constraints.
Dierdorff et al. (2009) explain that role enactment (e.g., of a managerial role or team member
role) is shaped by contextual factors, so that the role in its entirety interplays with the context
in which it is performed. In their roles, employees commonly perform safety-specific aspects
at the same time and intertwined with general performance elements (e.g., performing a
general job task whilst wearing protective equipment correctly), so that a regulatory focus or
implicit expectations about leadership are less likely to be determined by the specific
performance element, but the overall context in which job performance and safety
performance takes place. We therefore expect perceptions of hazard exposure and accident
likelihood to have the same moderation effects for job performance as well as safety
performance.
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
18
Job performance and safety performance are multidimensional outcomes and in our
study we investigate the individual dimensions, i.e. task performance, contextual performance
and safety participation, safety compliance separately. Most taxonomies of work performance
incorporate a distinction between formal, within-role behaviors (task performance) and extra-
role, discretionary behaviors (contextual performance; e.g., Borman & Motowidlo, 1993).
Based on this widely accepted partitioning of work performance, Griffin and Neal (2000)
developed an analogy of safety performance. They proposed safety compliance with rules
and regulations as a correspondent to task performance, and safety participation, which
describes extra-role behaviors for safety, as a correspondent to contextual performance.
Transactional leadership has been more strongly related to task performance and safety
compliance, and transformational leadership more strongly related to contextual performance
and safety participation (e.g., Clarke, 2013). Accordingly, including overall measures of job
and safety performance could obscure differences in the strength of relationship between the
two leadership styles with these outcome dimensions. Therefore, we investigate individual
performance dimensions (i.e., safety compliance/participation and task/contextual
performance), and propose separate hypotheses for each of the performance outcomes (Figure
1):
Hypothesis 1(a, b, c, d): Perceived accident likelihood moderates the relationship of
MBEA to safety compliance (hypothesis 1a), safety participation (hypothesis 1b), task
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
19
performance (hypothesis 1c), and contextual performance (hypothesis 1d). It is
expected that MBEA will be more positively related to safety performance and job
performance outcomes if perceived accident likelihood is high.
Hypothesis 2(a, b, c, d): Perceived hazard exposure moderates the relationship of
MBEA to safety compliance (hypothesis 2a), safety participation (hypothesis 2b), task
performance (hypothesis 2c), and contextual performance (hypothesis 2d). It is
expected that MBEA will be more positively related to safety performance and job
performance outcomes if perceived hazard exposure is high.
Call for Context: Transformational Leadership in Safety-Critical Contexts
The lack of consideration of contextual factors does not just apply to transactional
leadership practices, but also to investigations of TFL (Liden & Antonakis, 2009; Rowold,
2011). Empirical studies have demonstrated that TFL practices are related to workplace
safety and have associated TFL with outcomes such as employee safety behavior (e.g.,
Barling et al., 2002) and safety incident rates (e.g., Kelloway et al., 2006). However, there is
little research aimed at understanding the degree of effectiveness of TFL practices under
different contextual conditions (Rowold, 2011). Such research is essential to be able to offer
precise guidance to leaders who are operating in safety-critical contexts. We propose that
TFL is less strongly related to performance in contexts where safety is perceived as highly
critical compared to contexts where safety is perceived as less critical.
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
20
As argued above safety-critical contexts activate a prevention-oriented focus and
trigger expectations about leadership that focus on creating structure and problem solving
(Antonakis et al., 2003; Rodriguez & Griffin, 2009: Wallace et al., 2009). TFL, which is
associated with a promotion-focus (Kark & van Dijk, 2007), therefore would mismatch the
dominant regulatory focus and not be consistent with context-induced expectations of
leadership. Consequently, it can be expected that leaders will be less reliant on TFL in safety-
critical contexts and/or followers could be less responsive towards TFL practices. In line with
this, Dóci and Hofmans (2015) showed that leaders engage less frequently in TFL if task
complexity is high, explaining that in such circumstances “there is no space for stimulating,
inspiring behaviors, or soliciting followers’ ideas but it is more beneficial to give clear
directions” (p. 9). Similarly, followers who perceive their work context as hazardous and
evaluate the risk for an accident as high, might have less capacity to respond to any TFL
behaviors that their leader adopts, so that these are less influential on follower performance.
Research has indicated that threats of danger can increase complexity in a work environment,
which could then lead to increased cognitive demands (Baran & Scott, 2010; Hannah, Uhl-
Bien, Avolio, & Cavaretta, 2009). Furthermore, there has been discussion whether TFL
practices, such as intellectual stimulation, provide employees with greater latitude in how
they interpret and implement safety rules and regulations, which could add to existing
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
21
ambiguity and be detrimental for performance if safety is highly critical (Clarke, 2013;
Inness, Turner, Barling, & Stride, 2010).
As noted above there is evidence that TFL is more strongly related to extra-role
behaviors (i.e., contextual performance, safety participation) than in-role performance (i.e.,
task performance, safety compliance). We therefore expect that the direction of the
relationship between TFL with within-role and extra-role performance criteria is in the same
direction, but that the interaction effect between TFL with accident likelihood and hazard
exposure is more pronounced for contextual performance/safety participation than for task
performance/safety compliance. To be able to examine whether the moderation effect differs
in strength for within-role and extra-role outcomes, we present separate hypotheses for each
of the performance outcome dimensions. Based on the above argument that TFL is less
relevant if hazards and risk are perceived as high, we propose the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 3(a, b, c, d): Perceived accident likelihood moderates the relationship of
TFL to safety compliance (hypothesis 3a), safety participation (hypothesis 3b), task
performance (hypothesis 3c), and contextual performance (hypothesis 3d). It is
expected that TFL will be less positively related to safety performance and job
performance outcomes if perceived accident likelihood is high.
Hypothesis 4(a, b, c, d): Perceived hazard exposure moderates the relationship of TFL
to safety compliance (hypothesis 4a), safety participation (hypothesis 4b), task
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
22
performance (hypothesis 4c), and contextual performance (hypothesis 4d). It is
expected that TFL will be less positively related to safety performance and job
performance outcomes if perceived hazard exposure is high.
Method
We conducted a two-source study with responses from both leaders and team
members to test our hypotheses. Responses had a team-based structure as members from the
same team rated their communal leader. Thus, we investigated whether hazard exposure and
accident likelihood represent team-level perceptions. Members of the same team are exposed
to similar contextual characteristics as they work in the same environment. Safety
performance behaviors are important outcomes in occupational safety as these have been
demonstrated to predict error-making and accident involvement (Christian, Bradley, Wallace,
& Burke, 2009; Clarke, 2010, 2013). Leadership was investigated as an individual-level
variable, as we did not want to assess a leaders’ general approach, but the effect of specific
leadership behaviors as experienced by individual team members. It is well-acknowledged
within leader-member-exchange theory for example, that leaders vary in their behavior with
different team members (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995), which could not be captured by
aggregating leadership to the team-level. Focusing on individual-level leadership also
matches our examination of safety performance and job performance as individual-level
outcomes.
