Current Psychology

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-02140-5

A time-lagged study on health-centric leadership styles

and psychological health: the mediating role of psychosocial
safety climate
Muhammad Zeeshan Mirza 1 & Mumtaz Ali Memon 2 & Maureen Dollard 3

Accepted: 21 July 2021

# The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2021

Abstract
Leadership plays an important role in occupational health psychology in explaining worker psychological health. However, to
date, there is limited work on how cultural context affects a leader’s effectiveness. The purpose of this study is to identify types of
leadership that can have beneficial effects on employees’ health in the Malaysian context. Further this study examines the
mechanism (mediating role of psychosocial safety climate) linking health-centric leadership styles and employees’ psychological
health. At Time 1, data were collected from the employees of petrochemical and gas processing plants (n = 303, response rate =
61%), and at Time 2 (n = 192, response rate = 48%) completed the questionnaires. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation
Modeling (PLS-SEM), using SmartPLS3.0, was used to test the proposed framework. Results confirm a positive association
between health-centric leadership styles and psychosocial safety climate. Psychosocial safety climate was negatively related with
psychological health. Further, the findings confirm the mediating role of psychosocial safety climate between health-centric
leadership styles and psychological health among Malaysian oil and gas employees. The present study fills a gap in the literature
by proposing a health-centric leadership framework based on contextual requirements. Additionally, this is the first study that
examines psychosocial safety climate as a mediator, thereby fills an important research gap in the existing literature.

Keywords MBEA . Health-specific leadership . Psychosocial safety climate . Psychological health . Malaysia

Introduction Malaysian economy (Social Security Organization Report,

Malaysia is one of the fastest emerging economies in Asia and
aims to become one of the top business-friendly economies by
2020. But the growth of the economy also increases the threat
to employees’ health and safety (Leigh, 2011). While occupa-
tional health and safety has always been a concern for the
* Muhammad Zeeshan Mirza
zeeshanmirza21@hotmail.com
Mumtaz Ali Memon
mumtazutp@gmail.com
Maureen Dollard
Maureen.Dollard@unisa.edu.au
1
Department of Engineering Management, National University of
Sciences and Technology (NUST), Islamabad, Pakistan
2
NUST Business School, National University of Sciences and
Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan
3 http://www.dosh.gov.my/index.php/en/archive-news/2015/1605-
Work & Stress Research Group, Centre for Applied Psychological
Research, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia
2016), economic expansion has increased the severity of the
situation. The implementation and awareness of the occupa-
tional health and safety (OHS) master plan, which was intro-
duced in 2005 to address workplace safety concerns, remains
fairly ineffective (Lugah et al., 2010). The National Institute of
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)1 has expressed
grave concern over the psychological health issues faced by
the Malaysian workforce and emphasized that sustained orga-
nizational success can only be achieved with a healthy and
motivated workforce. In addition, foreign direct investment
also depends on occupational health and safety performance
of the Malaysian economy.
Leadership has substantial effects on employee health and
safety (Gilbreath, 2004; Montano et al., 2017; Mullen &
Kelloway, 2011). Various reviews of leadership and employee
health often report transformational leadership to be the most
beneficial for employees’ health. Leader-member exchange
1
psychosocial-risks-among-workers-are-cause-for-concern-niosh-new-straits-
times-online

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.


