The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0969-9988.htm
ECAM
26,6
886
Received 18 January 2018
Revised 1 March 2018
7 April 2018
Accepted 9 April 2018
Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management
Vol. 26 No. 6, 2019
pp. 886-906
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0969-9988
DOI 10.1108/ECAM-01-2018-0015
Effect of leadership and
communication practices on the
safety climate and behaviour of
construction workgroups
Helen Lingard, Rita Peihua Zhang and David Oswald
School of Property, Construction and Project Management,
Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Australia
Abstract
Purpose – The leadership style and communication practices of supervisors in the Australian construction
industry were measured. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the effect of leadership style and communication
practices of Australian construction supervisors on workgroup health and safety (H&S) climate and behaviour.
Design/methodology/approach – A questionnaire was administered to members of 20 workgroups
engaged in rail construction work on the Level Crossing Removal Project and the Melbourne Metro Tunnel
Project in Victoria, Australia. The survey measured components of supervisors’ transformational and
transactional leadership, communication practices, the group H&S climate and workers’ self-reported H&S
compliance and participation.
Findings – Supervisors’ transformational and transactional leadership, as well as communication practices,
were all positively and significantly correlated with group H&S climate and workers’ self-reported H&S
behaviours. The transformational leadership component of providing an appropriate model was the strongest
predictor of H&S participation, while H&S compliance was predicted by the transactional leadership
component of providing contingent reward, as well as supervisors’ communication practices. H&S climate
fully mediated the relationship between supervisory leadership and workers’ self-reported H&S behaviour.
Originality/value – The research demonstrates that both transformational and transactional supervisory
leadership are important in the construction context. Effective communication between supervisors and workers
is also important for H&S. The findings suggest that supervisory leadership development programmes may be
an effective way to improve H&S performance in predominantly subcontracted construction workgroups.
Keywords Management, Questionnaire survey, Construction safety, Leadership, Communication, Safety climate
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Management attitudes and behaviours are frequently measured as one of the core and most
influential components of an organisation’s safety climate, and driver of organisational
health and safety (H&S) performance (Flin et al., 2000; Guldenmund, 2000, 2007).
Much research has focussed on managers’ commitment to H&S, defined as “the extent to
which management is perceived to place a high priority on safety and communicate and act
on safety issues effectively” (Neal and Griffin, 2004, p. 27). Workers’ perceptions of
managers’ commitment to H&S are reported to be significantly and consistently linked to
various aspects of H&S performance (Beus et al., 2010; Christian et al., 2009).
Fruhen et al. (2014) suggest managers convey their level of commitment to H&S through their:
• decision and policy making;
• active involvement in H&S;
• communication with the workforce; and
• influence on organisational practices.
This research was funded by the Major Transport Infrastructure Program, Department of Economic
Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources, Victorian State Government.
Conversely, poor management decision making and ineffective leadership are often Leadership
identified as factors in workplace accidents. As Hopkins (2006) comments: “[…] while and
[a worker’s] unsafe behaviour may have triggered the accident, that behaviour is better communication
viewed as something requiring explanation rather than in itself an explanation. The
moment we begin to ask why the behaviour occurred we move back along various causal practices
chains that invariably implicate management” (p. 585).
Effective managerial safety leadership has technical- and relationship-based components. 887
For example, Fruhen et al. (2014) report that managers whose behaviour demonstrates strong
H&S commitment are effective in problem-solving and possess high levels of social competence.
In construction, supervisors play a pivotal role in planning, organising and facilitating
daily work activities of predominantly subcontracted workgroups (Hardison et al., 2014).
Supervisors are the conduit through which organisational priorities are communicated to
the workforce, yet they often have little formal management training. Understanding the
influence of supervisors’ leadership styles and communication practices on workers’
performance is important so as to be able to assist supervisors to understand the nature of
their role and their potential to influence project outcomes.

Research aims
The current research sought to investigate the relationships between supervisory leadership
styles and communication practices in the Australian construction industry. Specifically we
sought to:
• explore the relationships between supervisory leadership styles and the prevailing
safety climate in predominantly subcontracted workgroups;
• explore the relationships between supervisors’ communication practices and the
prevailing safety climate in predominantly subcontracted workgroups;
• identify the supervisory leadership styles that are significantly related to H&S
compliance and H&S participation; and
• determine whether safety climate acts as a linking mechanism between supervisors’
leadership behaviour and workers’ H&S-related behaviour.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. First we review the extant literature
relating to supervisors’ influence on H&S, the link between leadership style and H&S and
the importance of communication practices to H&S. We then describe the methods used to
collect and analyse data relating to leadership, safety climate and H&S behaviour and
present the results of the statistical analysis of data. Finally, we discuss the results and draw
conclusions relating to the influence of supervisors’ leadership on H&S in predominantly
subcontracted workgroups in the Australian construction setting.

Literature review
Supervisors’ influence on H&S
Supervisors are believed to have a particularly strong influence on H&S practice and
performance (Hardison et al., 2014; Simard and Marchand, 1994).
Simard and Marchand investigated the impact of macro-organisational level and
micro-supervisory leadership factors on workers’ H&S performance. They report that
supervisors’ practices are the strongest predictor of a workgroup’s propensity to adopt
H&S initiatives (Simard and Marchand, 1995) and to comply with H&S rules (Simard and
Marchand, 1997). The influence of supervisors was considerably stronger than organisation-level
factors, such as top management commitment to H&S and values espoused in organisational
H&S policies.
ECAM In the Australian construction industry, Lingard et al. (2012) found that supervisors are
26,6 more likely to have a significant impact on H&S compared to senior managers and H&S
managers. The stronger impact of supervisors on workgroup H&S performance is explained
in terms of the relative frequency of interactions. Thus, workers have relatively rare
interaction with senior management but generally receive daily instruction from their
supervisor. Fugas et al. (2011) argue that the social norms arising from group processes are
888 more powerful, proximal and relevant to workers, and therefore more likely to produce
behaviour change.
Mattila et al. (1994) studied the influence of supervisory behaviour on H&S in the Finnish
construction context and reported that effective supervisors pay attention to monitoring
worker performance, and give workers feedback about their work practices, more often than
less effective supervisors. More recently, Finneran et al. (2012) undertook a study of the
London Olympics construction programme and identify supervisors’ capabilities as a key
determinant of workers’ H&S practices. In Denmark, Jeschke et al. (2017) reported that
training supervisors to understand their role, responsibilities and influence, and in effective
leadership and communication practices produced significant H&S benefits.