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
23
Procedure and Participants
We distributed questionnaires to employees of two organizations, an oil and gas
services company and a food manufacturing company. We selected these two sectors to
compile a sample of participants, who all work in contexts where safety plays a role, but with
variation in the levels of hazard exposure and likelihood for an accident. In the oil and gas
service company, the employees who were invited to participate worked on offshore rigs.
Offshore installations pose major hazards such as handling explosive materials,
pressurization control and risk for hydrocarbon release. In addition, participants’ work
activities pose risks from handling and lifting activities (e.g., operating pulley systems), being
struck by objects, and working at heights. The participants from the food manufacturing
company were based in a factory setting, with the majority of participants working in the
production process. Common risks associated with this work setting are colliding with
machinery, handling hot goods and chemicals as well as slips, trips and falls.
A total of 239 team members and their team leaders from twenty-four teams were
invited to take part. In the oil and gas company, for one team none of the team members
choose to participate in the study and for two further teams only one team member
participated respectively. It was therefore decided to omit these cases prior to the analysis.
Outlier analysis led to deletion of four cases. The final sample included in the analysis
consisted of 160 team members from twenty-one teams (oil and gas company: 69 team
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
24
members from ten teams; manufacturing company: 91 team members from eleven teams).
The mean age amongst team members was 36.35 years, SD = 11.59. A total of 119 team
members were male, twenty-seven female and fourteen team members did not indicate their
gender. Team leaders provided ratings on their team members’ safety and job performance
(Mage = 38.38, SD = 8.65; seventeen team leaders were male). Team sizes ranged from 4 to 17
members with a mean size of 10.76 members (SD = 3.5; oil and gas M team size = 11, SD = 3.62,
manufacturing M team size = 10.54, SD = 3.56). On average teams had 7.62 team members who
were included in the analysis (SD = 2.67; oil and gas services company M = 6.9, SD = 2.42,
manufacturing company M = 8.27, SD = 2.82). The average percentage of members per team
who were included in the analysis was 71.66% (oil and gas average rate per team 63.88%,
ranging from 40% to 83.3%; manufacturing average rate per team 79.44%, ranging from
64.29% to 100%).
Measures
Transformational leadership and MBEA. Team members rated their team leader’s
leadership style on the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ version 5x-Short, Avolio
& Bass, 1995). CFA showed acceptable fit for a factor structure with MBEA as a single
factor and TFL consisting of its sub-dimensions of Idealized Influence, Individual
Consideration, Inspirational Motivation and Intellectual Stimulation (χ2 (342) = 486.10, CFI
= .93, TLI = .92, RMSEA = .05). This factor structure showed better fit compared to a model
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
25
where Contingent Reward loaded together with MBEA on a transactional leadership factor
(χ2 (342) = 498.22, CFI = .92, TLI = .91, RMSEA = .05). The results from CFA are in line
with other research on the MLQ dimensionality (Den Hartog et al., 1997; Hinkin &
Schriesheim, 2008). The transformational leadership scale (α = .90) and MBEA scale (α
= .76) showed good internal consistency.
Accident likelihood. Team members reported their accident likelihood perceptions on
two items, adapted from Cox and Cheyne (2000), “I am sure it is only a matter of time before
I am involved in an accident” and “In my job the chances of being involved in an accident are
quite large”. The response scale ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The
original scale included a third item (‘I am rarely worried about being injured on the job’).
However, CFA showed that this item had a non-significant loading onto the common factor
(-.07). The problematic item was reverse worded and it has been shown that reversed items
can have lower item-scale correlations, resulting in poorer psychometric properties for the
measure (e.g., Barnette, 2000; Schriesheim & Eisenbach, 1995; Spector, Van Katwyk, &
Brannick, 1997). Moreover, the item’s content focuses on injuries whilst the other two items
are concerned with accidents which could have also contributed to its lack of coherence with
the other two items. Thus, it was decided to exclude this third item in the analysis. The
remaining two items both showed significant factor loadings of .59 and .76. Cronbach’s alpha
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
26
for the two-item scale was .56, which although below the commonly accepted value of .70, is
acceptable given the small number of items (Eisinga, Te Grotenhuis, & Pelzer, 2013).
Hazard exposure. Team members rated the level of hazard exposure in their job on
one item from DeJoy, Schaffer, Wilson, Vandenberg, and Butts (2004): “Rate your current
work environment in terms of your exposure to safety hazards”. The response scale ranged
from 1 = very high hazard level (very unsafe) to 5 = very low hazard level (very safe). We
reverse coded hazard exposure scores prior to the analysis, so that high values represent
higher levels of hazard exposure. DeJoy et al. (2004) demonstrated that this single-item
measure is significantly linked to related constructs such as environmental safety conditions.
It has been demonstrated that if a construct is concrete or uniform, single-item measurement
is acceptable and performs comparably to multiple-item scales (Nagy, 2002; Wanous,
Reichers, & Hudy, 1997). Similar single-item scales have been successfully used in previous
safety research (e.g., Dedobbeleer & Béland, 1991; Morrow & Crum, 1998). We conducted a
CFA to test whether the two accident likelihood items and single hazard exposure item could
be combined into an overall factor representing how safety-critical a context is overall. The
hazard exposure item did not load significantly onto the common factor (-.01) and only the
two accident likelihood items showed significant factor loadings. Therefore, accident
likelihood and hazard exposure were tested as separate moderator variables in the subsequent
analysis.
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
27
Safety compliance and safety participation. Team leaders rated each of their team
members’ safety performance on six items by Griffin and Neal (2000). Three items addressed
compliance with safety rules and procedures (safety compliance) and three items addressed
extra effort for safety (safety participation). An example item is “This person uses all the
necessary safety equipment to do his/her job” with a response scale from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Both measures had good internal consistency (safety
compliance α = .86 and safety participation α = .93).
Task performance and contextual performance. Team leaders rated their team
members’ job performance on six items. In line with Borman and Motowidlo’s (1993) model
of different performance behaviors, we assessed task performance (the extent to which an
employee meets in-role expectations) and contextual performance (the extent to which an
employee goes beyond prescribed responsibilities) as separate dimensions of overall work
performance. Three items by Griffin, Neal and Parker (2007) addressed task performance and
three items addressed contextual performance. These were modified from Griffin and Neal’s
(2000) safety performance scale to represent non-domain specific extra effort. An example
item is “This person makes suggestions to improve the overall effectiveness of the company”
with a response scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Both measures had
good internal consistency (task performance α = .87 and contextual performance α = .90).
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
28
We conducted a CFA for the four performance outcomes (i.e., safety compliance,
safety participation, task performance, and contextual performance). All item loadings were
significant and the model showed good fit (CFI = .97, TLI = .95, RMSEA = .08).
As we obtained several variables from the same source (i.e., team members rated
leadership style and perception of hazard exposure and accident likelihood; leaders rated
safety compliance, safety participation, task performance, contextual performance), it is
important to establish discriminant validity for latent variables of the same source. For this,
we followed Fornell and Larcker (1981) by calculating the square root of the average
variance explained (AVE) for each construct. Table 2 shows that the square root of the AVE
for each construct exceeds the correlation between the construct and any other construct that
was rated by the same source, indicating that variables obtained from the same source have
adequate discriminant validity.