(LMX) and task-oriented leadership also positively influence
employees’ health while destructive and abusive leadership have
detrimental effects on employees’ health (see, Brouer & Harris,
2007; Kelloway & Barling, 2010; Mackey et al., 2019; Zhang &
Liao, 2015). However, much of the leadership research in theory
development and empirical verification has been conducted in
Western and American cultures (Avolio et al., 2009), and much
of that research used social exchange theory (Montano et al.,
2017) as a foundation to explain the effectiveness of leadership
styles in the workplace. The concept of social exchange
(Emerson, 1976) is used to explain followers acceptance towards
a leadership style when it is based on leaders caring for their
health and safety.
The few studies that examined these leadership styles (e.g.
Jogulu, 2008, 2010) in Asian cultures have reported results
that vary from those conducted in Western and American
cultures, thereby indicating the potentially important role of
cultural context (Mirza & Isha, 2017). Recently, Holten et al.
(2017) reported varying employee related outcomes (e.g.,
well-being, health, job satisfaction) of transformational lead-
ership among employees from different cultural backgrounds
working in the same environment.
The objective of this study is to examine (1) leadership styles
(e.g., health-centric leadership styles) and their effect on employ-
ee psychological health, and (2) the mechanism that links them.
Since, the body of research indicates positive effects of leadership
on employees’ health (Barling & Griffiths, 2010; Hoch et al.,
2018; Mullen & Kelloway, 2011), this study identifies types of
leadership that can have beneficial effects on employees’ health
in the Malaysian context. As Porter and McLaughlin (2006)
noted, context has always been an afterthought while the focus
has predominantly been on explaining the given leadership style.
Specifically, this paper discusses the types of leadership that are
in alignment with the Malaysian context. Surprisingly, no study
has yet specifically theorized leadership style in relation to psy-
chological health. We explore psychosocial safety climate as a
potential mechanism that links leadership to employee psycho-
logical health. As direct or indirect actions by leaders influence
the overall perception in followers that their health is a priority
(Yukl, 2017), these leadership actions first create a health-prone
climate that ultimately has a positive effect on employees’ psy-
chological health. It is therefore expected that the path from
leadership to psychological health is mediated by psychosocial
safety climate. Overall, this study proposes a psychological
health-based leadership framework for Malaysia specifically
and for other Muslim countries that have similar contextual re-
quirements, as many health and safety issues in Muslim countries
are either ignored or overlooked (Mirza & Bashir, 2015).
The Role of Context
Although the cultural dimensions proposed by Hofstede are
more important at a societal level, most of this research has
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Curr Psychol
been studied at an individual level within the organizational
domain in management literature (Kirkman et al., 2006).
According to Hofstede (2016) the Malaysian culture is high
on power distance (acceptance to unequal distribution of pow-
er in an organization) and collectivism (high level of harmony
and concern for each other in an organization). Also, Malaysia
is a conservative culture which promotes compliance, disci-
pline and a high level of respect for elders and people in high
positions (Abdullah, 1992). Previous research confirms the
preference for a directive kind of leadership in Malaysia
(Jogulu, 2010; Selvarajah et al., 2006). Other research reports
that culture influences respect and compliance for the leaders
within their organization (Bakar et al., 2014).
In occupational health psychology literature a participa-
tive style of leadership has been found to improve health
and well-being of employees (Kelloway & Barling, 2010;
Zwingmann et al., 2014). In addition, recently a more
health-centered type of leadership named, health-specific
leadership (Gurt et al., 2011) has been introduced and
found to play an effective role regarding employee’s psy-
chological health issues. However, in the Malaysian cul-
ture where the leader’s authority is expected and accepted,
a leader who assumes more power and emphasizes strict
norms can also be effective. In such a culture, leaders play
a much bigger role and constantly guide their followers
regarding the performance of their job duties.
In cultures with low power distance and collectivism, a
participative style of leadership in the long-term has ad-
verse effects on the psychological health of employees
(Franke & Felfe, 2011; Hooper & Martin, 2008; Harris
& Kacmar, 2006; Zwingmann et al., 2016). Whereas stud-
ies report conflicting findings of the influence of a mon-
itoring style such as management-by-exception active
(MBEA, Kanste et al., 2007; Stordeur et al., 2001); on
employee psychological health. The general presumption
about MBEA, however, is that it has detrimental effects
and has been mostly used in a negative connotation (e.g.,
Lee & Jensen, 2014; Luria, 2008).
In a culture like Malaysia, where power distance is very
high, we believe that MBEA can play a role in reducing em-
ployees’ psychological health problems. The societal orienta-
tion in these types of cultures are such that people are taught to
follow their leaders (Abdullah, 1992). Considering that indi-
viduals’ cultural values have a large bearing on organization
culture (Noorderhaven & Harzing, 2003), MBEA may be a
viable option for Malaysian workforce. Moreover, being a
collectivistic society, Malaysia encourages a ‘family-like’ en-
vironment even in professional settings where leaders give
due consideration to their followers and encourage a culture
of collaboration and support (Abdullah, 2001; Jogulu &
Ferkins, 2012). This therefore makes health-specific leader-
ship a relevant practice to combat psychological health
problems.
Curr Psychol
Management-by-Exception Active and Psychosocial
Safety Climate
Leaders exhibiting MBEA behaviors regularly monitor fol-
lower performance and take remedial steps before any serious
problem transpires (Bass & Riggio, 2006). The general pre-
sumption about such kind of leaders is that they create extra
pressure on employees which causes detrimental effect on
employees health (Stordeur et al., 2001), and well-being
(Kelloway et al., 2012). Notwithstanding, Kanste et al.
(2007) found that MBEA reduces employees health-related
problems and increase the level of individual
accomplishment in nursing staff.
Mirza and Isha (2017) suggest that in a culture where pow-
er distance is very high (e.g. Malaysia) MBEA will be most
effective for lower-level workforce (e.g., production workers).
The acceptability of the fact that leaders will assume more
power and will be more directive, makes MBEA behaviors
positive rather than negative in such cultures. As such MBEA
is suggested to positively influence followers’ psychosocial
safety climate perceptions. Previously, it has been reported
that lower-level employees positively respond to task related
communication and positive feedback of leaders (Winkler
et al., 2015). Based on these theoretical presumptions, we
propose that health and safety specific MBEA behaviors of
leaders will persuade their followers that their organization
will not compromise their health and safety for any competing
demands, which will build and strengthen their psychosocial
safety climate perceptions. Therefore, we hypothesize that:
H1: MBEA will be positively associated with psychoso-
cial safety climate perceptions of Malaysian employees.
Health-Specific Leadership and Psychosocial Safety
Climate
Gurt et al. (2011) introduced the concept of health-specific
leadership and define it as “leaders’ explicit and therefore
visible consideration of and engagement in employee health”
(p. 110). They also reported it to be distinct construct from
general leadership which has a definite focus on employee’s
health and also motivates employees to be more participative
in health-related behaviors. As stated by Gurt et al. (2009)
“routine leadership behaviors (do not contribute to an occupa-
tional health culture, which indicates that employees did not
attribute “good” general leadership behavior with underlying
organizational values concerning health. In order to contribute
to the perception of a supportive occupational health culture,
the leader has to show his specific engagement for health
promotion” (p. 38).
In Malaysia, leaders who constantly interact with their fol-
lowers and give them due attention are preferred (Abdullah,
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
2001), because they builds a sense of relationship between
leader and followers where the leader acts as a mentor who
shows responsibility for the needs of their followers
(Selvarajah et al., 2006). Particularly, when leaders are active-
ly dedicated to the issues concerning health and well-being of
their followers, they build trust in their followers about their
commitment to resolve health-related issues (Gurt et al.,
2009). Malaysian employees relate with leader’s actively
committing and showing dedication towards them (Jogulu &
Ferkins, 2012) much like an elder of a family who is respected
for his/her position and sense of responsibility. The theoretical
description of health-specific leadership is grounded in these
points (Gurt et al., 2011). Thus, it is believed that health-
specific leadership will play an effective role in developing
employee’s psychosocial safety climate perceptions in
Malaysian setting. Therefore, we hypothesize that:
H2: Health-specific leadership will be positively associ-
ated with psychosocial safety climate perceptions of
Malaysian employees.
Psychosocial Safety Climate and Psychological Health
Psychosocial safety climate (PSC) is defined as “‘policies,
practices and procedures for the protection of worker psycho-
logical health and safety” (Dollard & Bakker, 2010). Since its
inception, psychosocial safety climate has been used as a lead
predictor for the psychological health problems of workforce
(Zadow et al., 2017). PSC reflects management commitment
towards employee’s health and safety so that it should not be
compromised for competing demands. Law et al. (2011)
found that when employees have high levels of psychosocial
safety climate perceptions it reduces their psychological
health problems. Similar results were reported by Mirza
et al. (2019) that psychosocial safety climate helps reduce
employees’ psychological distress. Also, PSC was found be
more strongly related to psychological distress than other cli-
mate measure (Idris et al., 2012). Thus, there is strong empir-
ical evidence which supports that high level of psychosocial
safety climate diminishes employee’s psychological health
issues. Therefore, we hypothesize that:
H3: Psychosocial safety climate will be negatively asso-
ciated with psychological health problems in Malaysian
employees.
Mediating Role of Psychosocial Safety Climate
Previously it has been reported that the path from leadership to
employee health outcomes is mediated by job satisfaction, and
work environment factors such as role ambiguity, bullying,

