Nguyen Viet Quan, Turner Nick, Barling Julian, Axtell Carolyn M, Davies Simon
Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary, Canada.
Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary, Canada.
J Safety Res. 2023 Feb;84:435-447. doi: 10.1016/j.jsr.2022.12.006. Epub 2022 Dec 15.
Research exploring the relationship between transformational leadership and safety has used transformational leadership in context-free (e.g., "general transformational leadership," or GTL) and context-specific forms (e.g., "safety-specific transformational leadership," or SSTL), assuming these constructs are theoretically and empirically equivalent. In this paper, a paradox theory is drawn on (Schad, Lewis, Raisch, & Smith, 2016; Smith & Lewis, 2011) to reconcile the relationship between these two forms of transformational leadership and safety.
This is done by: (a) investigating whether GTL and SSTL are empirically distinguishable; (b) testing the relative importance of GTL and SSTL in explaining variance in context-free work outcomes (i.e., in-role performance, organizational citizenship behaviors) and context-specific (i.e., safety compliance, safety participation); and (c) examining the extent to which perceived safety concern in the work environment renders GTL and SSTL distinguishable.
Two studies (one cross-sectional, one short-term longitudinal) show that GTL and SSTL are psychometrically distinct albeit highly correlated. Furthermore, SSTL explained statistically more variance than GTL in both safety participation and organizational citizenship behaviors, whereas GTL explained more variance in in-role performance than did SSTL. However, GTL and SSTL were only distinguishable in low-concern contexts but not high-concern contexts.
These findings challenge the "either-or" (vs "both-and") approach to considering safety and performance, cautioning researchers to consider nuanced differences in context-free and context-specific forms of leadership and to avoid further proliferation of often redundant context-specific operationalizations of leadership.
探索变革型领导与安全之间关系的研究采用了无情境（如“一般变革型领导”，或GTL）和特定情境形式（如“安全特定变革型领导”，或SSTL）的变革型领导，假定这些构念在理论和实证上是等效的。本文借鉴了悖论理论（沙德、刘易斯、赖施和史密斯，2016年；史密斯和刘易斯，2011年）来调和这两种变革型领导形式与安全之间的关系。
通过以下方式实现：（a）调查GTL和SSTL在实证上是否可区分；（b）测试GTL和SSTL在解释无情境工作成果（即角色内绩效、组织公民行为）和特定情境（即安全合规、安全参与）的方差方面的相对重要性；（c）检查工作环境中感知到的安全关注度在多大程度上使GTL和SSTL可区分。
两项研究（一项横断面研究，一项短期纵向研究）表明，GTL和SSTL在心理测量学上是不同的，尽管相关性很高。此外，在安全参与和组织公民行为方面，SSTL在统计学上解释的方差比GTL更多，而在角色内绩效方面，GTL解释的方差比SSTL更多。然而，GTL和SSTL仅在低关注度情境中可区分，在高关注度情境中则不可区分。
这些发现挑战了在考虑安全和绩效时采用的“非此即彼”（而非“两者兼顾”）方法，提醒研究人员要考虑无情境和特定情境领导形式的细微差异，并避免进一步增加往往冗余的特定情境领导操作化。