Transformational leadership
Most research investigating the impact of managerial leadership on H&S has focussed on
transformational leadership (see, e.g. Barling et al., 2002; Conchie and Donald, 2009;
Kelloway et al., 2006; Zohar and Luria, 2004; Shen et al., 2017).
Transformational leadership is said to occur “when leaders broaden and elevate the
interests of their employees, when they generate awareness and acceptance of the purposes
and mission of the group, and when they stir their employees to look beyond their own
self-interest for the good of the group” (Bass, 1990, p. 21).
Transformational leadership has four main facets, as follows:
(1) Idealised influence is the degree to which the leader behaves in admirable ways that
cause followers to identify with the leader. Charismatic leaders display conviction,
take stands, and appeal to followers on an emotional level.
(2) Inspirational motivation is the degree to which the leader articulates a vision that is
appealing and inspiring to followers. Leaders demonstrating inspirational
motivation challenge followers with high standards, communicate optimism about
future goal attainment and provide meaning for the task at hand.
(3) Intellectual stimulation is the degree to which the leader challenges assumptions,
takes risks and solicits followers’ ideas. Leaders with this trait stimulate and
encourage creativity in their followers.
(4) Individualised consideration is the degree to which the leader attends to each
follower’s needs, acts as a mentor or coach to the follower and listens to the
follower’s concerns and needs ( Judge and Piccolo, 2004, p. 755).
Some research has examined the influence of generalised transformational leadership
(i.e. leadership behaviour that is not specific to H&S). Inness et al. (2010) argue this is
appropriate because managers do not deal exclusively with H&S but interact with workers
in relation to many different issues and objectives. Investigating the extent to which
generalised transformational leadership affects workers’ H&S performance therefore
reflects “the lived reality of supervisors whose daily priorities reflect a range of issues, and
not safety alone” (p. 280).
Inness et al. (2010) conducted a survey among “moonlighters” (i.e. workers who have
more than one job) to investigate the relationship between supervisors’ generalised
transformational leadership behaviours and workers’ H&S performance. Two aspects of Leadership
H&S performance were investigated: and
(1) H&S compliance, which is concerned with meeting minimum H&S standards at communication
work (e.g. complying with H&S rules and procedures); and practices
(2) H&S participation, which describes voluntary behaviours taken to improve and
promote H&S beyond minimum levels of compliance (e.g. helping to promote H&S 889
programmes in the workplace).
Inness et al. (2010) found that supervisors’ transformational leadership positively predicted
workers’ H&S participation, but not their H&S compliance. Furthermore, transformational
leadership in one work context (job) was unrelated to workers’ H&S performance in other
contexts (jobs). This suggests that the motivational effect of transformational leadership on
H&S participation is leader specific and does not transfer between employment contexts,
unless supervisors remain the same.
Research has also examined the effect of safety-specific transformational leadership on
H&S-related performance and outcomes. Leaders demonstrating safety-specific
transformational leadership “take an active and inspirational approach to safety issues,
serving as good models of safety behaviour and encouraging others to work in a safe
manner” (Kelloway et al., 2006, p. 78).
Although transformational leadership has been linked to a range of H&S outcomes, it
has generally been reported to exert a stronger impact on discretional H&S behaviours
(such as extra-role behaviour, safety citizenship and participation) than on compliance with
minimum H&S standards and rules (Christian et al., 2009; Clarke, 2013).
For example, Conchie and Donald (2009) examined the combined effect of safety-specific
trust and safety-specific transformational leadership on workers’ safety citizenship
behaviours (SCB). SCB refers to being proactive in participating and initiating
improvements in H&S. SCB is believed to be important in enabling organisations to
improve their H&S performance beyond levels achieved by focusing on establishing and
enforcing rules (Didla et al., 2009). Conchie and Donald also report that the effect of
safety-specific transformational leadership and workers’ SCB depended on the extent to
which workers trusted their supervisors. When trust was high or moderate,
transformational leadership had a positive effect on workers’ SCB. However, when trust
was low, supervisors’ transformational leadership was not related to SCB. This indicates the
importance of trust in supervisor–worker relationships and highlights that trust is
important to supervisors’ leadership effectiveness in H&S.
Mullen et al. (2017) examined the impact of safety-specific transformational leadership on
the link between an organisation’s fulfilment of its basic H&S responsibilities (e.g. in
providing a basic level of H&S training, PPE and equipment maintenance) and worker H&S
compliance and participation. They found that, when employers are perceived to have
fulfilled their H&S-related obligations, workers tend to reciprocate with positive safety
performance behaviours. However, where supervisors are high in safety-specific
transformational leadership, the positive effect of providing these basic H&S measures is
significantly increased. These findings highlight the important role played by leaders in
promoting safety within organisations because good leadership enhances the effectiveness
of policies and practices that are mandated by H&S legislation.