and harassment. We believe that the theoretical grounding of
psychosocial safety climate more appropriately explains this
relationship. Furthermore given the cultural settings in
Malaysia, leaders play the most vital role in establishing an
overall climate in the organizations (Selvarajah & Meyer,
2008). Social learning theory (Bandura, 1971) explains that
the major portion of individual learning and knowledge ac-
quirement derives from those with whom they have social
interactions. Hence, health aversive behaviors of individuals
can be modified to health conducive behaviors if the environ-
ment in which they operate educates them about its impor-
tance (Conner & Norman, 2005). To create that environment,
leaders play the most important role because of the direct and
indirect effect they have on their followers (Yukl, 2006). They
act as role models (Bass, 1985), and their behaviors shape
follower perceptions and behaviors through followers self-
concept (Viktor, 1982).
Based on these theoretical premises, it is believed that both
leadership styles i.e. MBEA and health-specific leadership
will create a positive perception about psychosocial safety
climate in the followers, which will ultimately result in reduc-
tion of psychological health problems. Prior literature on oc-
cupational health and safety also suggests that employees’
positive perceptions about the climate is essential to their
health and safety (Clarke, 2010; Zohar, 2010), and leadership
plays the central role in developing and establishing those
climate perceptions (Clarke, 2013). Therefore, it is hypothe-
sized that:
H4: Psychosocial safety climate will mediate the rela-
tionship between MBEA and psychological health prob-
lems of Malaysian employees.
H5: Psychosocial safety climate will mediate the rela-
tionship between health-specific leadership and psycho-
logical health problems of Malaysian employees.
Method
Procedure and Participants
Using purposive sampling technique, data were collected
from production workers of petrochemical and gas processing
plants operating in various states of Malaysia (i.e., Pahang and
Terengganu). The criterion for inclusion in the study was only
those production workers dealing with hazardous chemicals,
as their job requires a lot of care and attention. The job de-
scription of these workers requires them to be extra cautious
while performing their job and they frequently experience
psychological distress (Carlisle & Parker, 2014; Durand &
Marchand, 2005). Questionnaires were distributed with a
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Curr Psychol
covering letter underlining the confidentiality and voluntary
nature of participation, along with instructions about how to
complete the questionnaire. The questionnaires were
completed during working hours and once the question-
naires were filled by the respondents they were handed
back to the researchers.
The time-lagged study design, also referred to as the “half-
longitudinal design” (Idris et al., 2014), was used for data
collection. Two waves of data collection technique (T1 and
T2) were adopted to test the mediation path, as recommended
by Cole and Maxwell (2003). There was a three-month lag
between T1 and T2, as suggested by the literature on psycho-
social safety climate (Idris et al., 2014). The nature of the
industry (oil and gas) being studied was such that the proce-
dure for getting approval for data collection is often difficult
and complicated (Memon et al., 2016). Initially, an email in-
cluding a letter of participation was sent to potential oil and
gas organizations. After a follow up, only two organizations
voluntarily agreed to participate in the research. An executive
was assigned by the organizations to facilitate the data collec-
tion process. A questionnaire survey including a cover letter
and university approval letter were submitted to the organiza-
tions for clearance before arrival as requested. Upon approval,
researchers visited the site and personally administered the
questionnaire to the production workers. The same procedure
was repeated for T2.
At T1, respondents filled questionnaire related to MBEA
and health-specific leadership (n = 303, response rate = 61%).
After three months, respondents answered the questionnaire
containing items related to psychosocial safety climate and
psychological distress (n = 192, response rate = 48%). 31 re-
sponses were omitted because they were either incomplete
(13) or were new respondents (18) who did not fill the ques-
tionnaires at T1. We followed the method of (Carmeli
et al., 2010) and asked respondents to write the name of
their grandparents on the questionnaires. It was clearly
explained to the respondents that it was done only to
correlate the T1 to T2 data.
The overall sample size of the study was 161 (of these 84
participants were from petrochemical plant and 77 from gas
processing plant) and the overall response rate was 55%.
Given the lack of support given to researchers in Malaysia
regarding data collection (Ali et al., 2009) the low response
rate was not unexpected. The participants were predominantly
male (87%), between 20 and 30 years old (47%), with orga-
nizational tenure of more than 5 years (45%). Out of the 161
respondents, 92% answered in Malay and 8% in English.
Measures
A Malay language expert assisted with the translation of the
scales, and we then used a back-to-back standard procedure
for translation (Brislin et al., 1973). This is a reliable technique
Curr Psychol
for adapting scales from the original language to the adapted
one (Mallinckrodt & Wang, 2004). We used a bilingual ques-
tionnaire for all scales with linguistically simplified items in
Malay language to make sure they were easily comprehended
and to target the particular requirements of the production
workers. The modifications/simplifications made were ap-
proved by two experienced researchers of the field to make
sure that the items did not lose the original meaning.
Health-specific leadership was measured using the scale of
(Gurt et al., 2011) consisting of 7 items (e.g. “My supervisor
discusses health-related topics with us”; “In our regular work meet-
ings, we are informed about health issues”; 1 = Strongly Disagree,
5 = Strongly Agree). The alpha value of the scale was 0.813.
MBEA for work health and safety was measured using the
Multifactorial Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ 5x-Short;
Bass & Avolio, 1995). The original scale consisted of 4 items,
however due to the difficulty in understanding and responding
to double-barreled items (Bassili & Scott, 1996), it is advised
to avoid double barreled questions (Krosnick & Presser,
2010). Hence we rephrased the items of the scale to remove
the double barreled issue, the rephrased version of the scale
consist of 9 items (e.g. “My supervisor focuses on irregulari-
ties regarding health and safety standards”; “My supervisor
pays full attention on dealing with health and safety com-
plaints”; 1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree). A short-
coming highlighted in the literature about the MBEA scale
(Clarke, 2013) id that it does not necessarily explain the con-
text in which the monitoring is being done. Permission was
taken from Mind Garden Inc. to reproduce, translate and alter
the items of MBEA scale to apply it to the work health and
safety context. The alpha value of the scale was 0.906.
Psychosocial safety climate was assessed using the scale
developed by (Hall et al., 2010) which consist of 12 items (e.g.
“In my workplace senior management acts quickly to correct
problems/issues that affect employees’ psychological health”;
“My contributions to resolving occupational health and safety
concerns in the organization are listened to”); 1 = Strongly
Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree. The alpha value of the scale
was 0.935.
Psychological Distress was assessed using the Malay ver-
sion of the General Health Questionnaire, GHQ-12 (Yusoff
et al., 2009). It is a reliable and effective scale to measure
“psychological impairment” (Andrews et al., 1999). The scale
consist of 12 items (e.g. “Been able to concentrate on what
you are doing?”; “Been feeling unhappy or depressed?” with a
response scale, 1 = Not at All, 4 = Much more than Usual. The
alpha value of the scale was 0.936.
Data Analysis
The proposed relationships were tested using the Partial Least
Square (PLS) technique using the SmartPLS 3.2.7 software
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
(Ringle et al., 2015). We applied the two-staged recommend-
ed analytical procedure (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988) to test
the measurement and structural model.
G* Power version 3.1.9.2 was used to determine the min-
imum sample size for this study. Based on the power of 0.80,
the sample size required for this study was 68. As such, the
present sample (N = 161) comfortably exceeded the required
minimum sample size by means of power analysis. In addi-
tion, the required sample size for PLS-SEM analysis is 100
(Reinartz et al., 2009). Thus, a sample of 161 was considered
sufficient.
Common Method Variance and Multicollinearity
Although longitudinal study design was used for collec-
tion of data which limits the chance of common method
variance, self-reporting bias can still be expected given
that data for PSC and psychological distress was self-re-
ported. Therefore, a statistical procedure, Harman’s one-
factor test, was used to examine whether there is any
common method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The
common method variance becomes problematic if a single
factor accounts for the majority of the explained variance
(Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). The results indicate that the
first factor accounted for only 26.91% of the variance,
thereby rolling out the likelihood of common method
bias.
The Variance Inflation Factors (VIF) was also computed to
identify the issue of multicollinearity. The VIF values for
MBEA was (1.166), health-specific leadership (1.166), and
psychosocial safety climate (1.199), which were considerably
below the required threshold value of <3.3 (Kock & Lynn,
2012). The VIF values clearly indicate that there was no issue
of multicollinearity for this data set.
Results
Measurement Model
The assessment of the measurement model includes two
types of validity: convergent and discriminant. The con-
vergent validity is ascertained through loadings, average
variance extracted (AVE) and composite reliability
(Memon et al., 2019; Ramayah et al., 2016). In assessing
the convergent validity of the constructs, the loading of all
the items should be equal to or higher than 0.7 to be
deemed acceptable (Chin, 2010). A loading lower than
0.4 of an item means that it should be removed, and
items with loadings between 0.4–0.7 should be consid-
ered for deletion if their removal increases composite
reliability (CR) or AVE (Chin, 2010; Hair et al., 2014).
 Curr Psychol