Multilevel Analysis
The data had a nested structure as participants were clustered within teams. Failing to
address dependency amongst observations is likely to underestimate the standard errors of
model parameters and increase the risk for a Type I error (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). Table
1 shows intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC1 and ICC2) and one-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) for differences in variable means across the twenty-one teams. We expected
perceptions of accident likelihood and hazard exposure to be team-level variables as these are
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
29
contextual attributes that are shared across all members of a team. For hazard exposure, the
ICC1 and ICC2 value and ANOVA supported aggregation to the team-level. However, for
accident likelihood the ICC1 and ICC2 values were low and ANOVA was non-significant.
Small ICC values indicate that most of the variation is within teams rather than between
teams and hence do not support aggregation to team-level (Bliese, 2000). Thus, accident
likelihood was not aggregated and assessed as an individual-level moderator in the analysis.
One’s perceptions of risk are not only constructed by objective facts within the physical
context but also determined through subjective components (Hansson, 2010), which could
explain why there is variation in perceptions of accident likelihood amongst members of the
same team. For example, an individual’s assessment of risk is impacted by their judgement of
their own ability to handle potential hazards, which can be over-or underestimated depending
on individual factors (Deery, 2000; Ulleberg & Rundmo, 2003). Thus, perceptions of
accident likelihood are not independent from individual characteristics and subjective
experiences (Deery, 2000; Ulleberg & Rundmo, 2003), which can explain why accident
likelihood perceptions did not converge at the team-level.
Whilst there is no hard rule for a minimum proportion of between-group variance to
indicate non-independence, it has been stressed that even low ICC1 values of .05 can lead to
bias (Aguinis, Gottfredson, & Culpepper, 2013). Values for the remaining study variables
suggested that between-group variance should be controlled to avoid bias of the analysis.
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
30
Thus, when testing individual-level relationships between-group variance was accounted for
by modeling variables on the within- and between-level using Mplus software (Muthén &
Muthén, 2010). To test the cross-level moderation effect of team hazard-exposure on the
relationship of MBEA and TFL on safety and job performance at the individual-level, we
specified a random slope model as described below.
---Insert Table 1 here---
Results
Table 2 reports descriptive statistics and intercorrelations for the study variables. As
expected, participants who worked in the oil and gas services company reported higher levels
of accident likelihood and more exposure to hazards compared to the food manufacturing
sub-sample (for accident likelihood: M oil and gas = 3.06; M manufacturing = 2.56; t = 3.56, p < .001;
for team-level hazard exposure: M oil and gas = 3.90; M manufacturing = 3.24; t = 12.12, p < .001). A
series of multilevel path models were specified to test whether accident likelihood and team-
level hazard exposure moderate the relationships of TFL and MBEA to safety compliance,
safety participation, task performance and contextual performance. At the team-level, we
controlled for sub-sample membership. To avoid model non-convergence, interactions were
tested in separate models for the outcome variables (Table 3 for safety compliance and safety
participation, Table 4 for task performance and contextual performance). We used the MPlus
TYPE = TWO LEVEL RANDOM command with Maximum-Likelihood-Robust (MLR)
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
31
estimation (Muthén & Muthén, 2010). To test the cross-level interaction between team-level
hazard exposure and individual-level leadership style (i.e., TFL and MBEA), we followed
guidelines by Aguinis et al. (2013) and Preacher, Zyphur, and Zhang (2010). Hazard
exposure at level-2 was tested as a moderator of the relationship between TFL and MBEA
with performance outcome variables at level-1. Random slopes were specified for the within-
level component of the respective leadership variables and outcome variables, and team-level
hazard exposure was regressed on the random slopes. For accident likelihood, we specified
the interaction between accident likelihood and leadership at level 1, and included the same
relationships between leadership and performance outcomes as level 2. Log-likelihood based
chi-square difference test with scaling correction factors were used to test whether adding the
cross-level interaction term improved model fit (Muthén & Muthén, 2010).
---Insert Table 2 here---
---Insert Table 3 here---
---Insert Table 4 here---
In partial support of hypothesis 1, accident likelihood moderated the relationship
between MBEA and safety participation (1b) and contextual performance (1d). We used
Preacher, Curran, and Bauer’s (2006) computational tool for plotting interaction effects in
multilevel models. We drew interaction plots for safety participation (Figure 2) and
contextual performance (Figure 3) to depict the moderation effect of accident likelihood at
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
32
one standard deviation above and below the mean and at the mean value1. In line with our
hypothesis, the direction of the moderation effect indicates that engaging in MBEA
leadership may have a positive effect on subordinates’ performance if the risk for an accident
is perceived as high. However, if the risk for an accident is perceived as low, adopting
MBEA leadership practices could actually be detrimental for employees’ safety participation
and contextual performance. Moreover, in support of hypothesis 3d, accident likelihood also
moderated the relationship between TFL and contextual performance. The direction of this
moderation effect was in line with our hypothesis, showing that TFL was positively
associated with contextual performance if accident likelihood was low, but that the
relationship was negative if accident likelihood was high (Figure 4).
Hypotheses 2 and 4 were not supported, as team-level hazard exposure did not
moderate any of the relationships between MBEA and TFL with any of the job and safety
performance outcomes. In addition, there were no significant main effects of either MBEA
or TFL on safety and job performance.
---Insert Figure 2 here---
---Insert Figure 3 here---
---Insert Figure 4 here---
1 Dawson (2014) discusses that values above/below one standard deviation are relatively arbitrary examples of high and low levels of the moderator variable. We depicted the moderation effect at these commonly used values as perceptions of accident likelihood slide along a continuum without a definitive value that represents attested levels of high or low perceptions of accident likelihood. However, the plots should be interpreted with Dawson’s (2014) notion in mind, illustrating the direction of the effect rather than the relationships at levels of the moderator that do not necessarily reflect a relevant threshold.
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
33
Discussion
We explored whether perceptions of accident likelihood and hazard exposure impact
on the effectiveness of MBEA and TFL for safety and job performance outcomes. In partial
support of our hypotheses, individual-level perceptions of accident likelihood moderated the
relationship between MBEA and safety participation and contextual performance. If
employees perceived the risk to be involved in an accident as high, MBEA was positively
related to safety participation and contextual performance, but showed a negative relationship
if accident likelihood was rated as low. These findings suggest that the effectiveness of
MBEA is not entirely independent from individuals’ perceptions of context. However, no
evidence was found for hazard exposure as a higher-level context factor as moderator.