Transactional leadership
Compared to transformational leadership, less attention has been paid to the impact of a
transactional leadership style on H&S (Clarke, 2013). Contingent reward (a component of
transactional leadership) refers to the establishing “constructive transactions or exchanges
ECAM with followers: The leader clarifies expectations and establishes the rewards for meeting
26,6 these expectations” ( Judge and Piccolo, 2004, p. 755). The extent to which the leader takes
corrective action on the basis of results of leader–follower transactions is referred to as
management by exception, and this can either be active or passive. According to Judge and
Piccolo (2004) “The difference between management by exception – active and management
by exception – passive reflects the timing of the leader’s intervention. Active transactional
890 leaders monitor workers’ behaviour, anticipate problems, and take corrective actions before
the behaviour creates serious difficulties. Passive transactional leaders wait until the
behaviour has created problems before taking action” (pp. 755-756).
Transactional leadership is typically regarded as being less effective than
transformational leadership. For example, Bass (1990) describes transactional leadership
as a “prescription for mediocrity” (p. 20).
However, research suggests that some forms of transactional leadership can be effective
and important in promoting H&S.
For example, Zohar (2002) reports that contingent reward (a facet of transactional
leadership) is linked to workers’ involvement in fewer safety-related incidents. Kapp (2012)
also reports a strong positive association between contingent reward and workers’ H&S
compliance behaviour.
Clarke (2013) undertook a large meta-analysis of the relationship between leadership
and H&S. This meta-analysis included 103 past studies of leadership and H&S.
Clarke (2013) examined the differential impacts of transformational and transactional
leadership on workers’ H&S participation and compliance behaviours. She reports that
active management by exception leadership can be effective in relation to H&S, depending
on the leadership context. Thus, in work environments in which there is a strong emphasis
on error management, including in safety-critical organisations, active management by
exception is likely to have important positive impacts on H&S. In particular, active
transactional leaders:
• monitor workers’ behaviour;
• anticipate problems; and
• take proactive steps to implement corrective actions.
These are all key features of creating an organisational environment that supports the
correction of errors and learning from mistakes. Furthermore, in high risk work
environments there is a need to balance workers’ awareness of H&S risks with their
compliance with H&S rules. Clarke (2013) concludes that active transactional leadership
contributes to a positive H&S climate and safe work behaviours, over and above the impacts
accounted for by transformational leadership.
In particular, active transactional leadership is particularly important in ensuring H&S
compliance behaviour. The strong relationship between active transactional leadership and
workers’ perceptions of the importance of H&S in their workplace (the safety climate)
suggests that leaders demonstrate their commitment to H&S, and provide daily
reinforcement that high standards of H&S are expected, when they:
• are visible in a workplace;
• engage in active monitoring of H&S; and
• intervene quickly when problems occur.
Clarke (2013) also suggests that, while transformational leaders may be seen to be paying
“lip service” to H&S, active transactional leadership enhances leaders’ credibility. They are
seen to “walk the talk” and frequently check that the way work is being done is consistent
with organisational H&S rules and procedures.
 The findings of Clarke and others about the positive impacts of transactional leadership Leadership
are consistent with an augmentation theory of leadership in which transformational and
leadership is seen as something that develops from a foundation of effective transactional communication
leadership (see Bass et al., 2003).
practices
Safety climate as a linking mechanism
Safety climate has been identified as a linking mechanism through which leaders’ 891
behaviours influence H&S performance ( Jeschke et al., 2017).
Zohar (1980) first introduced the concept of safety climate which reflected workers’
perceptions of the priority placed on H&S relative to other project goals. The safety climate
has also been defined as “individual perceptions of policies, procedures, and practices
relating to safety in the workplace” (Neal and Griffin, 2006, p. 947).
Leaders are believed to play a key role in shaping safety climates that, in turn, influence
H&S behaviour and performance within organisations (Hoffmeister et al., 2014).
For example, Katz-Navon et al. (2005) found H&S performance behaviour is enhanced
when leader safety practices are combined with a high perceived organisational priority on
safety, and (Flin et al., 2000) found managers’ actions towards H&S are the component of the
safety climate that most consistently predicts objective measures of H&S performance.
Research has shown links between transformational leadership behaviour and the
development of strong and positive safety climates (Christian et al., 2009). Barling et al. (2002)
studied the effects of safety-specific transformational leadership on young workers’
perceptions of safety climate, safety-related events and occupational injuries. They found that
safety-specific transformational leadership was linked to positive safety climate perceptions
and reduced workers’ self-reports of safety-related events. Similarly, Mullen and Kelloway
(2009) provided evidence that training managers in safety-specific transformational leadership
enhances workers’ safety climate perceptions and H&S outcomes.
However, safety climate is manifest at different organisational levels. Zohar (2002)
proposed two levels of safety climate:
(1) that arising from the formal organisation-wide policies and procedures established
by top management; and
(2) that arising from the H&S practices associated with implementing company policies
and procedures within workgroups.
Supervisors are particularly influential in shaping local (workgroup level) safety climates because
they “filter” and interpret organisational H&S messages. Put simply, supervisors interact directly
with workers and communicate what “management really wants” (Leather, 1988).
Zohar (2002) demonstrated that workers develop shared perceptions about the
relative priority of H&S based on regular interactions with their supervisors.
These shared perceptions (or group safety climates) vary considerably between
workgroups and are linked to the occurrence of injuries within workgroups (Zohar, 2002).
Zohar (2002) suggested the development of group-level climates can explain why some
workgroups perform consistently better in H&S compared to other workgroups, even
when they work with the same set of organisational H&S policies and procedures, and
have similar H&S risk profiles. An analysis by Johnson (2007) validated a measure of
group-level safety climate developed by Zohar and Luria (2005), reporting that perceptions
of supervisors’ actions predicted H&S behaviour and the occurrence of incidents in the
manufacturing sector.
In a previous study of safety climate under conditions of subcontracting, Lingard et al.
(2010) report that subcontracted workgroups form distinct and influential safety climates
that shape the way that H&S is practised within these groups.
ECAM H&S communication
26,6 Open and frequent communication about H&S is identified as an important component of a
positive H&S culture, and an enabling factor for H&S performance (Cigularov et al., 2010).
Furthermore, communication regarding H&S is more likely to be effective when it is
multi-directional, i.e. it involves bottom-up and well as top-down communication of H&S
information (HSE, 2005a, b).
892 Effective H&S communication can:
• inform workers about H&S hazards, risks and ways of working safely;
• elicit important information about workers’ experiences and concerns; and
• elicit suggestions for ways to improve H&S.
Research highlights the critical role played by communication in establishing consensual
group norms “[…] because social interaction can occur only through communication, norms
cannot exist in the absence of communication among members of the group. Put another
way, norms are constructed, understood, and disseminated among group members through
communication” (Rimal and Real, 2003, p. 185).
Communication occurs at and between different levels within organisations and has been
linked to trust between workers and management (Conchie and Burns, 2008) and workers’
willingness to voice safety concerns (Hofmann and Morgeson, 1999; Kath et al., 2010).
In this research we focused on communication practices of supervisors in subcontracted
workgroups operating in the construction industry. Supervisors play a key role in
communicating with workgroup members about H&S (Mattila et al., 1994). Alsamadani et al.
(2013) investigated communication between workers and supervisors in work crews in the
US construction industry. They considered the H&S performance of nine work crews and
reported that crews with the highest relative H&S performance have formal safety
communication from management at least weekly. The bottom three performers had little to
no formal safety communication between workers and supervisors.
Zohar and Tenne-Gazit (2008) describe how workgroups develop strong and coherent
safety climates through an organisational socialisation process, during which new
workers become familiar with accepted and expected work practices. Fugas et al. (2011)
identify the instrumental role played by informal communication and the development of
social norms within workgroups. Furthermore, social norms arising from within-group
processes are likely to be more powerful, proximal and relevant to workers, than
formal H&S directives issued by higher level managers (Therkelsen and Fiebich, 2004).
In the construction project environment, in which many workers are engaged in
small subcontracted groups, intra-group communication is arguably more likely to
shape workers’ behaviours than H&S policies and procedures developed by the
principal contractor.
Supervisors are uniquely positioned to shape group members’ H&S behaviour because of
the frequency of interactions between workers and supervisors. Thus, supervisors’
communication skills have been identified as an important aspect of their competence
(Hardison et al., 2014).
Zohar (2002) describes how supervisors translate the contents of policy and procedure
documents into action directives on a daily basis and, in doing so, they create expectations
about the H&S-related behaviours that will be accepted in different work situations. Hofmann
et al. (2017) argue that micro-decisions made by supervisors every day in adapting
organisational policies and procedures into work instructions play a critical role in shaping
group norms and H&S behaviours. These micro-decisions often occur when group members
face conflicting objectives, such as safety, production efficiency or cost-cutting, and supervisors’
interactions communicate what is important and should be prioritised in a given situation.
Over time, these interactions help workers to more accurately understand the work Leadership
environment, make sense of events and develop a shared understanding of expected behaviours and
(or socially accepted norms) within the workgroup (Ostroff and Kozlowski, 1992). communication
practices
Research methods
Data collection
A survey was conducted with workers belonging to 20 workgroups engaged in rail 893
construction work on the Level Crossing Removal Project and the Melbourne Metro Tunnel
Project in Victoria, Australia. For the purposes of this study, a “workgroup” was defined as
a group of workers who work together at the same construction site and who take daily
instructions from a common supervisor.
The survey measured workers’ perceptions of their supervisors’ leadership style
and communication practices, and their workgroup safety climate. Workers were also
asked to report the frequency with which they engage in H&S-related compliance and
participation behaviours.
A generalised (rather than H&S specific) measure of leadership was used in the survey.
Inness et al. (2010) argue that measuring generalised leadership is important because it
reflects “the lived reality of supervisors, whose daily priorities reflect a range of issues, and
not safety alone” (p. 280).
Consequently, a leadership measure developed by Podsakoff et al. (1990) was used to
assess supervisors’ leadership styles. This leadership measure assessed the following
components of transformational leadership:
• providing an appropriate model, e.g. setting an example for workers to follow
(three items);
• fostering acceptance of group goals, e.g. getting workers to work together effectively
(four items);
• setting high performance expectations, e.g. establishing high expectations about the
way that work should be done (three items); and
• providing intellectual stimulation, e.g. challenging workers to think about their work
and suggest better ways of working as appropriate (four items).
We also used five items to measure the transactional leadership behaviour of contingent
reward, which describes leadership behaviours that offer rewards to workers in exchange
for satisfactory performance in performing tasks.
We used a five-item measure of communication practice developed by Cigularov et al. (2010),
reflecting a two-way communication style between supervisors and workers. Participants were
asked to respond to all leadership and communication items based on their experience of
working with their supervisor at their current worksite. Items were scored using a five-point
Likert response format ranging from “1 ¼ strongly disagree” to “5 ¼ strongly disagree”.
Workgroup safety climate was measured using a six-item scale. Items were drawn from
a larger tool that was previously developed and validated in the Australian construction
industry (Lingard et al., 2014). The six-item scale reflects group members’ H&S values and
responsibility for self and others. Participants were asked to score the items based on their
experience of working with their current workgroup. Items were scored using a five-point
Likert response format ranging from “1 ¼ strongly disagree” to “5 ¼ strongly disagree”.
Self-reported H&S behaviour was measured using a scale developed by Neal and Griffin
(2006). The scale comprises six items, three of which reflect workers’ compliance with H&S
rules and procedures. The remaining three items reflect workers’ participation in
discretionary H&S activities, e.g. voluntary behaviours in improving and promoting H&S.
ECAM Participants were asked to rate the extent to which they engage in these behaviours using a
26,6 five-point Likert response format (from “1 ¼ strongly disagree” to “5 ¼ strongly agree”).
The survey was conducted on-site with 20 workgroups across 11 different worksites
between August 2016 and May 2017. The number of participants in each group ranged from
two to six. In total, 73 workers participated in the surveys.
The survey was administered using the “TurningPoint” automated response system
894 with “KeePad” hand held devices. As most of the workgroups were relatively small in size
(ranging from two to six workers), workers were gathered around a laptop screen. Items
were shown on the screen and read out by a researcher. Workers were required to press a
number on the hand held devices to indicate their response to each item. This method of
survey administration helps to overcome potential language or literacy issues and ensures
anonymity of responses.

