12 May 2017 Final version
Executive Programme in Management Studies – Leadership and Management
University of Amsterdam Business School Supervisor: dr. F. Belschak
This document is written by Student Wytske Marianne de Vries who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Table of content
Abstract 3
1 Introduction 4
2 Literature review 8
2.1 Ethical leadership 8
2.1.1 Attributes and characteristics 9
2.1.2 Related forms of leadership 11
2.1.3 Mechanism of ethical leadership 14
2.2 Ethical leadership and climate 15
2.2.1 Safety climate 19 2.2.2 Safety behavior 21 2.3 Cultural Dimensions 26 2.3.1 Culture 26 2.3.2 Dimensions 31 3 Method 36
3.1 Sample and procedure 36
3.2 Measuring instruments 36
4 Results 39
5 Discussion 45
5.1 Limitations and future research 46
5.2 Practical implications 47
5.3 Conclusion 48
Abstract
Ethical leadership, a style that has become more and more important over the years, has positive effects on followers, climate, prosocial behavior, organizational commitment and ultimately business. This study focused on the effect of ethical leadership on safety. The relationship between ethical leadership and safety behavior, mediated with safety climate, and moderated with the cultural dimensions power distance and collectivism have been examined with linear regression analyses. In line with expectations, ethical leadership increases safety behavior, increases safety climate, and safety climate fully mediates the relationship between ethical leadership and safety behavior. The results furthermore show that collectivism moderates the relation between ethical leadership and safety behavior, and the relation between safety climate and safety behavior. Power distance, however has no significant moderating effect. Practical implications of these findings are discussed and some suggestions are made for future research on this topic.
1 Introduction
One question that continuously keep organizations busy is what is the most effective leadership style? Nowadays there are various leadership styles and one specific style has become more and more important: ethical leadership. If you enter ethical leadership in the Google search engine, you get 10 million results. Ethics is about doing the right thing. There is a lot of news about the negative impact of ethical mistakes (Ataya, 2016). Scandals in business, government, sports, and non-profit organizations, boycotts, and briberies are examples of valuing business over ethics. The public now condemns the companies and persons involved in this unethical behavior whereas in the past leaders sometimes got away. Ataya (2016) also refers to the positive effects on business, which we do not hear about regularly. Once ethics is incorporated into the company’s culture and ethical guidelines and procedures are defined, leaders can set an example. This contributes to attracting top employees and clients, and ultimately motivate employees to perform better and more innovative (Ataya, 2016). In the current market, ethics has become more of a standard instead of something rare. It is imbedded in companies’ standards and used as a main selling point. As Thornton (2013) mentions, getting employees to act ethically in the workplace starts at the top. Scholars are aware of this as well, they now define ethical leadership as a separate leadership style. For years, it has not been treated as a distinct construct. It has been viewed as a component of a leadership style, for example transformational leadership. However, more recent research (Trevino, Brown & Hartman, 2003; Brown, Trevino, & Harrison, 2005; Brown & Trevino, 2006; De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2008) focused on ethical leadership as an individual style and her antecedents and outcomes. Neubert et al. (2009) showed that ethical leadership has a positive relation with ethical climate. After reviewing this research and working at a multinational engineering company, I wondered whether there also would be a relation with safety.
A safe work environment is an important topic in the labor market, especially within certain industries. Still many (fatal) accidents happen during work. Think of the mining disasters in China, Chili, USA, New Zealand, and Turkey in the last decade. However, also individual accidents are no exception. There are many sectors where the execution of the work is not without risk. Healthcare, construction, oil and gas, automobile, army, police, etc. are all industries that require a solid safety policy and compliance with this policy in order to decrease the number of accidents and keep the employees safe.
The literature about safety climate and safety behavior is not that extensive (yet). Some research has been done on how a safe workplace can be established and how safety behavior is created (Neal & Griffin, 1997, 2006; Neal, Griffin & Hart, 2000; Mullen, 2004). One factor that determines a safety climate, according to Neal & Griffin (2000), is the concern for employee well-being. This component also distinguishes ethical leadership (Kalshoven et al., 2011).
No research has been done yet that specifically focuses on the relation between ethical leadership and safety. Therefore, in this research I will explore the influence of ethical leadership on safety behavior and climate.