Our finding on the moderating role of accident likelihood perceptions is in line with
research on crisis in work environments. It has been argued that under crisis conditions
employees are more receptive to directive forms of leadership (Dóci & Hofmans, 2015;
Morgeson, 2005) which potentially is due to enhanced complexity within the situation (Dóci
& Hofmans, 2015; Mumford et al., 2007). Drawing on complexity leadership theory (Uhl-
Bien, Marion, & McKelvey, 2007), Baran and Scott (2010) suggest that reducing ambiguity
and sensemaking through behaviors such as direction setting and situational awareness is core
to effective leadership under extreme conditions. Our results indicate that if the likelihood for
an accident is perceived as high, instructive leader tactics, which pre-empt error making and
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
34
clarify the priority of safety, can have a positive influence on certain performance outcomes
such as safety participation and contextual performance. Dahl and Olsen (2013) showed in a
sample of offshore petroleum workers that leadership involvement (they did not test MBEA
specifically) enhances safety compliance through increasing role clarity. However, if the risk
for an accident is perceived as lower then this level of vigilance and close leader intervention
can be perceived as too controlling and therefore is associated with lower levels of
performance (Antonakis et al., 2003; Griffin & Talati, 2011). Whilst perceptions of high
accident likelihood are likely to activate a prevention focus, lower accident likelihood can
shift the focus towards a promotion focus which does not match up with MBEA behaviors.
Such imparity between the activated regulatory focus and a leader’s adopted style is
detrimental and leads to reduced performance (Hamstra et al., 2015). We did not find support
for team-level hazard exposure as moderator of the relationship between leadership style and
performance. Perceptions of risk for an actual accident might elicit an enhanced focus on
prevention and need for structure, but the mere presence of hazards possibly does not
engender such shift in focus to the same degree.
In the introduction, we proposed that an enhanced effect of MBEA on performance
under safety-critical conditions, could be due to leaders adjusting their leadership style,
and/or due to followers being more attuned to MBEA. Although our study did not set out to
formally test these two mechanisms, correlation results indicated that the moderation effect,
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
35
cannot be explained through leaders’ behavioral adjustment and instead could be due to
followers’ being more receptive towards MBEA if the likelihood for an accident is perceived
as high. Zero-order correlations showed that leaders’ level of MBEA was negatively related
to followers’ perceptions of accident likelihood. Thus, if followers perceived the level of
accident likelihood as high, leaders were actually rated lower on MBEA. This is in contrast to
the proposition that leaders adjust their leadership style to include more MBEA if safety is
highly critical and a prevention-oriented regulatory focus dominates. Instead, followers being
more receptive towards their leaders’ MBEA might explain the positive relationship between
MBEA with safety participation and contextual performance. However, we did not assess
followers’ expectations of MBEA and future research should further examine the
mechanisms that underlie the variation of effectiveness of MBEA in situations with different
levels of accident likelihood.
Interestingly, accident likelihood only emerged as a moderator of the link between
MBEA with extra-role performance measures (i.e., safety participation and contextual
performance), but not for safety compliance and task performance as outcomes. Existing
research has reported stronger links between transactional leadership and compliance than
with extra-role performance; whereas transformational leadership has been more strongly
linked to extra-role behaviors such as safety participation (Clarke, 2013; Griffin & Hu, 2013;
Mullen & Kelloway, 2009). The current results appear plausible given that the relationships
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
36
were moderated by perceptions of the context. If team members perceive the threat for an
accident within their work context as high, it is likely that they are intrinsically motivated to
comply with safety rules and regulations regardless of their leader’s behavior. Thus, accident
likelihood perceptions did not influence the link between MBEA and safety compliance. This
interpretation is in line with the leadership substitute approach, which postulates that certain
contextual factors can reduce the need for leadership (De Vries, Roe, & Tallieu, 2002; Kerr &
Jermier, 1978). However, MBEA practices such as vigilantly checking for mistakes and
clarifying the priority of safety, may encourage employees beyond their self-propelled efforts
to comply with safety rules and to direct extra attention and resources to safety and their job
objectives. Research has generally argued that transactional leadership is less effective for
influencing extra-role behaviors (Clarke, 2013). However, the present results showed that this
conclusion may not hold under conditions where threat for an accident or harm is perceived
as high. Thus, our findings further underpin the importance of considering perceptions of
contextual characteristics when investigating the effectiveness of leadership.
The moderating effect of accident likelihood on the relationship between MBEA with
safety participation and contextual performance could be explained through fit between
leaders’ behavior and followers’ situational regulatory focus. The direction of one’s self-
regulatory focus can be shaped through situational factors (Crowe &Higgins, 1997).
Perceiving a high threat for an accident is likely to orient followers’ self-regulatory focus
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
37
more towards prevention and the avoidance of losses (Rodriguez & Griffin, 2009), and
therefore make followers more sensitive towards their leaders’ MBEA behavior.
Nevertheless, it must be acknowledged that variables other than situational factors, such as
someone’s inherent regulatory orientation can also influence whether a promotion or
prevention orientation dominates (Crowe & Higgins, 1997; Kark & van Dijk, 2007).
Moreover, it can be argued that followers to some extent create their work context through
their own performance. As individuals interact with their context and the people within this
context, they themselves effectuate contextual aspects such as risk and hazard-levels. For
example, the safety climate in an organization has been identified as a leading as well as
lagging indicator of accidents (Payne, Bergman, Beus, Rodríguez, & Henning, 2009). Thus,
perceptions of safety-related contextual factors could, to some degree, be the outcome of
employees’ safety-related behavior within the context. These alternative interpretations mean
that leaders are not always able to adapt their style to a given context, as followers’
perceptions of the context are determined by a range of factors including followers’ inherent
characteristics. The cross-sectional nature of our data prevents us from pinpointing the source
of followers’ context perceptions. Longitudinal research is needed to separate the direction of
the relationships between leadership style, context perceptions, and follower safety and job
performance.
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
38
Nevertheless, our results suggest that MBEA is not universally ineffective, but that its
relationship with performance varies for different conditions. MBEA has often been
discussed as a negative, controlling form of leadership (Griffin & Talati, 2011). The present
results challenge this unrefined, negative view and call for a more differentiated, condition-
specific view of MBEA. Clarke (2013) provided meta-analytical evidence that active
transactional leadership is positively linked with safety compliance and safety participation.
In addition, literature on high-reliability organizations has emphasized the need for
monitoring of procedural deviations as critical actions to control intrinsic hazards (Roberts,
1993). Together with the present findings, this makes MBEA of interest to future research in
the area of safety and highlights the importance of merging behavioral leadership approaches
with contingency views.
As hypothesized, accident likelihood moderated the relationship between TFL and
contextual performance. In support of our hypothesis, the direction of this effect showed that
TFL is less effective for contextual performance if individuals perceive the risk for an
accident as high. If accident likelihood is perceived as high, TFL might be mismatched with
followers’ intensified focus on prevention of loss and failure and is therefore less effective in
influencing follower performance (Hamstra et al., 2015). Cognitive demands could also play
a role in our findings that TFL is less effective if accident likelihood is perceived as high.