Table 1 indicates that most of the loadings are above 0.7.
However, few of the loadings were between 0.4–0.7 but as
explained earlier they are only considered for removal if the
CR and AVE values are below the acceptable threshold and
increases after the removal of that item. The AVE of all the
constructs were above 0.5 and the CR was greater than 0.7,
which is suggested as the required threshold value in the lit-
erature (Chin, 2010; Hair et al., 2014).
The discriminant validity (the degree to which each con-
struct is distinct from others) was measured through
Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) criterion. Using Monte
Carlo simulation, Henseler and colleagues highlighted the ef-
ficiency of HTMT over traditional criterion (i.e., Fornell and
Lacker). As presented in Table 2 all the values are lower than
the required threshold value of 0.85 (Kline, 2015), thus estab-
lishing the discriminant validity.

Table 1 Results of Measurement

Model Variables Items Loadings Composite Reliability AVE

Management-by-exception Active MBEA1 0.815 0.924 0.577

MBEA2 0.796
MBEA3 0.644
MBEA4 0.717
MBEA5 0.754
MBEA6 0.764
MBEA7 0.740
MBEA8 0.809
MBEA9 0.782
Health-specific Leadership HSL3 0.876 0.876 0.598
HSL4 0.913
HSL5 0.588
HSL6 0.477
HSL7 0.905
Psychosocial Safety Climate PSC1 0.718 0.929 0.523
PSC2 0.732
PSC3 0.751
PSC4 0.715
PSC5 0.776
PSC6 0.692
PSC7 0.677
PSC8 0.763
PSC9 0.729
PSC10 0.724
PSC11 0.622
PSC12 0.765
Psychological Distress PSD1 0.829 0.937 0.556
PSD2 0.875
PSD3 0.604
PSD4 0.712
PSD5 0.715
PSD6 0.675
PSD7 0.632
PSD8 0.843
PSD9 0.670
PSD10 0.802
PSD11 0.817
PSD12 0.711

AVE = Average Variance Extracted

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Curr Psychol

Table 2 Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT)
1 2 3 4
1. Health-specific Leadership
2. Management-by-exception Active 0.448
3. Psychosocial Safety Climate 0.481 0.493
4. Psychological Distress 0.127 0.392 0.211
Structural Model
To evaluate the structural model it is recommended to report
R 2 , beta value and the corresponding t-value through
bootstrapping procedure of 5000 resamples (Hair et al.,
2014). Kaufmann and Gaeckler (2015) emphasized that re-
searchers should also report effect size (f2). The f2 represent
change in R2 when a specific exogenous construct is omitted
from the model and explains whether that independent vari-
able had any substantive effect on the dependent variable
(Hair et al., 2014).
The predictive power of the study was assessed using the
score of R2. The R2 value of psychosocial safety climate was
0.307, whereas the R2 value for psychological distress was
0.067. The effect size f2 for MBEA on psychosocial safety
climate (excluding the effect of health-specific leadership)
was found to be 0.170, while it was 0.102 for health-specific
leadership on psychosocial safety climate. Psychosocial safety
climate’s effect size on psychological distress was 0.072.
Hypotheses Testing
Hypothesis 1 proposed that MBEA (MBEA) T1 will be pos-
itively associated with psychosocial safety climate T2. As
shown in Table 3, MBEA T1 (β = 0.373, p < 0.001) was sig-
nificantly positively related to psychosocial safety climate T2,
confirming hypothesis 1. Hypothesis 2 proposed that health-
specific leadership T1 will be positively associated with psy-
chosocial safety climate T2. Health-specific leadership T1
(β = 0.289, p < 0.001) indeed had a significant positive effect
on psychosocial safety climate T2; thus Hypothesis 2 was also
supported. Hypothesis 3 proposed that psychosocial safety
climate T2 will be negatively associated with psychological
distress T2, and the results (β = −0.258, p < 0.05), confirming
the significance of hypothesis 3.
Lastly, we conducted mediation analysis following the me-
diation approach recommended by Hayes (2009). If the indi-
rect effect is significant then mediation is achieved and in case
the indirect is insignificant than there is no mediation.
Hypothesis 4 proposed that psychosocial safety climate T2
will mediate the relationship between MBEA T1 and psycho-
logical distress T2. The results provided support for the me-
diation path (β = −0.096, p < 0.001), thereby confirming hy-
pothesis 4. In accordance with our supposition (β = −0.075,
p < 0.05) psychosocial safety climate T2 also mediated the
relationship between health-specific leadership T1 and psy-
chological distress T2, thus confirming hypothesis 5.
Table 3 presents the results of hypotheses testing and depicted
in Figure 1.
Discussion
The objectives of this study were to identify the health-related
leadership styles suitable in a culture high on power-distance
and collectivism to promote psychological health. We identi-
fied two leadership styles i.e. MBEA and health-specific lead-
ership. Secondly, we proposed and tested the mediating role
of psychosocial safety climate as a facilitator of the link be-
tween leadership and psychological health issues. Previous
research primarily focused on the outcomes of PSC (see
Bailey et al., 2015; Dollard et al., 2012; Idris et al., 2014).
However, limited research has been carried out on the deter-
minants of PSC. This research fills this gap by conceptualizing
and empirically confirms MBEA and health-specific leader-
ship as antecedents of PSC. Importantly, the findings of this
study broaden our understanding about the role of leadership
in promulgating PSC at the workplace, in safety-sensitive or-
ganizations in particular.