More specifically, the relationship between ethical leadership and safety climate will be tested. According to Neubert et al. (2009), ethical leadership is positively related to ethical climate and therefore I will expect a positive relation with safety climate. Next to safety climate, also the relation between ethical leadership and safety behavior is expected to be positive through role modelling (Mayer et al., 2009). Furthermore, the relationship between safety climate and safety behavior is examined. A positive outcome is expected due to the social exchange theory (Neal & Griffin, 2006). All three variables will also be tested together where safety climate is expected to be mediating the relationship between ethical leadership and safety behavior.
Situational factors should always be considered a critical role when looking into the effectiveness of a leadership style (Dorfman et al., 1997), more precisely the factor culture. Every country and organization has its own culture and therefore influences decisions, behavior, etc. A leader in a small
local company in Canada might operationalize ethical leadership differently from a manager in a multinational company working with different nationalities. The culture component mentioned here distinguishes from safety climate as discussed above in that respect that culture refers to the values, believes, and assumptions shared by the members and deeply embedded in an organization
(Hofstede, 1980), whereas safety climate refers to practices and procedures that are shared among members of an organization (Scheider, 1975). Globe (Global Leadership & Organizational Behavior Effectiveness, 2004) has done extensive research on cultural dimensions and leadership styles per country. The results show us that every society has its own practices and values, just like the most effective leadership styles vary. Therefore, two cultural dimensions have been added to this research. Power distance and collectivism will be tested as moderating variables in the relationship between ethical leadership and both safety climate as well as safety behavior. It is expected that collectivism and high power distance have a more positive influence on the relationship than individualism and low power distance. Collectivism creates strong group cohesiveness and high power distance gives the leader much influence. Finally, the relationship between safety climate and safety behavior will be moderated by collectivism as the expectation is that a strong in-group feeling generates universal perceptions and behavior.
With this research, I would like to build upon and extend previous work on both ethical leadership and safety behavior. As mentioned, ethics including ethical leadership becomes more and more important for companies and this specific leadership style has many positive influences according to scholars. With this research, I hope to add safety behavior as a positive influence of this leadership style, separately as well as mediated with safety climate. Furthermore, I hope to help companies understand how they can increase their safety climate and safety behavior, as companies will benefit from this. Safety behavior leads to fewer accidents which will be a cost saving, are beneficial for a company’s reputation (including her ethics), and can create more business opportunities. Next to this, I hope I can demonstrate the importance of culture and how this influences the effectiveness
of leadership. If a leader understands his influence and effects on his followers, he can create and increase a safety climate and safety behavior.
Figure 1 Research model
Ethical leadership Safety climate Safety behavior
Cultural dimensions Cultural dimensions Cultural dimensions
2
Literature review
In paragraph 2.1 ethical leadership is explained and defined based on traits and characteristics, related forms, and the mechanism of this leadership style.
Next, paragraph 2.2 describes existing literature about the influence of ethical leadership on ethical climate, which then lead to hypothesis 1. Safety climate and safety behavior are defined and linked to ethical leadership which lead to hypothesis 2, 3, and 4.
In paragraph 2.3 the cultural dimensions power distance and collectivism are explored to define hypothesis 5, 6, and 7.
2.1 Ethical Leadership
According to Ciulla (1995) ‘good leadership’ contains both competence and ethics.
Kodish (2006) argues that "Leadership is more than a skill, more than the knowledge of theories, and more than analytical faculties. It is the ability to act purposively and ethically as the situation
requires on the basis of the knowledge of universals, experience, perception, and intuition" (p. 464). Bass and Steidlmeier (1999) discuss the three pillars of ethical leadership: “(1) the moral character of the leader; (2) the ethical legitimacy of the values embedded in the leaders vision, articulation, and program which followers either embrace or reject; and (3) the morality of the processes of social ethical choice and action that leaders and followers engage in and collectively pursue” (p.162). They conclude that the actions of authentic transformational leaders are focused on “noble ends,
legitimate means, and fair consequences” (p. 211), they act as a moral agent.
Inspired by musician McFerrin, Ladkin (2008) notes that when the purpose of leading beautifully is to serve the best interests, it “brings into play the ethical dimension of a leader's endeavour” (Price, 2003, p. 33).
Kanungo (2001) mention that “all forms of leadership behavior gain their legitimacy and credibility from the leader’s moral standing and integrity” (p.258), and “without ethical leadership,
organizations lose their long term effectiveness and become soulless structures” (p. 258).
Leaders must make use of power, however, when this is done in a non-coercive way to direct and guide followers (Gini, 1997), and respecting the rights and dignity of these followers (Ciulla, as cited in Resick et al., 2006.), we can speak of ethical leadership.