Dóci and Hofmans (2015) explain that when a task becomes overly demanding,
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
39
psychological resources are diminished which reduces a leader’s ability to engage in TFL
behaviors. Perceptions of high risk for an accident are likely to add complexity to a work
situation (Baran & Scott, 2010). In such conditions, not only the leader’s but also followers’
psychological resources are reduced and followers may be less receptive towards TFL
behaviors. In an early study, Seltzer, Numerof and Bass (1989) demonstrated that TFL under
high stress conditions further exacerbates stress levels. Similarly, if perceptions of high risk
for an accident make a situation more cognitively challenging, then TFL behaviors that ask
followers to question the status quo or buy into a longer-term vision may only further mount
demands and strain cognitive resources and therefore become counterproductive. Moreover,
Inness et al. (2010) posit that TFL provide subordinates with greater latitude in how they
implement safety rules and procedures. For example, intellectual stimulation could indirectly
increase deviations from safety procedures as it encourages employees to try out new
approaches to their work (Clarke, 2013). TFL is associated with a promotion focus which in
turn has been associated with greater risk taking (Friedman & Förster, 2001). This
interpretation suggests that it might not be the context per se but the leaders’ own behavior
that shapes follower regulatory focus and their context perceptions. Thus, our findings further
add to this discussion that TFL may not be equally effective across all work contexts and
future research is needed to investigate cognitive demands and regulatory focus as
mechanisms of this effect.
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
40
Neither TFL nor MBEA had significant main effects with any of the performance
outcomes. A strength of our study was the use of two-source data with supervisory
performance ratings. The lack of support for a relationship between TFL and MBEA to safety
and job performance calls into question whether the transformational-transactional leadership
framework sufficiently captures leader practices that impact upon employee job and safety
behaviors. Others have argued that research needs to look beyond the transformational-
transactional framework for a more comprehensive, real-life understanding of effective
leadership (van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013). Within the occupational safety literature,
studies that have found support for a link between transformational leadership and safety
outcomes have often used safety-specific operationalizations of leadership (e.g., Barling et
al., 2002). Kapp (2012) showed that non-domain specific transformational leadership was
only related to safety behavior if it was coupled with a positive safety climate. Together with
our findings, this criticism challenges researchers in the leadership field to not only pay
attention to perceptions of contextual factors, but also to extend conceptualizations of
leadership beyond the transformational-transactional leadership model.
The present research made an important, overarching contribution by integrating the
contingency and behavioral perspectives on leadership. Although we only found support for
perceptions of accident likelihood as moderator, the findings reinforce requests that the
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
41
transformational-transactional leadership framework needs to be refined by integrating
contingency views into its postulations (Avolio & Yammarino, 2013).
Practical Contributions
The research identified three moderation effects which lends some support that the
perceptions of risk for an accident interact with leadership styles’ effectiveness. These
findings have important practical implications for managers and supervisors. The degree to
which safety is perceived as critical within subordinates’ work environments is often not a
constant, but changes depending on the type of work-task or project employees are currently
performing. During some work periods employees work in settings where safety is highly
critical and on other work days perceptions of the risk for an accident is more moderate or
low. For example, one of the host organizations was an oil and gas service provider where
participants alternate between working on an offshore installation and working onshore at the
company’s base. Similarly, despite working in the same location, perceptions of context
might vary between teams as different job groups interact differently with their work
environment. Our results indicate that their supervisors should engage in MBEA when
working offshore in situations when employees are likely to perceive the risk for an accident
as higher, but that MBEA practices when working on tasks where perceived risk for accidents
is lower, could be detrimental for performance. This practical implication can be transferred
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
42
to a range of other work settings where subordinates oscillate between conditions with
differing degrees of risk for an accident. However, as discussed above it is likely that
followers’ perceptions of their context are influenced by variables other than the objective
context itself (e.g., individual differences, leader’s own behavior), which were not assessed in
the present study. Moreover, team-level hazard exposure did not interact with leadership
style. Even if leaders have a repertoire of different behaviors, the key to using these
effectively may be in attuning leaders to their followers’ perceptions of the context and
understanding what factors, including leaders themselves, shape how followers perceive
context.
Limitations and Future Directions
Whilst our study had some key strengths such as the use of two-source data to counter
common source bias, the study exhibits several limitations. As noted above, one limitation is
the cross-sectional study design, which restricts conclusions about the direction of causality
for the links between leadership behaviors, perceptions of context and employee
performance. We investigated perceptions of accident likelihood and hazard exposure as
moderators, however these are also possible outcomes of leadership and follower behavior.
Both TFL and MBEA were negatively related to perceptions of accident likelihood, so that
followers might perceive a higher risk for an accident because of their leaders’ lack of active
leadership. Due to the cross-sectional nature of our data and because we assessed perceptions
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
43
of contextual aspects rather than a direct assessment of work context, we cannot make any
firm conclusions whether perceptions of accident likelihood impact on the effectiveness of
TFL and MBEA, or whether the level of TFL and MBEA determines followers’ perceptions
of accident likelihood. Future research should contrast perception of context to more
objective measures of hazards and risk, such as safety audits or external risk assessments, to
examine whether these overlap or interact differently with leader behavior. Moreover, future
research using a longitudinal design is needed to shed further light on the degree to which
followers’ perceptions of their context are influenced by external factors such as their
leader’s behavior as well as their own safety behavior and inherent characteristics (e.g.,
chronic regulatory-focus).
Our sample size at the team-level was modest and the number of cases within teams
was small. Aguinis et al. (2013) discuss that multilevel research faces a particular dilemma
of balancing out the chances for making a Type I and Type II error. We chose to employ
multilevel modeling to take the nested data structures into account and avoid overestimating
significance levels; however, small sample sizes at the higher-unit reduce statistical power,
increasing the risk for Type II error (Aguinis et al., 2013). Although, this means that
estimates are likely to be conservative and the moderator effect that did emerge as significant
might have actually been underestimated (Mathieu, Aguinis, Culpepper, & Chen, 2012).
There is a complex combination of factors influencing power in models with random slopes
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
44
and clear guidelines for estimating power in cross-level interaction models are still to be
developed (Scherbaum & Ferreter, 2009; Mathieu & Chen, 2011). In a simulation study,
Mathieu et al. (2012) reported that effect size of the cross-level interaction, Level 1 sample
size, Level 2 sample size, and standard deviation of the slopes are critical factors for
influencing power in cross-level interaction models and that these factors interact with each
other in determining power.
Conclusion
Our research made a principal contribution by merging transformational-transactional
leadership as a behavioral leadership approach with contingency views of leadership by
investigating the level at which safety is critical as a contextual characteristic. Results showed
that perceptions of the level of accident likelihood in subordinates’ work context present a
constraint of the effectiveness of TFL and MBEA for team members’ safety participation and
contextual performance.
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
45
References
Aguinis, H., Gottfredson, R. K., & Culpepper, S. A. (2013). Best-practice recommendations
for estimating cross-level interaction effects using multilevel modeling. Journal of
Management, 39(6), 1490-1528. doi: 10.1177/0149206313478188
Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership: An
examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(3), 261-295. doi:
10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00030-4
Arvonen, J., & Ekvall, G. (1999). Effective leadership style: Both universal and contingent?
Creativity and Innovation Management, 8(4), 242-250. doi: 10.1111/1467-
8691.00143
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1995). MLQ Multifactor leadership questionnaire. Redwood
City, CA: Mind Garden.