Data analysis
The internal consistency reliability of the scales/subscales was evaluated using Cronbach’s
α inter-item correlation coefficient. A Cronbach’s α value of 0.7 or above was considered to
indicate acceptable internal consistency reliability (Spector, 1992).
We undertook analysis at two levels. At the level of the workgroup, we examined
within-group agreement between members in terms of their perceptions of the group safety
climate, as well as supervisors’ leadership styles and communication practices. We assessed
within-group homogeneity using the rwg formula developed by James et al. (1993).
In order to compare the experiences of different workgroups, one-way analyses of
variance were conducted to compare mean scores (between workgroups) for leadership,
communication, safety climate and self-reported H&S behaviours.
At the individual level, we combined the data set (i.e. data from 20 groups) into one
sample, and performed multivariate analysis to look at the impact of leadership style and/or
communication practices on individual workers’ psychological perceptions of the safety
climate and their self-reported safety compliance and participation.
In order to determine the nature and strength of linkages between the variables
measured, bivariate correlation analyses were conducted. Multiple regression analysis was
performed to determine which leadership practices significantly predict safety climate and/
or H&S-related behaviour. Finally, procedures described by Baron and Kenny (1986) were
followed to test whether safety climates mediates supervisors’ leadership behaviour and
workers’ self-reported H&S-related behaviours.

Results
Profile of respondents
The profile of respondents is shown in Table I. The majority of the participants
(n ¼ 55, 75.3 per cent) indicated that they had been working for more than one month at the
project at which data were collected. Another ten participants (13.7 per cent) indicated that
they had worked at the project for more than one week but less than one month. Only five
participants (6.8 per cent) indicated that they had spent less than one week at the project.
The majority of participants (n ¼ 60, 82.2 per cent) indicated that they were not direct
employees of the principal contractor at the worksite at which data were collected.
When asked for how long they had worked with the principal contractor at the participating
worksite, only five participants (6.8 per cent) indicated they had less than one week of
working experience with the principal contractor and the majority (n ¼ 44, 60.3 per cent)
indicated they had more than six months of experience working with the principal contractor at
the worksite.
The majority of the participants indicated that they had worked with their current
supervisor for six months or longer (n ¼ 38, 52 per cent). In total, 8 participants (11 per cent)
 No. Per cent No. Per cent
Leadership
and
Time spent working on the project Direct employee of the principal contractor? communication
o1 week 5 6.8 Yes 12 16.4
Between 1 week and 1 month 10 13.7 No 60 82.2 practices
W1 month 55 75.3 No response 1 1.4
No response 3 4.1
895
Time spent working with current supervisor Time spent working for the principal contractor
o1 week 9 12.3 o1 week 5 6.8
Between 1 week and 1 month 8 11.0 Between 1 week and 1 month 7 9.6
Between 1 month and 6 months 18 24.7 Between 1 month and 6 months 16 21.9
Between 6 months and 1 year 19 26.0 Between 6 months and 1 year 23 31.5
Over 1 year 19 26.0 W1 year 21 28.8 Table I.
No response 1 1.4 Profile of respondents

indicated that they had worked with their current supervisor for between one week and one
month and another 18 (24.7 per cent) indicated they had worked for their current supervisor
for between one and six months. Only nine participants (12.3 per cent) indicated working with
their current supervisor for less than one week. We tested whether these nine participants
differed significantly to participants who reported working with their supervisors for greater
than one week, in terms of their perceptions of supervisors’ leadership styles and
communication practices. We found no statistically significant differences. We therefore
include these workers in our analysis on the basis that they are likely to quickly develop
accurate perceptions of their supervisors’ leadership style and communication practices.

Internal consistency reliability

Table II presents Cronbach’s α values for each of the scales included in the survey.
The leadership components demonstrated an acceptable internal consistency, except for the
component of “setting high performance expectations”. Based on the relatively low internal
consistency reliability of this component subscale (α ¼ 0.60), the component of “high
performance expectations” was omitted from further analysis. Cronbach’s α coefficients for
supervisors’ communication practices, safety climate, workers’ H&S participation and
compliance all exceeded 0.7.

Within-workgroup homogeneity of component scores

The rwg formula developed by James et al. (1993) is a commonly used measure of inter-rater
agreement within groups. A threshold value of 0.70 is deemed to indicate inter-rater
agreement ( James et al., 1993).

Subscale No. of items Internal consistency (Cronbach’s α)

Communication practice 5 0.73

Setting high performance expectations 3 0.60
Fostering the acceptance of group goals 3 0.90
Providing an appropriate model 3 0.77
Intellectual stimulation 3 0.87
Contingent reward 3 0.89
Workgroup safety climate 6 0.87 Table II.
H&S participation 3 0.85 Internal consistency
H&S compliance 3 0.85 reliability by subscale
ECAM We calculated the rwg to ascertain the extent to which members of each of the
26,6 20 workgroups share similar perceptions of their supervisors’ leadership style and
communication practices, as well as the workgroup safety climate. The results are
shown in Table III.
The rwg scores for supervisors’ communication practices, workgroup safety climate
and the leadership component of providing an appropriate model were found to
896 exceed 0.70 for all 20 workgroups, indicating that within-workgroup agreement was high
in all 20 groups for these components. In total, 19 of the workgroups also had strong
inter-rater agreement between members for the leadership components of fostering an
acceptance of group goals, providing contingent reward and intellectual stimulation.
However, for each of the latter three leadership components, at least one of the
workgroups had an rwg( j) below 0.70, indicating that within-group consensus was not
achieved for this component.
These findings indicate that, for the most part, members of the same workgroup do share
similar perceptions of their supervisors’ leadership styles, communication practices, and
also develop shared perceptions of their workgroup safety climate.