These definitions show us (according to scholars and researchers) the meaning and importance of ethical leadership. But what exactly is ethical leadership? In order to explain this, we discuss the attributes and characteristics, the related forms of ethical leadership, and the mechanism of ethical leadership.
2.1.1 Attributes and Characteristics
Resick et al. (2006) focus on the psychological processes of ethical leadership, the leaders’ cognition and behavior, and identify six key attributes that demonstrate ethical leadership. The first three attributes, character and integrity, ethical awareness, and community / people-orientation, are based on the leaders’ value and knowledge (cognitive component). The last three attributes, motivating, encouraging and empowering, and managing ethical accountability, influences the leaders’ behavior and the way they use their power.
According to Trevino, Hartman & Brown (2000), ethical leadership has two dimensions: the moral person and the moral manager. The moral person refers to quality of honesty, trustworthiness, fairness, and concern for others. The moral manager is about how leaders use their role and position to promote ethics in the workplace (Den Hartog, 2015).
Also, several researchers (in Brown & Trevino, 2006) found that perceived leader effectiveness is linked to leader’s honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness.
Trevino (2000, 2003) provided evidence that personal characteristics like honest and trustworthy are related to ethical leadership. Furthermore, ethical leaders were seen as fair and principled decision-makers who care about people and the broader society (Brown & Trevino, 2006).
Bass & Avioli (2000) showed that ethical leadership was positively related to leader consideration, interactional fairness, leader honesty, and the idealized influence dimension of transformational leadership (Brown & Trevino, 2006).
All together, ethical leaders are characterized as honest, caring, and principled individuals who make fair and balanced decisions. They also communicate with their followers on a frequent basis about ethics, they define clear ethical standards and use rewards and punishments to make sure the standards are followed. They are proactive role models for ethical behavior (Brown & Trevino, 2006).
Kalshoven et al. (2011) define seven behavioral dimensions of ethical leadership in organizations. There is some overlap with the characteristics described above, however the behavioral dimensions consider more than just attributes and characteristics. The first three dimensions are distinguished by De Hoogh and Den Hartog (2008): fairness, power sharing, and role clarification. The next four dimensions are based on ethical behavior literature and include people oriented behavior, integrity, ethical guidance, and concern for sustainability.
Fairness: this behavior includes treating others fairly and act with integrity, make principled and fair choices, and do not practice favoritism (Kalshoven et al., 2011).
Power sharing: ethical leaders listen to the concerns and ideas of their followers and provide them with a say in decision-making (Kalshoven et al., 2011).
Role clarification: ethical leaders make sure followers know what is expected from them by “clarifying responsibilities, expectations, and performance goals” (Kalshoven et al., 20011, p. 54). People orientation: ethical leaders concern their followers. They “care about, respect, and support” them (Kalshoven et al., 2011, p.54).
Integrity: this behavior is about being consistent. When a leader says what he does and keeps his promises, he is integer (Kalshoven et al., 2011).
Ethical guidance: a leader can provide ethical guidance by “communicating about ethics, explain the ethical rules, and promote and reward the ethical conduct” (Kalshoven et al., 2011, p. 54).
Concern for sustainability: ethical leaders care about the environment (the welfare of the society) and sustainability. In addition, they look further then their self-interest and consider the impact of their decisions and actions on other groups, companies, and environment (Kalshofen et al., 2011).
2.1.2 Related forms of leadership
Several leadership styles, transformational, transactional, spiritual, authentic, and paternalistic leadership, have some overlap with ethical leadership. However, they are conceptually different (Den Hartog, 2015). These leadership styles are defined and the similarities are explained. Transformational leadership: this style is defined based on four dimensions, which are idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Idealized influence (or charisma) is about the behavior of a leader that followers respect and admire, and therefore want to identify with their leader (Judge & Piccolo, 2004, p. 755). Inspirational motivation “is the degree to which a leader articulates a vision that is appealing and inspiring to followers” (Judge & Piccolo, 2004, p. 755). Intellectual stimulation refers to the leader challenging assumptions, taking risks, and solicits followers’ ideas (Judge & Piccolo, 2004, p. 755). The last dimension individualized consideration is about the leader attending followers’ needs and concerns, and being a mentor or coach to them (Judge & Piccolo, 2004, p. 755).
The discussion whether transformational leadership is related to ethics is ongoing. However, based on Bass & Avolio’s (2000) Multi-Factor Leadership Questionnaire, transformational leadership does include a leader with ethical orientation (Brown & Trevino, 2006). Several other researchers support this. Parry & Proctor-Thomson (2002) for example found that transformational leadership has been positively related to perceived leader integrity.
