Reconciling general transformational leadership and safety-specific transformational leadership: A paradox perspective

• Published in: Journal of safety research Vol. 84; pp. 435 - 447
• Main Authors: Nguyen, Viet Quan, Turner, Nick, Barling, Julian, Axtell, Carolyn M., Davies, Simon
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Ltd 01.02.2023
• Subjects: Cross-Sectional Studies; Humans; Leadership; Paradox; Relative weight analysis; Research Design; Safety; Transformational leadership; Paradox; Relative weight analysis; Transformational leadership; Safety
• ISSN: 0022-4375; 1879-1247
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jsr.2022.12.006

•We investigated the relationship between general transformational leadership (GTL) and safety-specific transformational leadership (SSTL).•Measurement models show that GTL and SSTL are distinct albeit highly correlated constructs.•We use paradox theory to argue for “either-or” and “both-and” mindsets in considering the relationship between safety and performance.•Perceived safety concern in the work environment helps to distinguish GTL and SSTL. Introduction: 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. Method: 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. Results: 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. Conclusions and Practical Applications: 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.