Table 3 Results of Hypotheses

Testing Relationship Std Beta Std Dev t-value f2 R2 Decision

H1 MBEA ➔PSC 0.373 0.069 5.446** 0.170 0.307 Supported

H2 HSL ➔PSC 0.289 0.077 3.776** 0.102 Supported
H3 PSC ➔PSD −0.258 0.100 2.597* 0.072 0.067 Supported
H4 MBEA ➔PSC ➔PSD −0.096 0.055 2.335** Supported
H5 HSL ➔PSC ➔PSD −0.075 0.051 2.012* Supported

**p < 0.001, *p < 0.05

MBEA = management-by-exception active; HSL = Health-specific leadership; PSC = Psychosocial safety cli-
mate; PSD = Psychological distress

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.


Fig. 1 Dotted lines represent
Management by
indirect effect
exception Active
β = 0.373
(MBEA)
t = 5.446
Health-specific
β = 0.289
Leadership
t = 3.776
Dotted lines represent indirect effect
As hypothesized, MBEA enhanced employees’ psycho-
social safety climate perceptions, indicating the impactful
role of the monitoring style of leadership when employed
in an appropriate cultural context (Mirza & Isha, 2017).
The results clearly suggest that in Malaysian culture em-
ployees are more receptive to leaders who are directive
and vigilantly monitor to correct mistakes regarding
health and safety. The active monitoring of leaders to
reduces deviations from standards in a hazardous environ-
ment and enhances employee’s psychosocial safety cli-
mate perceptions because it creates an unequivocal envi-
ronment regarding their health and safety.
The path from MBEA to psychological health was mediat-
ed by psychosocial safety climate, confirming the indirect
effect. The results confirm the earlier findings that
Malaysian employees being receptive to leaders who assume
more power (Abdullah, 2001), and are clear about their ex-
pectations (Jogulu, 2010). Our findings have significant im-
plications for the occupational health psychology literature.
Much of the work in the field has been on leadership styles
which have theoretical grounds in social exchange theory (see
Kelloway & Barling, 2010; Montano et al., 2017). We believe
there are two reasons for the discrepant results. First, because
much of the leadership research has been conducted in
Western/American cultures (Avolio et al., 2009) there is uni-
formity in research and results. Secondly, contrary to what
many believe leadership styles do not have a universal appli-
cation (Holten et al., 2017) and it is necessary to consider the
context in which a leader has to lead. Thus, more focus is
required on the alignment of leadership characteristics with
the context in which they are operating.
Psychosocial safety climate and psychological health were
also found to be negatively related. The results are in line with
the earlier findings reporting a negative association between
the two constructs (Dollard & Bakker, 2010; Law et al., 2011;
Dollard et al., 2012; Idris et al., 2012). The results add to the
psychosocial safety climate literature by proving its effective-
ness in a not previously tested hazardous work environment
like oil and gas.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Curr Psychol
β = -0.096
t = 2.335
β = -0.258
Psychosocial Safety t = 2.597 Psychological Health
Climate (PSC) Problems
β = -0.075
t = 2.012
Moreover, the results indicate a significant relationship be-
tween health-specific leadership and psychosocial safety cli-
mate. Also, the findings confirm the mediating role of psycho-
social safety climate between health-specific leadership and
psychological health. These findings depart from the earlier
work, which highlighted health-specific leadership increases
role ambiguity among employees, which in turn increase their
health-related problems (Gurt et al., 2011). One of the reasons
of such a finding is cultural orientation of Malaysian em-
ployees. Malaysian workers prefer ‘family like’ environment
and expects consideration and care from their leaders.
Health-specific leaders show unequivocal support and
care for employees’ health develops positive psychoso-
cial safety climate perception which in turn reduces
their psychological health problems.
These findings validate our earlier argumentation that there
needs to be an alignment between leadership characteristics
and the culture in which leadership style is practiced.
Although Gurt et al. (2011) reported its ineffectiveness in
non-hazardous work setting, they suggested that health-
specific leadership might be effective in specific organization-
al context. The present study proves such an assumption as it
confirms the effectiveness of health-specific leadership in
Malaysian oil and gas industry. The findings also add to the
health-specific leadership literature and it is left for the future
studies to examine the effects of health-specific leadership in
different organizational settings and also at different hierarchi-
cal levels in the organization to improve our understanding on
the subject matter.
Theoretical Implications
This study contributes to extant psychosocial safety climate
and psychological health literature. It suggests leaders
(MBEA and health-specific leadership) exhibiting health-
centric behaviors have a significant bearing on psychosocial
safety climate as well as psychological health, adding a new
domain of potential interest to psychosocial safety climate
Curr Psychol
literature. Theoretically, this means that the leader’s interest in
employee health and well-being conveyed through health-
centric leadership behaviors and practices provides a psycho-
logical safety net, conveying to them the message that the
organization does not demand outcomes at their expense but
rather values their well-being as well. The proactive problem
resolution inherent in MBEA and considerate and caring char-
acteristics of health-specific leadership signals to subordinates
their health and safety is taken care of (psychosocial safety
climate perceptions), and keeps their mind off health-related
issues, contributing to their psychological health.
The findings of this research also contribute to leadership
literature in highlighting the importance of aligning leadership
style with the cultural context rather than seeking social ex-
change consequences of leadership styles. Theoretically, this
is significant as it proposes a fresh perspective of context-
based leadership. Because leadership comprises of numerous
sets of behaviors, they are adoptable, therefore, this study
contributes to leadership literature in that it emphasizes lead-
ership effectiveness in alignment with the cultural context
rather than a social exchange perspective.
Practical Implications
Our findings indicate that investing in health-centric leader-
ship styles will have a beneficial effect on employee’s psy-
chological health. Leadership commitment is essential in cre-
ating an environment where employees believe that their
health and well-being is valued by the organization. Hence,
the Malaysian organizations can practice these leadership
styles to thwart the risks associated with their employee’s
psychological health. For growing economies like Malaysia,
this is very important as higher-level occupational health and
safety will result in better organizational performance, which
will ultimately help to attract more foreign direct investment.
The Malaysian organizations need to invest in work health
and safety specific MBEA leadership as it suits their cultural
requirements (at least for the time being) and can resolve the
psychological health issues of their employees.
Limitations and Future Research Directions
The focus of this study was the lower-level workforce (pro-
duction workers). It will be interesting to see whether similar
results are obtained for the employees working at other levels
i.e. middle and higher level in the similar context. Moreover,
the present study relied on purposive sampling owing to the
theoretical requirements of the study. Future studies might
consider better sampling techniques (e.g. stratified-random
sampling) in-order to give clear inferences about effects of
leadership styles at the workplace.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Since data were collected from oil and gas workers, the
findings may not be generalizable to other sectors.
Future studies are recommended to compare the present
model in hazardous and non-hazardous work settings.
Such an effort will help to better understand the utility
of the present model in different work settings, which is
not only important for theoretical advancement but will
also help managers to nurture PSC at the workplace.
It is important to note that lack of panel data restricted us to
perform additional analyses (e.g. examining reverse relation-
ships). The oil and gas industry is often considered as a hard-
to-reach population because of it’s their geographical loca-
tions (i.e., onshore and offshore plants) and type of operations.
It is almost impossible to approach target participants without
prior consent from the organization. Notably, a specific time
was allowed to visit production workers. As such, the re-
searchers had relatively limited time to administer the ques-
tionnaire survey on the site. Given these time constraints and
the sensitive nature of the workplace, only limited questions
could be answered. Therefore, in T1, data were collected for
MBEA and health-specific leadership. Later, in T2, the em-
ployees were asked to respond to the PSC and psychological
distress-related items.
The self-reported measures are another limitation of the
present study. It is suggested that future studies might look
for alternative sources of data (e.g., health-related reports,
health-screening expenditure). Although organizational re-
ports regarding health and safety are not considered reliable
(Hamalainen et al., 2006), they may provide an alternative to
validate the information provided by the employees.
Another limitation is that PSC was operationalized at
the individual level, whereas the PSC construct is usually
conceptualized as an organizational level construct.
Research does, however, indicate that over and above
group level PSC, individual level PSC has an effect on
work conditions and worker mental health (Owen et al.,
2016). Nevertheless, future research exploring leadership
and climate could consider the role of PSC at the work
unit level or organizational level in combination with in-
dividual effects in research.
Lastly, non-availability of panel data restricted our capacity
to test reverse relationships between psychosocial safety cli-
mate and leadership. Previous research have used panel data
(see Kinnunen et al., 2016) to examine the reverse relation-
ships providing interesting insights about ‘followers-view’ of
leadership whereby climate. Future research can assess this
reverse relationship between psychosocial effects future
leadership.
Data Availability Data will be available on request.
Declarations