Avolio, B. J., & Yammarino, F. J. (2013). Introduction to, and overview of, transformational
and charismatic leadership. In B. J. Avolio & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.),
Transformational and Charismatic Leadership: The road ahead (pp. xxvii-xxxiii).
Bingley, UK: Emerald.
Baran, B. E., & Scott, C. W. (2010). Organizing ambiguity: A grounded theory of leadership
and sensemaking within dangerous contexts. Military Psychology, 22(S1), S42 – S69.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08995601003644262
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
46
Barling, J., Loughlin, C., & Kelloway, E. K. (2002). Development and test of a model linking
safety-specific transformational leadership and occupational safety. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 87(3), 488-496. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.488Bass, B.
(1985). Leadership and performance beyond exceptions. New York, NY: Free Press.
Barnette, J. J. (2000). Effects of stem and Likert response option reversals on survey internal
consistency: If you feel the need, there is a better alternative to using those negatively
worded stems. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(3), 361–370. doi:
10.1177/00131640021970592
Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond exceptions: New York, NY: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership. Mawah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bliese, P. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability. In K.
Klein & S. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multi-level theory, research, and methods in
organizations (pp. 349-381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Personality and transformational and transactional
leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 901-910. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.901
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance:
The meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10(2), 99-109.
doi: 10.1207/s15327043hup1002_3
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
47
Christian, M. S., Bradley, J. C., Wallace, J. C., & Burke, M. J. (2009). Workplace safety: A
meta-analysis of the roles of person and situation factors. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 94(5), 1103-1127.doi: 10.1037/a0016172
Clarke, S. (2010). An integrative model of safety climate: Linking psychological climate and
work attitudes to individual safety outcomes using meta-analysis. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(3), 553-578. doi:
10.1348/096317909X452122
Clarke, S. (2013). Safety leadership: A meta‐analytic review of transformational and
transactional leadership styles as antecedents of safety behaviours. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 86(1), 22-49. doi:
10.1111/j.20448325.2012.02064.x
Cox, S., & Cheyne, A. (2000). Assessing safety culture in offshore environments. Safety
Science, 34(1-3), 111-129. doi: 10.1016/S0925-7535(00)00009-6
Crowe, E., & Higgins, E.T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: promotion
and prevention in decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 69(2), 117-132. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1996.2675
Dahl, Ø., & Olsen, E. (2013). Safety compliance on offshore platforms: A multi- sample
survey on the role of perceived leadership involvement and work climate. Safety
Science, 54, 17-26. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2012.11.003
Dawson, J. F. (2014). Moderation in management research: What, why, when, and how.
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
48
Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(1), 1-19. doi: 10.1007/s10869-013-9308-7
DeChurch, L. A., Burke, C.S., Shuffler, M.L., Lyons, R., Doty, D., & Salas, E. (2011). A
historiometric analysis of leadership in mission critical multiteam environments. The
Leadership Quarterly, 22(1), 152-169. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.013
Dedobbeleer, N., & Béland, F. (1991). A safety climate measure for construction sites.
Journal of Safety Research, 22(2), 97-103. doi: 10.1016/0022-4375(91)90017-P
Deery, H. A. (2000). Hazard and risk perception among young novice drivers. Journal of
Safety Research, 30(4), 225-236. doi: 10.1016/S0022-4375(99)00018-3
DeJoy, D. M., Schaffer, B. S., Wilson, M. G., Vandenberg, R. J., & Butts, M. M. (2004).
Creating safer workplaces: Assessing the determinants and role of safety climate.
Journal of Safety Research, 35(1), 81-90. doi: 10.1016/j.jsr.2003.09.018
Den Hartog, D. N., Van Muijen, J. J., & Koopman, P. L. (1997). Transactional versus
transformational leadership: An analysis of the MLQ. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 70(1), 19-34.doi: 10.1111/j.2044-
8325.1997.tb00628.x
Denison, D. R., Hooijberg, R., & Quinn, R. E. (1995). Paradox and performance: Toward a
theory of behavioral complexity in managerial leadership. Organization Science, 6(5),
524-540. doi: 10.1287/orsc.6.5.524
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
49
Derler, A., & Weibler, J. (2014). The ideal employee: context and leaders’ implicit follower
theories. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,35(5), 386-409. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-12-2012-0158
DeRue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N., & Humphrey, S. E. (2011). Trait and behavioral
theories of leadership: An integration and meta‐analytic test of their relative validity.
Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 7-52. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01201.x
De Vries, R. E., Roe, R. A., & Taillieu, T. C. (2002). Need for leadership as a moderator of
the relationships between leadership and individual outcomes. The Leadership
Quarterly, 13(2), 121-137. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00097-8
Dierdorff, E. C., Rubin, R. S., & Morgeson, F. P. (2009). The milieu of managerial work: an
integrative framework linking work context to role requirements. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 94(4), 972 – 988. doi: 10.1037/a0015456
Dóci, E., & Hofmans, J. (2015). Task complexity and transformational leadership: The
mediating role of leaders' state core self-evaluations. The Leadership
Quarterly, 26(3), 436-447. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.02.008
Eisinga, R., Grotenhuis, M. T., & Pelzer, B. (2013). The reliability of a two-item scale:
Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown?. International Journal of Public Health, 58,
637-642. doi: 10.1007/s00038-012-0416-3
Emrich, C. G. (1999). Context effects in leadership perception. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 25(8), 991-1006. doi: 10.1177/01461672992511007
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
50
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1),
39-50. doi: 10.2307/3151312
Fiedler, F. E. (1964). A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 149-190). New York, NY:
Academic Press.
Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J. (2001). The effects of promotion and prevention cues on
creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 1001-1013. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.1001
Graen, G. B., & 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, 6(2),
219-247.doi: 10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5
Griffin, M. A., & Hu, X. (2013). How leaders differentially motivate safety compliance and
safety participation: The role of monitoring, inspiring, and learning. Safety Science,
60, 196-202. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2013.07.019
Griffin, M. A., & Neal, A. (2000). Perceptions of safety at work: A framework for linking
safety climate to safety performance, knowledge, and motivation. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 5(3), 347-358. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.5.3.347
Griffin, M.A., Neal, A., & Parker, S.K. (2007). A new model of work role performance:
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
51
Positive Behaviour in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of
Management Journal, 50(2), 327-347. doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2007.24634438
Griffin, M. A., & Talati, Z. (2011, August). Meta-analysis of active management-by-
exception-active variability across leadership contexts. Paper presented at the
Academy of Management annual conference, San Antonio, TX.
Hamstra, M. R., Van Yperen, N. W., Wisse, B., & Sassenberg, K. (2014). Transformational
and transactional leadership and followers’ achievement goals. Journal of Business
and Psychology, 29(3), 413-425. doi: 10.1007/s10869-013-9322-9
Hannah, S. T., Balthazard, P. A., Waldman, D. A., Jennings, P. L., & Thatcher, R. W. (2013).