Between workgroup differences in component scores

Table IV presents the comparison of mean scores for the leadership components,
communication and workgroup safety climate scores between members of the
20 workgroups included in the analysis. Members of the 20 groups differed significantly
in their perceptions of all leadership components, their supervisors’ communication
practices and their group-level safety climate.
These results suggest that supervisors’ leadership styles and communication practices
are not uniform, but vary significantly by subcontracted workgroup. Combined with the
high level of within-group homogeneity (reported in Table III), the significant between

Supervisors’ Fostering the Providing an Work group

communication acceptance of appropriate Contingent Intellectual safety
practices group goals model reward stimulation climate
Group No. rwg( j) rwg( j) rwg( j) rwg( j) rwg( j) rwg( j)

Group 1 0.884 0.928 0.880 0.933 0.764 0.956

Group 2 0.880 0.985 0.857 0.968 0.857 0.947
Group 3 0.857 1.000 0.985 0.947 0.985 1.000
Group 4 0.969 0.978 0.975 0.964 0.796 0.983
Group 5 0.873 0.545 0.968 0.792 0.940 0.857
Group 6 0.982 0.979 0.857 0.968 0.000 0.940
Group 7 0.857 0.828 0.857 0.750 0.828 0.947
Group 8 0.960 0.985 0.958 0.955 0.909 0.992
Group 9 0.982 0.980 0.955 0.940 0.968 0.961
Group 10 0.821 0.980 0.968 0.923 0.980 0.792
Group 11 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.975 1.000 1.000
Group 12 0.969 0.982 0.776 0.764 0.941 0.961
Group 13 0.960 0.725 0.828 0.835 0.864 1.000
Group 14 0.776 0.968 0.980 na 0.990 0.974
Group 15 0.865 0.974 0.951 0.974 0.927 0.972
Group 16 0.973 0.612 0.698 0.958 0.802 0.969
Group 17 0.874 0.969 0.914 0.800 0.949 0.981
Table III. Group 18 0.840 0.980 0.792 0.990 0.990 0.968
Within-group Group 19 0.988 0.980 0.940 0.968 0.923 0.980
agreement on Group 20 0.887 0.857 0.904 0.828 0.968 0.968
group-level variables Note: NB: Italics denote rwg( j) below the threshold for within-group homogeneity
group differences also suggests that subcontracted workgroups form unique and distinct Leadership
group-level safety climate perceptions and experience different supervisory leadership and
styles and communication practices. communication
practices
Bivariate correlations
Table V presents bivariate correlations between the variables measured in the survey
across the entire sample. The time that workers indicated they have spent working at the 897
project was significantly and positively correlated with: the time they indicated they have
spent working for the principal contractor (r ¼ 0.626; p ¼ 0.000); and the time they
indicated they have spent with their current supervisor (r ¼ 0.490; p ¼ 0.000). The time
participants indicated they have spent working for the principal contractor was
significantly and positively correlated with the time spent working with the current
supervisor (r ¼ 0.557; p ¼ 0.000).
All the components of supervisory leadership were significantly and positively
correlated with each other. In addition, each component of supervisory leadership was
significantly and positively correlated with: the workgroup safety climate, self-reported
H&S compliance and self-reported H&S participation. The workgroup safety climate was
significantly and positively correlated with: self-reported H&S compliance (r ¼ 0.651;
p o 0.001); and self-reported H&S participation behaviour (r ¼ 0.712; p o 0.001).
Self-reported H&S compliance was significantly and positively correlated with self-
reported H&S participation (r ¼ 0.678; p o0.001).
These results confirm the link between supervisors’ leadership styles and the prevailing
safety climate in predominantly subcontracted workgroups, as well as workers’ self-reported
H&S behaviours. Workers’ perceptions of their workgroup are also positively associated with
both H&S compliance and participation behaviour.

Predictors of group safety climate

A stepwise hierarchical multiple regression analysis was performed to identify
which supervisor leadership components predict workers’ perceptions of their
workgroup safety climate. Stepwise regression selects, from a group of predictors, the
single variable at each regression step that accounts for the largest variance in the
dependent (or outcome) variable (in this case, workgroup safety climate). The results are
presented in Table VI.
The stepwise regression analysis shows that supervisors’ communication practice
contributed significantly to the regression model (F ¼ 52.05, p o0.001) and accounted for
42.3 per cent of the variance in workgroup safety climate. Thus, supervisors’
communication practices are the most significant predictor of a workgroup safety climate
(β ¼ 0.65, p o0.001).

Subscale F-ratio p

Communication practice 2.83 0.001

Fostering the acceptance of group goals 1.89 0.035
Providing an appropriate model 2.31 0.009
Intellectual stimulation 1.93 0.031
Contingent reward 3.20 0.000 Table IV.
Workgroup safety climate 3.48 0.000 Between workgroup
H&S participation 2.79 0.002 comparison of mean
H&S compliance 3.48 0.134 component scores
 26,6

898

Table V.
ECAM

between variables
Bivariate correlation
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. Time spent working on the project 1

2. Time spent working for the principal contractor 0.626** 1
3. Time spent working with the current supervisor 0.490** 0.557** 1
4. Communication practice 0.119 0.131 −0.032 1
5. Fostering the acceptance of group goals 0.013 −0.004 −0.017 0.680** 1
6. Providing an appropriate model 0.068 0.015 0.109 0.586** 0.771** 1
7. Intellectual stimulation −0.085 −0.013 0.099 0.446** 0.638** 0.758** 1
8. Contingent reward 0.133 0.196 0.112 0.602** 0.630** 0.613** 0.516** 1
9. Workgroup safety climate 0.009 0.198 −0.100 0.650** 0.502** 0.521** 0.369** 0.432** 1
10. H&S compliance −0.024 0.170 0.008 0.479** 0.408** 0.313** 0.273* 0.485** 0.651** 1
11. H&S participation −0.108 0.027 −0.120 0.455** 0.392** 0.551** 0.490** 0.448** 0.712** 0.678** 1
Note: **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Predictors of self-reported H&S behaviour Leadership
A similar stepwise hierarchical multiple regression analysis was performed to identify and
which supervisor leadership components predict workers’ self-reported H&S compliance communication
and participation behaviours. Predictors of H&S compliance are shown in Table VII.
Supervisors’ provision of contingent reward contributed significantly to the regression practices
model (F ¼ 21.89, p o 0.001) and accounted for 23.6 per cent of the variance in
self-reported H&S compliance behaviour. Thus, the provision of contingent reward was a 899
significant predictor of H&S compliance ( β ¼ 0.49, p o 0.001). The inclusion of
communication practice explained an additional 5.5 per cent of the variance in
self-reported H&S compliance, and this change was also significant (F ¼ 14.32, p o 0.001).
Thus, the supervisory leadership style of giving contingent reward (β ¼ 0.31, p o 0.05)
as well as supervisors’ communication practices (β ¼ 0.29, p o 0.05) significantly
predicted workers’ self-reported H&S compliance behaviour.
Predictors of H&S participation are shown in Table VIII. The results show that
supervisors’ role modelling behaviour was a significant predictor of group members’ H&S
participation behaviour (F ¼ 30.92, p o0.001) accounting for 30.3 per cent of the variance.
Thus, the supervisory leadership behaviour of providing an appropriate model is a
significant predictor of workers’ self-reported H&S participation (β ¼ 0.55, po 0.001).
Tables VII and VIII are consistent with previous research which suggests that transactional
leadership components are more strongly linked to H&S compliance than transformational
leadership components, while transformational leadership components are more strongly linked
to H&S participation than transactional leadership components. The finding that supervisors’
communication practice is also a predictor of compliance also confirms the importance of
supervisors’ interactions with workers in ensuring that H&S rules are consistently followed.