Ethics Approval All procedures performed in studies involving human
participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institu-
tional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki
declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all individual
participants included in the study.
Conflict of Interest On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author
states that there is no conflict of interest.
References
Abdullah, A. (1992). The influence of ethnic values on managerial prac-
tices in Malaysia. Malaysian Management Review, 27(1), 3–18.
Abdullah, A. (2001). Understanding the Malaysian workforce:
Guidelines for managers. Malaysian Institute of Management.
Ali, H., Azimah Chew Abdullah, N., & Subramaniam, C. (2009).
Management practice in safety culture and its influence on work-
place injury. Disaster Prevention and Management: An
International Journal, 18(5), 470–477. https://doi.org/10.1108/
09653560911003660.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling
in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach.
[JOUR]. Psychological bulletin, 103(3), 411.
Andrews, G., Hall, W., Teesson, M., & Henderson, S. (1999). The mental
health of Australians. Mental Health Branch, Commonwealth
Department of Health and Aged Care, Canberra, Australia.
Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership:
Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual Review of
Psychology, 60, 421–449. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.
60.110707.163621.
Bailey, T. S., Dollard, M., McLinton, S. S., & Richards, P. A. M. (2015).
Psychosocial safety climate, psychosocial and physical factors in the
aetiology of musculoskeletal disorder symptoms and workplace in-
jury compensation claims. Work and Stress, 29(2), 190–211. https://
doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2015.1031855.
Bakar, H. A., Jian, G., & Fairhurst, G. (2014). Where do I stand ? The
interaction of leader–member exchange and performance ratings.
Asian Business & Management, 13(2), 143–170. https://doi.org/
10.1057/abm.2014.3.
Bandura, A. (1971). Social learning theory. Social Learning Theory, pp.,
28, 1–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1978.tb01621.x.
Barling, J., & Griffiths, A. (2010). A history of occupational health
psychology.
Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Free
Press.
Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (1995). Multifactor leadership questionnaire.
Mind Garden.
Bass, B., & Riggio, R. (2006). Transformational leadership. Psychology
Press.
Bassili, J. N., & Scott, B. S. (1996). Response latency as a signal to
question problems in survey research. Public Opinion Quarterly,
60(3), 390. https://doi.org/10.1086/297760.
Brislin, R. W., Lonner, W. J., & Thorndike, R. M. (1973). Cross-cultural
research methods. J. Wiley New York, NY.
Brouer, R., & Harris, K. (2007). Dispositional and situational moderators
of the relationship between leader–member exchange and work ten-
sion. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(7), 1418–1441.
Carlisle, K. N., & Parker, A. W. (2014). Psychological distress and pain
reporting in Australian coal miners. Safety and Health at Work, 5(4),
203–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shaw.2014.07.005.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Curr Psychol
Carmeli, A., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Ziv, E. (2010). Inclusive leadership
and employee involvement in creative tasks in the workplace: The
mediating role of psychological safety. Creativity Research Journal,
22(3), 250–260.
Chin, W. W. (2010). How to write up and report PLS analyses. In V. E.
Vinzi, W. W. Chin, J. Henseler, & H. Wang (Eds.), Handbook of
partial least squares (pp. 655–690). Springer.
Clarke, S. (2010). An integrative model of safety climate: Linking psy-
chological climate and work attitudes to individual safety outcomes
using meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational & Organizational
Psychology, 83(3), 553–578. https://doi.org/10.1348/
096317909x452122.
Clarke, S. (2013). Safety leadership: A meta-analytic review of transfor-
mational and transactional leadership styles as antecedents of safety
behaviours. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 86(1), 22–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.
2012.02064.x.
Cole, D. A., & Maxwell, S. E. (2003). Testing mediational models with
longitudinal data: questions and tips in the use of structural equation
modeling. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112(4), 558
Conner, M., & Norman, P. (2005). Predicting health behaviour (second).
McGraw-Hill Education.
Dollard, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Psychosocial safety climate as a
precursor to conducive work environments , psychological health
problems , and employee engagement. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 83, 579–599. https://doi.org/10.1348/
096317909X470690.
Dollard, M., Opie, T., Lenthall, S., Wakerman, J., Knight, S., Dunn, S.,
et al. (2012). Psychosocial safety climate as an antecedent of work
characteristics and psychological strain: A multilevel model. Work
& Stress, 26(4), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2012.
734154.
Durand, P., & Marchand, A. (2005). Does work really cause distress? The
contribution of occupational structure and work organization to the
experience of psychological distress. Social Science and Medicine,
61, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.11.037.
Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of
Sociology, 2(1), 335–362.
Franke, F., & Felfe, J. (2011). How does transformational leadership
impact employees’ psychological strain?: Examining differentiated
effects and the moderating role of affective organizational commit-
ment. Leadership, 7(3), 295–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1742715011407387.
Gilbreath, B. (2004). Creating healthy workplaces: The supervisor’s role.
International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
19, 93–118.
Gurt, J., Elke, G., & Bochum, R. (2009). Health promoting leadership :
The mediating role of an organizational health culture. International
conference on ergonomics and health aspects of work with com-
puters, 29–38.
Gurt, J., Schwennen, C., & Elke, G. (2011). Health-specific leadership : Is
there an association between leader consideration for the health of
employees and their strain and well- being? Work & stress,
(November 2014), 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2011.
595947.
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A primer on
partial least Squzres structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM).
Sage Publications, United States of America.
Hall, G. B., Dollard, M., & Coward, J. (2010). Psychosocial safety cli-
mate: Development of the PSC-12. International Journal of Stress
Management, 17(4), 353–383. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021320.
Hamalainen, P., Takala, J., & Saarela, K. L. (2006). Global estimates of
occupational accidents. Safety Science, 44(2), 137–156. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ssci.2005.08.017.
Harris, K. J., & Kacmar, K. M. (2006). Too much of a good thing : The
curvilinear effect of leader- member exchange on stress. The Journal
Curr Psychol
of Social Psychology, 146(1), 37–41. https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.
146.1.65-84.
Hayes, A. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation anal-
ysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76, 1–24
Hoch, J. E., Bommer, W. H., Dulebohn, J. H., & Wu, D. (2018). Do
ethical, authentic, and servant leadership explain variance above