The overlap between the two leadership styles can be found in the ethical behavior that is part of the idealized influence dimension of transformational leadership. This dimension emphases role modelling (Avolio, 1999). Also care taking and acting consistently with principles (integrity) are both dimensions of transformational and ethical leadership (Den Hartog, 2015). However, engaging in fair, moral, and ethical behavior to influence followers is only part of the ethical style. Furthermore are ethical leaders both moral persons and managers whereas transformational leaders can be authentic or self-centered (Den Hartog, 2015, Brown & Trevino, 2006).
Transactional leadership: this style focusses on the exchange between follower and leader. “Transactional leaders give followers something they want in exchange for something the leaders want” (Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987, p. 649). Transactional leaders set clear standards and use rewards and punishments to hold followers accountable for meeting these standards (Brown et al., 2005). Three dimensions are used to define the transactional style: contingent reward, management by exception – active, and management by exception – passive (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Contingent reward is about the leader setting up exchanges with followers. This includes expectations and rewards for meeting the expectations (Judge & Piccolo, 2004, p. 755). Management by exception-active includes monitoring follower behavior and if necessary take corrective actions based on the results of the exchanges (Judge & Piccolo, 2004, p. 755). These actions are taken before serious problems could arise. With the dimension management by exception –passive, the leader only takes action when the problems are already created (Judge & Piccolo, 2004, p. 755).
Especially the contingent reward dimension has similarities with ethical leadership. Leaders provide followers with rewards in exchange for their input, ethical leaders use rewards and punishments to shape ethical behavior with their followers. The difference however is that transactional leaders use this style to get the expected input and performance, ethical leaders want to create ethical
Spiritual leadership: “comprising the values, attitudes, and behaviors that are necessary to intrinsically motivate one’s self and others so that they have a sense of spiritual survival through calling and membership” (Fry, 2003, p. 694-695). When measuring spiritual leadership, three dimensions are represented: vision, hope/faith (that the vision will be realized), and altruistic love (caring work environment) (Brown & Trevino, 2006, p. 600). This leader style is focused in integrity and the leaders are visionary and motivate followers to have a sense of spiritual survival through calling and membership. These are not the main dimensions of an ethical leader; however, motive to serve others can contribute to ethics (Den Hartog, 2015, Brown & Trevino, 2006).
Authentic leadership: “those individuals who are deeply aware of how they think and behave and are perceived by others as being aware of their own and others’ values/moral perspective, knowledge, and strengths; aware of the context in which they operate; and who are confident, hopeful, optimistic, resilient, and high on moral character” (Avolio, Luthans, & Walumbwa as cited in Avolio, Gardner, Walumbwa, Luthans, & May, 2004, p. 803-804). Authentic leaders are self-aware, open, transparent, and consistent. Furthermore, they care for others and are able to view ethical issues from multiple perspectives (Brown & Trevino, 2006, p. 599).
Authenticity and self-awareness are the main drivers for this style whereas the basis of ethical leadership is more about care and concern for others. However, both styles have a social motivation and people orientation (care for others), and are ethically principled (Den Hartog, 2015, Brown & Trevino, 2006).
Paternalistic leadership: “a style that combines strong discipline and authority with fatherly benevolence” (Farh & Cheng as cited in Pellegrini & Scandura, 2008, p. 567). Authority refers to controlling followers and benevolence refers to the concern for individuals’ well-being (Pellegrini & Scandura, 2008). In addition, morality is also part of paternalistic leadership and refers to “the demonstration of integrity through acting unselfishly and leading by example” (Den Hartog, 2015, p. 415). Specifically morality relates to ethical leadership as integrity and moral standards are
models whose ethical behavior is followed. Also, the communication is one-way and decision are centralized and therefore differ from ethical leadership (Den Hartog, 2015).
2.1.3 Mechanism of Ethical leadership
“If models do not abide by what they peach, who should others do so?” (Bandura, 1986: 344). With this Bandura means that in essence anything can be learned via observing others behavior and the consequences. Leaders influence followers’ behavior via modelling. Modelling refers to observation, imitation, and identification (Brown et al., 2005). Especially when ethical behavior is involved, role modelling seems to be essential for leaders.
According to the social learning theory of Bandura (1977, 1986), leaders are seen as ethical by their followers if they show attractive and credible role modelling (Brown & Trevino, 2006). Individuals learn by paying attention to and emulating attitudes, values, and behaviors of models. In order to have ethical guidance, individuals look outside themselves to others. If ethical leaders are attractive and credible role models, followers are likely to see their leader as the source of guidance.