The psychological and neurological bases of leader self-complexity and effects on
adaptive decision-making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(3), 393-411. doi:
10.1037/a0032257
Hannah, S. T., Uhl-Bien, M., Avolio, B., & Cavarretta, F. (2009). A framework for
examining leadership in extreme con- texts. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 897-919.
doi:10.1016/j. leaqua.2009.09.006
Hansson, S. O. (2010). Risk: objective or subjective, facts or values. Journal of Risk
Research, 13(2), 231-238. doi: 10.1080/13669870903126226
Hinkin, T. R., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2008). A theoretical and empirical examination of the
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
52
transactional and non-leadership dimensions of the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire (MLQ). The Leadership Quarterly, 19(5), 501-513. doi:
10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.07.001
Howell, J. P., Dorfman, P. W., & Kerr, S. (1986). Moderator variables in leadership research.
Academy of Management Review, 11(1), 88-102. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1986.4282632
Inness, M., Turner, N., Barling, J., & Stride, C. B. (2010). Transformational leadership and
employee safety performance: A within-person, between-jobs design. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 15(3), 279-290. doi: 10.1037/a0019380
Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of
Management Review, 31(2), 386-408. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2006.20208687
Johnson, R. E., Venus, M., Lanaj, K., Mao, C., & Chang, C. H. (2012). Leader identity as an
antecedent of the frequency and consistency of transformational, consideration, and
abusive leadership behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(6), 1262-1272. doi:
10.1037/a0029043
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-
analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755-768.
doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755
Kapp, E. (2012). The influence of supervisor leadership practices and perceived group safety
climate on employee safety performance. Safety Science, 50(4), 1119- 1124. doi:
10.1016/j.ssci.2011.11.011
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
53
Kark, R., & Van Dijk, D. (2007). Motivation to lead, motivation to follow: The role of the
self-regulatory focus in leadership processes. Academy of Management Review, 32(2),
500-528. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2007.24351846
Kelloway, E. K., Mullen, J., & Francis, L. (2006). Divergent effects of transformational and
passive leadership on employee safety. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
11(1), 76-86. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.11.1.76
Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and
measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22(3), 375-403.
doi: 10.1016/0030-5073(78)90023-5
Liden, R. C., & Antonakis, J. (2009). Considering context in psychological leadership
research. Human Relations, 62(11), 1587-1605. doi: 10.1177/0018726709346374
Lim, B. C., & Ployhart, R. E. (2004). Transformational leadership: relations to the five-factor
model and team performance in typical and maximum contexts. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89(4), 610-621. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.4.610
Lord, R. G., & Emrich, C. G. (2001). Thinking outside the box by looking inside the box:
Extending the cognitive revolution in leadership research. The Leadership
Quarterly, 11(4), 551-579. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(00)00060-6
Lord, R. G., Hannah, S. T., & Jennings, P. L. (2011). A framework for understanding
leadership and individual requisite complexity. Organizational Psychology Review,
1(2), 104-127. doi: 10.1177/2041386610384757
Mathieu, J. E., Aguinis, H., Culpepper, S. A., & Chen, G. (2012). Understanding and
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
54
estimating the power to detect cross-level interaction effects in multilevel modeling.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(5), 951-966. doi: 10.1037/a0028380
Mathieu, J. E., & Chen, G. (2011). The etiology of the multilevel paradigm in management
research. Journal of Management, 37(2), 610-641. doi: 10.1177/0149206310364663
Morgeson, F. P. (2005). The external leadership of self-managing teams: Intervening in the
context of novel and disruptive events. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 497-
508. 10.1037/0021-9010.90.3.497
Morrow, P. C., & Crum, M. R. (1998). The effects of perceived and objective safety risk on
employee outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 53(2), 300-313. doi:
10.1006/jvbe.1997.1620
Mullen, J. E., & Kelloway, E. K. (2009). Safety leadership: A longitudinal study of
the effects of transformational leadership on safety outcomes. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82(2), 253-272. doi:
10.1348/096317908X325313
Mumford, M. D., Friedrich, T. L., Caughron, J. J., & Byrne, C. L. (2007). Leader cognition in
real-world settings: How do leaders think about crises? The Leadership
Quarterly, 18(6), 515-543. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.09.002
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2010) Mplus user’s guide (7th ed). Los Angeles, CA:
Muthén & Muthén.
Nagy, M. S. (2002). Using a single-item approach to measure facet job satisfaction. Journal
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
55
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75(1), 77-86. doi:
10.1348/096317902167658
O'Dea, A., & Flin, R. (2001). Site managers and safety leadership in the offshore oil and gas
industry. Safety Science, 37(1), 39-57. doi: 10.1016/S0925-7535(00)00049-7
Payne, S. C., Bergman, M. E., Beus, J. M., Rodríguez, J. M., & Henning, J. B. (2009). Safety
climate: Leading or lagging indicator of safety outcomes?. Journal of Loss Prevention
in the Process Industries, 22(6), 735-739. doi: 10.1016/j.jlp.2009.07.017
Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing
interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve
analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31(4), 437-448. doi:
10.3102/10769986031004437
Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for
assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15(3), 209-233. doi:
10.1037/a0020141
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data
analysis methods. London, UK: Sage.
Roberts, K. H. (1993). Cultural characteristics of reliability enhancing organizations. Journal
of Managerial Issues, 5(2), 165-181. doi: 40603976
Rodriguez, M. A., & Griffin, M. A. (2009). From error prevention to error learning: The role
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
56
of error management in global leadership. Advances in Global Leadership, 5, 93-112.
doi: 10.1108/S1535-1203(2009)0000005008
Rowold, J. (2011). Relationship between leadership behaviors and performance: The
moderating role of a work team's level of age, gender, and cultural heterogeneity.
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 32(6), 628-647. doi:
10.1108/01437731111161094
Scherbaum, C. A., & Ferreter, J. M. (2009). Estimating statistical power and required sample
sizes for organizational research using multilevel modeling. Organizational Research
Methods, 12(2), 347-367. doi: 10.1177/1094428107308906
Schriesheim, C. A., & Eisenbach, R. J. (1995). An exploratory and confirmatory factor-
analytic investigation of item wording effects on the obtained factor structures of
survey questionnaire measures. Journal of Management, 21(6), 1177–1193. doi:
10.1177/014920639502100609
Schriesheim, C. A., Wu, J. B., & Scandura, T. A. (2009). A meso measure? Examination of
the levels of analysis of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). The
Leadership Quarterly, 20(4), 604-616. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.04.005
Seltzer, J., Numerof, R.E., & Bass, B.M. (1989). Transformational leadership: Is it a source
of more burnout and stress?. Journal of Health and Human Resources Administration,
12, 174-185. doi: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25780396
Shondrick, S.J., & Lord, R.G. (2010). Implicit leadership and followership theories: Dynamic
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
57
structures for leadership perceptions, memory, leader-follower processes. In G.P.
Hodgkinson & J.K. Ford (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 25 (pp. 1 – 33). Chichester, UK: John Wiley &
Sons.