Safety climate as a mediator

Procedures developed by Baron and Kenny (1986) were used to test whether group safety
climate acts as a mediator between supervisory leadership and workers’ self-reported

Table VI.
Model Predictors R2 change F change Sig. F change B SE β Sig. Supervisory
leadership predictors
Model 1 Constant 0.423 52.05 0.000 2.04 0.34 0.000 of workgroup
Communication practice 0.56 0.08 0.65 0.000 safety climate

Model Predictors R2 change F change Sig. F change B SE β Sig.

Model 1 Constant 0.24 21.89 0.000 3.30 0.26 0.000 Table VII.
Contingent reward 0.30 0.06 0.49 0.000 Supervisory
Model 2 Constant 0.06 5.40 0.000 2.49 0.43 0.000 leadership predictors
Contingent reward 0.19 0.08 0.31 0.017 of self-reported
Communication practice 0.29 0.12 0.29 0.023 H&S compliance

Table VIII.
Model Predictors R2 change F change Sig. F change B SE β Sig. Supervisory
leadership predictors
Model 1 Constant 0.303 30.917 0.000 2.802 0.293 0.000 of self-reported H&S
Providing an appropriate model 0.398 0.072 0.551 0.000 participation
ECAM H&S behaviour. This relationship is shown in Figure 1. Owing to the fact that the different
26,6 leadership components we measured were correlated with one another, we developed an
aggregate score for supervisory leadership. The two facets of H&S behaviour were
similarly collapsed into a single variable for the purposes of the mediation analysis.
Table IX shows the results of the mediation analysis. The results show that:
(1) perceptions of supervisory leadership predict perceptions of the workgroup safety
900 climate (Model 1);
(2) perceptions of supervisory leadership predict self-reported H&S behaviour
(Model 2);
(3) perceptions of the workgroup safety climate predict self-reported H&S behaviour
(Model 3); and
(4) the effect of supervisory leadership on self-reported H&S behaviour is no longer
significant when the workgroup safety climate is taken into consideration
(indicated by a p-value higher than 0.05 in Model 3).
Thus, workgroup safety climate fully mediates the relationship between supervisory
leadership and workers’ self-reported H&S behaviour.
This full mediation effect indicates that supervisors’ leadership styles impact workers’
H&S behaviour through the formation of strong and positive group-level safety climates.
That is, when supervisors are effective leaders, this will shape the extent to which workers
perceive that H&S are important in the workgroup, which, in turn, will encourage good H&S
practices among group members.

Discussion
Supervisory leadership, safety climate and performance
Our results confirm the importance of the supervisor in shaping workgroup safety climates
and influencing H&S behaviour in predominantly subcontracted workgroups in the
construction industry.
All components of leadership measured in our study were positively and significantly
correlated with the prevailing workgroup safety climate. Thus, when supervisors are
effective leaders, the safety climates of their workgroups are more likely to encourage and

Figure 1.
Workgroup safety
climate as a mediator Workgroup safety Self-reported H&S
Supervisory leadership
climate behaviour
of the supervisory
leadership-worker
H&S behaviour
relationship

Model Variable B SE β p

Model 1: workgroup safety climate regressed Constant 2.41 0.32 0.000

on supervisory leadership Supervisory leadership 0.49 0.08 0.60 0.000
Model 2: self-reported behaviour regressed Constant 2.48 0.34 0.000
on supervisory leadership Supervisory leadership 0.48 0.08 0.57 0.000
Table IX. Model 3: self-reported H&S behaviour regressed Constant 0.92 0.36 0.013
Mediation on supervisory leadership and workgroup Supervisory leadership 0.16 0.08 0.19 0.056
analysis results safety climate Workgroup H&S climate 0.64 0.10 0.63 0.000
support good H&S practices. In addition supervisors’ communication practices were also Leadership
significantly and positively correlated with the workgroup safety climate. and
All components of leadership measured in our study were also positively and communication
significantly correlated with workers’ self-reported H&S compliance and participation
behaviour. In addition supervisors’ communication practices were also significantly and practices
positively correlated with workers’ self-reported H&S compliance and participation.
However, our group-level results also reveal that supervisory leadership styles and 901
communication practices vary significantly between workgroups, indicating that a variety
of supervisory practices exist in the Australian rail construction environment. Similar
between-group variation in group-level safety climate scores was also found.
Our results supported the position of workgroup safety climate as a mechanism linking
supervisors’ leadership styles and behaviours and workers’ H&S behaviour. Fugas et al.
(2011) explain this mediation effect suggesting that supervisors are instrumental in
(through their leadership and communication practices) creating a workgroup context that
places a high value on H&S. Injunctive norms (i.e. supervisors’ expectations about what
ought to be done in relation to H&S) are believed to “crystallise” within the workgroup
through communication and information exchanges between members. This process
of crystallisation, in turn, creates strong descriptive norms and a shared view of the way
work is to be done among group members. That is, a strong and positive group safety
climate develops.
This strong and positive group climate, in turn, is likely to increase workers’ H&S
behaviour and performance in the workgroup.

Transactional and transformational leadership

Previous research has linked transformational leadership more strongly to discretional H&S
behaviours, such as extra-role behaviour, safety citizenship and participation, than to basic
compliance with rules or procedures (Christian et al., 2009; Clarke, 2013).
Our results support the differential influence of transformational and transactional
leadership components. In our study, the strongest predictor of H&S participation was
supervisors providing an appropriate role model, i.e. a transformational leadership
component. While, the strongest predictor of H&S compliance was supervisors’ provision of
contingent reward, i.e. a component of transactional leadership.
Although closely correlated, H&S compliance and participation are distinct forms of
behaviour. H&S compliance relates to in-role behaviour, such as following safety rules and
procedures. H&S participation relates to proactive, extra-role or organisational citizenship
behaviours (OCBs), for example:
• helping co-workers;
• making suggestions for H&S improvement; and
• engaging in H&S activities and training (Hoffmeister et al., 2014; Clarke, 2013).
Clarke (2013) suggests that transformational leadership evokes changes in subordinates’
systems of values and can align these with organisational H&S goals. However,
transformational leadership is also based upon a social exchange framework and elicits a
personal identification with the leader and a social identification with the workgroup.
However, transactional leadership remains important in ensuring H&S compliance behaviour.
The transactional leadership style of providing contingent reward involves clearly
communicating which behaviours are desired in a given context and what the rewards
for such behaviours will be, as well as following through to reinforce these desired
behaviours when they are observed. Contingent rewards do not need to be material.
For example, Zohar and Luria (2003) report that social incentives, such as recognition,
ECAM praise and personal attention, are as least as effective as financial incentives. Our results
26,6 show that, when supervisors are effective communicators and recognise and reward
workers’ good practices, group members are more likely to report high levels of H&S
compliance behaviour.
These results suggest effective supervisory leadership includes aspects of both
transformational and transactional leadership. This is consistent with an augmentation
902 theory of leadership in which transformational leadership is seen as something that
develops from a foundation of effective transactional leadership (see Bass et al., 2003).
The development of leadership in construction workgroups over time should be
investigated in future research to test the augmentation theory hypothesis.