and beyond transformational leadership? A meta-analysis. Journal
of Management, 44(2), 501–529. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0149206316665461.
Hofstede, G. (2016). What about Malaysia? Retrieved January 1, 2016,
from The Hofstede Center website: http://geert-hofstede.com/
malaysia.html
Holten, A.-L., Bollingtoft, A., Carneiro, I. G., & Borg, V. (2017). A
within-country study of leadership perceptions and outcomes across
native and immigrant employees: Questioning the universality of
transformational leadership. Journal of Management &
Organization, 24, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2017.2.
Hooper, D. T., & Martin, R. (2008). Beyond personal leader–member
exchange (LMX) quality: The effects of perceived LMX variability
on employee reactions. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(1), 20–30.
Idris, M. A., Dollard, M. F., Coward, J., & Dormann, C. (2012).
Psychosocial safety climate: Conceptual distinctiveness and effect
on job demands and worker psychological health. Safety Science,
50(1), 19–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2011.06.005.
Idris, M. A., Dollard, M., & Yulita. (2014). Psychosocial safety climate,
emotional demands, burnout, and depression: A longitudinal multi-
level study in the Malaysian private sector. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 19(3), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036599.
Jogulu, U. (2008). Leadership and career aspirations in female and male
middle managers: a cross-cultural study in Malaysia and Australia.
Federation University
Jogulu, U. D. (2010). Culturally linked leadership styles. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 31(8), 705–719. https://doi.
org/10.1108/01437731011094766.
Jogulu, U., & Ferkins, L. (2012). Leadership and culture in Asia: The case
of Malaysia. Asia Pacific Business Review, 18(4), 531–549.
Kanste, O., Kyngas, H., & Nikkila, J. (2007). The relationship between
multidimensional leadership and burnout among nursing staff.
Journal of Nursing Management, 15(7), 731–739. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1365-2934.2006.00741.x.
Kaufmann, L., & Gaeckler, J. (2015). A structured review of partial least
squares in supply chain management research. Journal of
Purchasing and Supply Management, 21(4), 259–272. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.pursup.2015.04.005.
Kelloway, E. K., Turner, N., Barling, J., & Loughlin, C. (2012).
Transformational leadership and employee psychological well-be-
ing: The mediating role of employee trust in leadership. Work &
Stress, 26(1), 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2012.
660774.
Kelloway, K., & Barling, J. (2010). Leadership development as an inter-
vention in occupational health psychology. Work & Stress, 24(3),
260–279.
Kinnunen, U., Feldt, T., & Mauno, S. (2016). Authentic leadership and
team climate: Testing cross-lagged relationships. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 31(2), 331–345. https://doi.org/10.1108/
JMP-12-2014-0362.
Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K. B., & Gibson, C. B. (2006). A quarter century
of culture’s consequences: A review of empirical research incorpo-
rating Hofstede’s cultural values framework. Journal of
International Business Studies, 37(3), 285–320.
Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation model-
ing [BOOK]. Guilford publications.
Kock, N., & Lynn, G. (2012). Lateral collinearity and misleading results
in variance-based SEM: An illustration and recommendations.
Journal of the Association for Information System, 13(7), 546–580
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Krosnick, J. a., & Presser, S. (2010). Question and Questionnaire Design.
In Handbook of Survey Research., 62, 211–215. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1432-1033.1976.tb10115.x.
Law, R., Dollard, M., Tuckey, M. R., & Dormann, C. (2011).
Psychosocial safety climate as a lead indicator of workplace bullying
and harassment, job resources, psychological health and employee
engagement. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 43(5), 1782–1793.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2011.04.010.
Lee, J., & Jensen, J. M. (2014). The effects of active constructive and
passive corrective leadership on workplace incivility and the medi-
ating role of fairness perceptions. Group & Organization
Management, 39(4), 416–443. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1059601114543182.
Leigh, J. P. (2011). Economic burden of occupational injury and illness in
the United States. Milbank Quarterly, 89(4), 728–772.
Lugah, V., Ganesh, B., Darus, A., Retneswari, M., Rosnawati, M. R., &
Sujatha, D. (2010). Training of occupational safety and health:
Knowledge among healthcare professionals in Malaysia.
Singapore Medical Journal, 51(7), 586–592.
Luria, G. (2008). Climate strength–how leaders form consensus. The
Leadership Quarterly, 19(1), 42–53.
Mackey, J. D., McAllister, C. P., Maher, L. P., & Wang, G. (2019).
Leaders and followers behaving badly: A meta-analytic examination
of curvilinear relationships between destructive leadership and fol-
lowers’ workplace behaviors. Personnel Psychology, 72(1), 3–47.
Mallinckrodt, B., & Wang, C. (2004). Quantitative Methods for Verifying
Semantic Equivalence of Translated Research Instruments : A
Chinese Version of the Experiences in Close Relationships Scale.,
51(3), 368–379. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.51.3.368.
Memon, M. A., Salleh, R., & Baharom, M. N. R. (2016). The link be-
tween training satisfaction, work engagement and turnover inten-
tion. European Journal of Training and Development, 40(6), 407–
429. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-10-2015-0077.
Memon, M. A., Salleh, R., Mirza, M. Z., Cheah, J.-H., Ting, H., &
Ahmad, M. S. (2019). Performance appraisal satisfaction and turn-
over intention. Management decision, MD-06-2018-0685. https://
doi.org/10.1108/MD-06-2018-0685, 58, 1053, 1066.
Mirza, M. Z., & Isha, A. S. N. (2017). Context matters: A research agenda
to move beyond conventional leadership-safety relationship. Safety
Science, 98, 167–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.06.013.
Mirza, M. Z., & Bashir, S. (2015). Workers 9/11 in Pakistan: Neglected
sparks causing conflagration. International Journal of Occupational
Safety and Ergonomics, 21(3), 405–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10803548.2015.1081778.
Mirza, Z., Isha, A. S. N., Memon, M. A., Azeem, S., & Zahid, M. (2019).
Psychosocial safety climate, safety compliance and safety participa-
tion: The mediating role of psychological distress. Journal of
Management & Organization, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.
2019.35.
Montano, D., Reeske, A., Franke, F., & Huffmeier, J. (2017). Leadership,
followers’ mental health and job performance in organizations: A
comprehensive meta-analysis from an occupational health perspec-
tive. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(3), 327–350. https://
doi.org/10.1002/job.
Mullen, J., & Kelloway, E. K. (2011). Occupational health and safety
leadership. Handbook of occupational Health Psychology (2nd ed.).
APA Books.
Noorderhaven, N. G., & Harzing, A. (2003). The “country-of-origin ef-
fect” in multinational corporations: Sources, mechanisms and mod-
erating conditions. Management international review, 43(special
issue 2), 47–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-90995-4_4.
Owen, M. S., Bailey, T. S., & Dollard, M. F. (2016). Psychosocial safety
climate as a multilevel extension of ERI theory: Evidence from
Australia. In work stress and health in a globalized economy (pp.
189–217). Springer.

Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational
research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4),
531–544.
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. (2003).
Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review
of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
Porter, L. W., & McLaughlin, G. B. (2006). Leadership and the organi-
zational context: Like the weather? Leadership Quarterly, 17(6),
559–576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.002.
Ramayah, T., Cheah, J., Chuah, F., Ting, H., & Memon, M. A. (2016).
Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM)
using SmartPLS 3.0: An updated and practical guide to statistical
analysis. Pearson, Singapore.
Reinartz, W., Haenlein, M., & Henseler, J. (2009). An empirical compar-
ison of the efficacy of covariance-based and variance-based SEM.
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26(4), 332–344.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2009.08.001.
Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J. M. (2015). SmartPLS 3.
SmartPLS GmbH, Boenningstedt. Journal of Service Science and
Management, 10(3)
Selvarajah, C., & Meyer, D. (2008). One nation, three cultures: Exploring
dimensions that relate to leadership in Malaysia. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 29(8), 693–712. https://doi.
org/10.1108/01437730810916640.
Selvarajah, C., Meyer, D., & Selvarajah, C. (2006). Archetypes of the
Malaysian manager : Exploring ethnicity dimensions that relate to
leadership. Journal of Management & Organization, 12(3), 251–
269. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1833367200003990.
Social Security Organization Report. (2016). Retrieved from https://
www.perkeso.gov.my/index.php/en/report/annual-report
Stordeur, S., D’hoore, W., & Vandenberghe, C. (2001). Leadership, or-
ganizational stress, and emotional exhaustion among hospital nurs-
ing staff. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 35(4), 533–542. https://doi.
org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01885.x.
Viktor, G. (1982). The self-concept. Annual Review of Sociology,
8(May), 1–33.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Curr Psychol
Winkler, E., Busch, C., Clasen, J., & Vowinkel, J. (2015). Changes in
leadership behaviors predict changes in job satisfaction and well-
being in low-skilled workers: A longitudinal investigation. Journal
of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 22(1), 1–16. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1548051814527771.
Yukl, G. (2017). Leadership in organizations (eighth). Pearson Upper
Saddle River, NJ.
Yukl, G. A. (2006). Leadership in organizations (6th ed.). Prentice Hall.
Yusoff, M. S. B., Rahim, A. F. A., & Yaacob, M. J. (2009). The sensi-
tivity, specifity and reliability of the Malay version 12-items general
health questionnaire (GHQ-12) in detecting distressed medical stu-
dents. ASEAN Journal of Psychiatry, 11(June), 1–8. https://doi.org/
10.5959/eimj.2.1.2010.or2.
Zadow, A. J., Dollard, M., Mclinton, S. S., Lawrence, P., & Tuckey, M.
R. (2017). Psychosocial safety climate, emotional exhaustion, and
work injuries in healthcare workplaces. Stress and Health, 33(5),
558–569. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2740.
Zhang, Y., & Liao, Z. (2015). Consequences of abusive supervision: A
meta-analytic review. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 32(4),
959–987.
Zohar, D. (2010). Thirty years of safety climate research : Reflections and
future directions. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 42(5), 1517–
1522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2009.12.019.
Zwingmann, I., Wegge, J., Wolf, S., Rudolf, M., Schmidt, M., & Richter,
P. (2014). Is transformational leadership healthy for employees? A
multilevel analysis in 16 nations. Work & Stress, 28, 24–51. https://
doi.org/10.1688/ZfP-2014-01-Zwingmann.
Zwingmann, I., Wolf, S., & Richter, P. (2016). Every light has its shadow
: A longitudinal study of transformational leadership and leaders ’
emotional exhaustion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 46, 19–33.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12352.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:

1. use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
2. use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
3. falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
4. use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
5. override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
6. share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at

onlineservice@springernature.com