Smothers, J., Bing, M. N., White, D., Trocchia, P. J., & Absher, K. (2011). From the
follower’s viewpoint: a configurational approach to the ideal academic
leader. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(3), 293 -307. doi:
10.1177/1548051811404420
Spector, P. E., Van Katwyk, P. T., Brannick, M. T., & Chen, P. Y. (1997). When two factors
don’t reflect two constructs: How item character- istics can produce artifactual
factors. Journal of Management, 23, 659–677. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0149-
2063(97)90020-9
Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting
leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. Leadership Quarterly, 18(4),
298-318. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.04.002
Ulleberg, P., & Rundmo, T. (2003). Personality, attitudes and risk perception as predictors of
risky driving behaviour among young drivers. Safety Science,41(5), 427-443. doi:
10.1016/S0925-7535(01)00077-7
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
58
Van Knippenberg, D., & Sitkin, S. B. (2013). A Critical Assessment of Charismatic—
Transformational Leadership Research: Back to the Drawing Board? The Academy of
Management Annals, 7(1), 1-60.
Villa, J. R., Howell, J. P., Dorfman, P. W., & Daniel, D. L. (2003). Problems with detecting
moderators in leadership research using moderated multiple regression. The
Leadership Quarterly, 14(1), 3-23. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00184-4
Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (2007). The role of the situation in leadership. American
Psychologist, 62(1), 17-24. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.62.1.17
Wallace, J. C., Johnson, P. D., & Frazier, M. L. (2009). An examination of the factorial,
construct, and predictive validity and utility of the regulatory focus at work scale.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(6), 805-831. doi: 10.1002/job.572
Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good are
single-item measures?. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2), 247-252. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.82.2.247
Yammarino, F. J., Mumford, M. D., Connelly, M. S., & Dionne, S. D. (2010). Leadership and
team dynamics for dangerous military contexts. Military Psychology, 22(S1), 15-41.
doi: 10.1080/08995601003644221
Yukl, G. A. (2010). Leadership in Organizations (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson.
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
59
Zohar, D. (2002). The effects of leadership dimensions, safety climate, and assigned priorities
on minor injuries in work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(1), 75-92.
doi: 10.1002/job.130
Zohar, D. (2010). Thirty years of safety climate research: Reflections and future directions.
Accident Analysis & Prevention, 42(5), 1517-1522. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2009.12.019
Table 1
Intra-Class-Coefficients and ANOVA for Study Variables
ICC1 ICC2 ANOVA F
Leadership variables
Transformational leadership .12 .50 2.17 **
Management-By-Exception-Active .09 .46 1.61*
Safety-critical context variables
Accident likelihood .05 .33 1.34
Hazard exposure .31 .77 4.44 ***
Outcome variables
Safety compliance .24 .68 3.15***
Safety participation .42 .82 5.57***
Task performance .16 .56 2.29**
Contextual performance .34 .76 4.14***
Notes. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
60
Table 2
Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations for Study Variables
Descriptive Statistics Correlations
M SD α 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
1.Transformational leadership 3.51 .71 .90 .96 .69*** -.28** .05 .03 -.01 .07 .02
2. MBEA 3.94 .68 .76 .79 -.30*** -.01 -.03 -.05 -.04 -.04
3. Accident likelihood 2.76 .90 .56 .64 .15 -.20* -.03 -.17 -.09
4. Team-level hazard exposure 3.52 .46 - - .19* .38*** .18* .38***
5. Safety compliance 3.58 .65 .86 .90 .51*** .56*** .52***
6. Safety participation 3.00 .81 .93 .90 .59*** .81***
7. Task performance 3.98 .65 .87 .85 .59***
8. Contextual performance 3.18 .91 .90 .88
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
61
Notes. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001, MBEA = Management-By-Exception-Active. Values along the diagonal in italic are
square root of AVE.
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
62
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
63
Table 3
Testing the Moderating Effects of Team-Level Hazard Exposure and Accident likelihood on the Association between
Transformational Leadership and Management-By-Exception-Active to Safety Compliance and Safety Participation.
Variables a. Safety Compliance b. Safety Participation
SE SE SE SE
Intercept 3.72 3.78 4.08 4.08
Sample -.07 .18 -.07 .21 -.58 .40 -.53 .43
Transformational leadership .15 .11 .15 .10 -.04 .09 .02 .09
MBEA -.14 .12 -.12 .08 .07 .14 -.03 .11
Accident likelihood -.17** .06 -.20** .07 -.08 .08 -.12 .08
Team-level hazard exposure .19 .17 .20 .19 -.05 .38 .06 .45
Accident likelihood × TFL .16 .12 -.18 .11
Accident likelihood × MBEA -.02 .16 .62*** .17
Team-level hazard exposure × TFL -.19 .17 -.18 .20
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
64
Team-level hazard exposure × MBEA .35 .32 .49 .30
χ2 Log Likelihood -603.897 -567.289 -626.082 -579.712
∆χ2 LL (∆df =6)a 133.69*** 169.62***
Notes. *p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001, acompared to model without interactions, TFL = Transformational leadership, MBEA =
Management-By-Exception-Active.
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
65
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
66
Table 4
Testing the Moderating Effects of Team-Level Hazard Exposure and Accident likelihood on the Association between
Transformational Leadership and Management-By-Exception-Active to Task Performance and Contextual Performance (N = 160)
Variables c. Task Performance d. Contextual Performance
SE SE SE SE
Intercept 3.82 3.81 4.44 4.37
Sample .14 .19 .20 .21 -.70* .34 -.62 .35
Transformational leadership .16 .09 .27** .11 -.01 .13 .04 .13
MBEA -.14 .12 -.21 .12 .01 .12 -.07 .09
Accident likelihood -.11 .06 -.12* .06 -.17** .06 -.19** .06
Team-level hazard exposure .30* .14 .39* .18 .10 .34 .15 .40
Accident likelihood × TFL .03 .15 -.41* .17
Accident likelihood × MBEA .29 .19 .88*** .26
Team-level hazard exposure × TFL .19 .21 .03 .26
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
67
Team-level hazard exposure × MBEA .21 .29 .50 .23
χ2 Log Likelihood -613.09 -571.67 -644.31 -601.20
∆χ2 LL (∆df =6)a 155.22*** 214.62***
Notes. *p < .05 **p < .01, ***p < .01 acompared to model without interactions, TFL = Transformational leadership, MBEA = Management-By-
Exception-Active.
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
68
Figure 1. Summary of hypotheses and conceptual integration of behavioral and contingency
perspectives of leadership.
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
69
Figure 2. Accident likelihood as moderator of the relationship between MBEA and safety
participation for low accident likelihood (-1 SD below the mean), medium (mean) and for
high accident likelihood (+1 SD above the mean). MBEA = Management-By-Exception-
Active.
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
70
Figure 3. Accident likelihood as moderator of the relationship between MBEA and
contextual performance for low accident likelihood (-1 SD below the mean), medium (mean)
and for high accident likelihood (+1 SD above the mean). MBEA = Management-By-
Exception-Active.
CONTEXTUALIZING LEADERSHIP
71
Figure 4. Accident likelihood as moderator of the relationship between TFL and contextual
performance for low accident likelihood (-1 SD below the mean), medium (mean) and for
high accident likelihood (+1 SD above the mean). TFL = Transformational Leadership.