Implications for supervisors’ development

The predictive link between supervisors’ communication practices and workers’
self-reported H&S compliance in our study has important implications for supervisory
leadership development. Previous research has similarly linked supervisors’ communication
practices to H&S in the construction industry (see, e.g. Alsamadani et al., 2013; Mattila et al.,
1994) and our findings confirm the importance of high quality information exchanges
between supervisors and workers in relation to H&S.
Clarke and Ward (2006) describe how workers positively respond to “rational” influence
behaviour in which supervisors use persuasive communication, logical argument and
factual evidence to encourage H&S behaviour. Willis et al. (2017) also argue that good
quality communication is particularly important in unpredictable safety-critical
environments. In these contexts, effective communications between supervisors and
workers reduces ambiguity and helps workers to make sense of the situations they
encounter in their work (e.g. through direction setting). Thus, in safety-critical situations
instructive leadership tactics (which pre-empt error-making and explicitly prioritise H&S)
can positively influence performance outcomes (Willis et al., 2017).
Given their pivotal role, supervisors have been targeted for training designed to increase
their interactions with workers (Zohar and Luria, 2003).
In the Danish construction industry, Kines et al. (2010) examined the frequency with
which supervisors discuss H&S with workgroup members. They reported that supervisors
interact very frequently with group members, but that 85–97 per cent of these exchanges
involved discussing production issues. H&S topics were only raised in 6–16 per cent of
exchanges between supervisors and workers. They introduced a feedback-based coaching
programme to encourage supervisors to increase the H&S content of their daily verbal
exchanges with workers. This programme significantly increased the frequency with which
H&S was included in discussions between supervisors and workers (from 6 to 62 per cent at
one site). Kines et al. (2010) also reported that workgroup H&S performance and physical
H&S levels at the worksite were significantly improved as a result of the coaching
programme. The extent to which production was discussed in supervisor–worker
exchanges did not reduce during this research, leading Kines et al. (2010) to conclude that
increasing H&S communication does not reduce communication about other aspects of
workgroup performance.
Also in Denmark, Jeschke et al. (2017) evaluated a toolbox training programme
for construction supervisors and found that this improved supervisors’ understanding
of their role and responsibility for communicating H&S information between management
and workers. Supervisors reported changes in the frequency and quality of
communication with workers. In particular, supervisors increased their use of
open-ended questions in interactions with workers, improved their non-verbal
communication skills and felt they were better equipped to engage in cross-cultural
communication with foreign workers.
Conclusions Leadership
Guldenmund (2007) writes “The important role of supervisors as the tender of and
organisational culture in creating congruence by mixing organisation, group and communication
individual interests into a meaningful whole cannot be overstated” (p. 735). Our study
confirms the important role played by supervisors of predominantly subcontracted practices
workgroups in creating positive safety climates and influencing workers’ H&S behaviours
through their leadership styles and communication practices. The significant variation 903
found between groups suggests that supervisors’ leadership practices are not consistent in
the Australian construction context and leadership development programmes targeting
supervisors are recommended. The fact that we used a generalised (rather than a safety
specific) measure of leadership also indicates that, to have positive H&S impacts, leadership
styles and behaviours do not need to be H&S specific. Indeed, rather than isolate H&S
leadership from general leadership practice, effective leaders are likely to be those who treat
H&S as an integral part of group working and performance.
Our research suggests opportunities for future research. In particular, we revealed linkages
between various leadership styles, group safety climates and self-reported H&S behaviour.
However, the behavioural manifestations of these leadership styles are not revealed in the
survey data. The way in which supervisors demonstrate the transactional and
transformational leadership and practice would need to be investigated through
ethnographic or observational methods. Second, the survey did not reveal the impact of
communication methods (e.g. formal vs informal) or the frequency of information exchanges.
Supplementary analysis is recommended to determine the effects of communication network
characteristics and methods on H&S outcomes within construction workgroups.

References
Alsamadani, R., Hallowell, M. and Javernick-Will, A.N. (2013), “Measuring and modelling safety
communication in small work crews in the US using social network analysis”, Construction
Management and Economics, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 568-579.
Barling, J., Loughlin, C. and Kelloway, E. (2002), “Development and test of a model linking safety-
specific transformational leadership and occupational safety”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 87 No. 3, pp. 488-496.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1182.
Bass, B.M. (1990), “From transactional to transformational leadership: learning to share the vision”,
Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 19-31.
Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J., Jung, D.I. and Berson, Y. (2003), “Predicting unit performance by assessing
transformational and transactional leadership”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 2,
pp. 207-218.
Beus, J.M., Payne, S.C., Bergman, M.E. and Arthur, W. Jr (2010), “Safety climate and injuries: an
examination of theoretical and empirical relationships”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 95
No. 4, pp. 713-727.
Christian, M., Bradley, J., Wallace, C. and Burke, M. (2009), “Workplace safety: a meta-analysis of the
roles of person and situation factors”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 5, pp. 1103-1127.
Cigularov, K., Chen, P. and Rosecrance, J. (2010), “The effects of error management climate and
safety communication on safety: a multi-level study”, Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 42
No. 5, pp. 1498-1506.
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, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 22-49.
ECAM Clarke, S. and Ward, K. (2006), “The role of leader influence tactics and safety climate in engaging
26,6 employees’ safety participation”, Risk Analysis, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 1175-1185.
Conchie, S. and Donald, I. (2009), “The moderating role of safety-specific trust on the relation between
safety-specific leadership and safety citizenship behaviors”, Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 137-147.
Conchie, S.M. and Burns, C. (2008), “Trust and risk communication in high-risk organizations: a test of
principles from social risk research”, Risk Analysis, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 141-149.
904
Didla, S., Mearns, K. and Flin, R. (2009), “Safety citizenship behaviour: a proactive approach to risk
management”, Journal of Risk Research, Vol. 12 Nos 3-4, pp. 475-483.
Finneran, A., Hartley, R., Gibb, A., Cheyne, A. and Bust, P. (2012), “Learning to adapt health and safety
initiatives from mega projects: an Olympic case study”, Policy Practice Health Safety, Vol. 10
No. 2, pp. 81-102.
Flin, R., Mearns, K., O’Connor, P. and Bryden, R. (2000), “Measuring safety climate: identifying the
common features”, Safety Science, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 177-192.
Fruhen, L.S., Mearns, K.J., Flin, R. and Kirwan, B. (2014), “Skills, knowledge and senior managers’
demonstrations of safety commitment”, Safety Science, Vol. 69 No. SC, pp. 29-36.
Fugas, C., Meliá, J. and Silva, S. (2011), “The ‘is’ and the ‘ought’: how do perceived social
norms influence safety behaviors at work?”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 16
No. 1, pp. 67-69.
Guldenmund, F. (2007), “The use of questionnaires in safety culture research – an evaluation”, Safety
Science, Vol. 45 No. 6, pp. 723-743.
Guldenmund, F.W. (2000), “The nature of safety culture: a review of theory and research”, Safety
Science, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 215-257.
Hardison, D., Behm, M., Hallowell, M. and Fonooni, H. (2014), “Identifying construction supervisor
competencies for effective site safety”, Safety Science, Vol. 65, pp. 45-53.
Hoffmeister, K., Gibbons, A., Johnson, S., Cigularov, K., Chen, P. and Rosecrance, J. (2014),
“The differential effects of transformational leadership facets on employee safety”, Safety
Science, Vol. 62, pp. 68-78.
Hofmann, D.A. and Morgeson, F.P. (1999), “Safety-related behavior as a social exchange: the role of
perceived organizational support and leader–member exchange”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 84 No. 2, pp. 286-296.
Hofmann, D.A., Burke, M.J. and Zohar, D. (2017), “100 years of occupational safety research: from basic
protections and work analysis to a multilevel view of workplace safety and risk”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 102 No. 3, pp. 375-388.
Hopkins, A. (2006), “What are we to make of safe behaviour programs?”, Safety Science, Vol. 44 No. 7,
pp. 583-597.
HSE (2005a), “Development and validation of the HMRI safety culture inspection toolkit: research
report 365”, Health and Safety Executive Books, London.
HSE (2005b), “A review of safety culture and safety climate literature for the development of the safety
culture inspection toolkit: research report 367”, Health and Safety Executive Books, London.
Inness, M., Turner, N., Barling, J. and Stride, C. (2010), “Transformational leadership and employee
safety performance: a within-person, between-jobs design”, Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 279-290.
James, L.R., Demaree, R.G. and Wolf, G. (1993), “rwg: an assessment of within-group interrater
agreement”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 2, pp. 306-309.
Jeschke, K.C., Kines, P., Rasmussen, L., Andersen, L.P.S., Dyreborg, J., Ajslev, J., Kabel, A., Jensen, E.
and Andersen, L.L. (2017), “Process evaluation of a toolbox-training program for construction
foremen in Denmark”, Safety Science, Vol. 94 No. SC, pp. 152-160.
Johnson, S. (2007), “The predictive validity of safety climate”, Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 38 No. 5,
pp. 511-521.
Judge, T.A. and Piccolo, R.F. (2004), “Transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic Leadership
test of their relative validity”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 5, pp. 755-768. and
Kapp, E. (2012), “The influence of supervisor leadership practices and perceived group safety climate communication
on employee safety performance”, Safety Science, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 1119-1124.
practices
Kath, L.M., Marks, K.M. and Ranney, J. (2010), “Safety climate dimensions, leader-member exchange,
and organisational support as predictors of upward safety communication in a sample of rail
industry workers”, Safety Science, Vol. 1 No. 5, pp. 643-650. 905
Katz-Navon, T.A.L., Naveh, E. and Stern, Z. (2005), “Safety climate in health care organizations:
a multidimensional approach”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48 No. 6, pp. 1075-1089.
Kelloway, E., Mullen, J. and Francis, L. (2006), “Divergent effects of transformational and
passive leadership on employee safety”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 1,
pp. 76-86.
Kines, P., Andersen, L., Spangenberg, S., Mikkelsen, K., Dyreborg, J. and Zohar, D. (2010), “Improving
construction site safety through leader-based verbal safety communication”, Journal of Safety
Research, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 399-406.
Leather, P.J. (1988), “Attitudes towards safety performance on construction work: an investigation of
public and private sector differences”, Work & Stress, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 155-167.
Lingard, H., Cooke, T. and Blismas, N. (2010), “Safety climate in conditions of construction
subcontracting: a multi-level analysis”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 28 No. 8,
pp. 813-825.
Lingard, H., Cooke, T. and Blismas, N. (2012), “Do perceptions of supervisors’ safety responses mediate
the relationship between perceptions of the organizational safety climate and incident rates in
the construction supply chain?”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 138
No. 2, pp. 234-241.
Lingard, H., Zhang, R., Harley, J., Blismas, N. and Wakefield, R. (2014), “Health and safety culture”,
Centre for Construction Work Health and Safety Research, RMIT University, Melbourne.
Mattila, M., Hyttinen, M. and Rantanen, E. (1994), “Effective supervisory behaviour and safety at the
building site”, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 85-93.
Mullen, J. and Kelloway, E. (2009), “Safety leadership: a longitudinal study of the effects of
transformational leadership on safety outcomes”, Journal of Occupational and Organisational
Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 2, pp. 253-272.
Mullen, J., Kelloway, E. and Teed, M. (2017), “Employer safety obligations, transformational leadership
and their interactive effects on employee safety performance”, Safety Science, Vol. 91, pp. 405-412.
Neal, A. and Griffin, M. (2004), “Safety climate and safety at work”, in Barling, J. and Frone, M.R. (Eds),
The Psychology of Workplace Safety, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC,
pp. 15-34.
Neal, A. and Griffin, M.A. (2006), “A study of the lagged relationships among safety climate,
safety motivation, safety behavior, and accidents at the individual and group levels”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 4, pp. 946-953.
Ostroff, C. and Kozlowski, S.W. (1992), “Organizational socialization as a learning process: the role of
information acquisition”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 849-874.
Podsakoff, P., Mackenzie, S., Moorman, R. and Fetter, R. (1990), “Transformational leader behaviors
and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organisational citizenship
behaviors”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 107-142.
Rimal, R.N. and Real, K. (2003), “Understanding the influence of perceived norms on behaviors”,
Communication Theory, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 184-203.
Shen, Y., Ju, C., Koh, T., Rowlinson, S. and Bridge, A. (2017), “The impact of transformational leadership
on safety climate and individual safety behavior on construction sites”, International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 1-17, doi: 10.3390/ijerph14010045.
ECAM Simard, M. and Marchand, A. (1994), “The behaviour of first-line supervisors in accident prevention
26,6 and effectiveness on occupational safety”, Safety Science, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 169-185.
Simard, M. and Marchand, A. (1995), “A multi-level analysis of organisational factors related to the
taking of safety initiatives by work groups”, Safety Science, Vol. 21, pp. 113-129.
Simard, M. and Marchand, A. (1997), “Workgroups’ propensity to comply with safety rules: the
influence of micromacro organisational factors”, Ergonomics, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 172-188.
906 Spector, P.E. (1992), Summated Rating Scale Construction: An Introduction, Sage Publications,
Newbury Park, CA.
Therkelsen, D.J. and Fiebich, C.L. (2004), “The supervisor: the linchpin of employee relations”, Journal
of Communication Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 120-129.
Willis, S., Clarke, S. and O’Connor, E. (2017), “Contextualizing leadership: transformational leadership
and management-by‐exception-active in safety-critical contexts”, Journal of Occupational and
Organisational Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 3, pp. 281-305.
Zohar, D. (1980), “Safety climate in industrial organizations: theoretical and applied implications”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 65 No. 1, pp. 96-102.
Zohar, D. (2002), “The effect of leadership dimensions, safety climate and assigned priorities on minor
injuries in work groups”, Journal of Organisational Behavior, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 75-92.
Zohar, D. and Luria, G. (2003), “The use of supervisory practices as leverage to improve
safety behaviour: a cross-level intervention model”, Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 34 No. 5,
pp. 561-571.
Zohar, D. and Luria, G. (2004), “Climate as a social–cognitive construction of supervisory safety practices:
Scripts as proxy of behavior patterns”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 2, pp. 322-333.
Zohar, D. and Luria, G. (2005), “A multilevel model of safety climate: cross-level relationships
between organization and group-level climates”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 4,
pp. 616-628.
Zohar, D. and Tenne-Gazit, O. (2008), “Transformational leadership and group interaction
as climate antecedents: a social network analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93
No. 4, pp. 744-757.

Further reading
Zohar, D. and Polachek, T. (2014), “Discourse-based intervention for modifying supervisory
communication as leverage for safety climate and performance improvement: a randomized field
study”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 99 No. 1, pp. 113-124.

Corresponding author
Helen Lingard can be contacted at: helen.lingard@rmit.edu.au

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com