Power and status (authority) are two characteristics of models that enhance their attractiveness (Bandura, 1986). In addition, care and concern and threating others fairly are needed for leaders to be attractive. Employees evaluate role modelling partly based on justice (Scandura, 1997). By being attractive and credible, leaders can influence the ethical conduct of followers. Employees learn what behavior is expected (appropriate and inappropriate), rewarded, and punished via vicarious learning. By paying attention to how other members of the organization are rewarded and punished,
employees regulate their own behavior (Brown & Trevino, 2006). However, continuously paying attention to the modelled behavior is essential for effective modelling. Nowadays employees receive many messages via email, intranet, and other colleagues of all kinds of directions. Because of their position, leaders are generally observable and therefore able to have their followers focused on an important message of behavior if the communication is clear (Brown et al, 2005).
Next to the social learning mechanism, Den Hartog (2005) mentions several other effects of ethical leadership on followers.
First the attitudes of employees, they are less cynical and have more commitment.
Second the behavior of employees, they have more ethical behavior, they report more problems, individual- and level citizenship behavior increases, and there is less individual- and group-level deviance.
Third, effort and performance increases as well as effectiveness of both individuals and groups. Also, Kim and Brymer (2011) showed that middle managers’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment increases when receiving executives’ ethical leadership. Avey et al. (2011) support this as they found that ethical leadership is positively related to follower organizational citizenship behavior.
Brown & Trevino (2006) add to this that ethical leadership is positively related to follower ethical decision-making, to prosocial behavior, and to follower satisfaction, motivation and organizational commitment. Furthermore, research has shown that ethical leadership has a positive influence on the conduct of others in the organization and ultimately organizational performance (Trevino, Brown & Hartman, 2003).
Another positive effect of ethical leadership includes climate. The next paragraph explains
organizational climate and the positive influence of ethical leadership on ethical climate. Then both safety climate and safety behavior are explored and linked to ethical leadership including reasoning why ethical leadership would positively relate to safety climate and safety behavior.
2.2 Ethical leadership and climate
Leaders play a vital role in organizations. They provide directions and create processes for their followers in order to achieve the company’s (financial) objectives. However, clear directions and processes are not enough, the behavior of employees is also very important if not crucial to meet the targets. It is the leader’s responsibility to establish standards of ethical conduct and moral values
that lead to the needed behavior (Grojean et al., 2004). The influence of leaders on the behavior of their followers is enormous. Not only directly, but also indirectly a leader influences understandings of followers which lead to norms and behavior that will become deep-rooted in the organizations’ climate. The informal influence of a leader’s behavior might be even more important than formal systems like ethical codes, corporate ethics audits, and standardized procedures (Weaver et al., 1999, Tenbrunsel et al., 2003). Tenbrunsel et al. (2003, p. 287) demonstrate the ethical
infrastructure (figure 1) which explains how an organizational climate works in practice and shows the importance of the indirect and informal influence of a leader.
Figure 2 Ethical infrastructure
Schneider (1975) refers to the organizational climate as the perceptions of organizational practices and procedures that are shared among employees. Without examples and guidance of a leader, followers would not know the desired behavior that lead to reach company’s goals. Besides that, if the ‘do’s and don’ts’ are not defined and common known, variation will arise in how tasks are completed and problems solved. This can lead to unwanted situations, like unethical behavior. Therefore, a climate is needed and leaders play a vital role in establishing this.
Organizational climate Informal system Formal system
As mentioned in the paragraph about social learning, power and status enhances the attractiveness of a leader. However, the status can be further developed via relational attachments. The needs for safety and security are satisfied because of the bonding that arises through relational attachments (Davidovitz et al., 2007). As the followers feel safer and more secure, the personal power of leaders to influence others increases. With both positional and personal status, ethical leaders provide clarity and security and therefore are seen as credible and attractive moral authorities (Neubert et al., 2009). Role modelling as well as relational attachments increase the influence of ethical
leadership. Therefore Neubert et al. (2009) found a positive relationship between ethical leadership and the perceptions of ethical climate. The same applies for transformational leadership. As
transformational leadership (especially authentic) has some overlap with ethical leadership, this also has a direct positive influence on ethical climate (Engelbrecht et al, 2007).
Based on the above we can argue that leaders have an impact on organizational behavior and organizational climate. Especially when it comes to followers’ ethical behavior. The behavior of leaders is the primary influence on individuals’ ethical behavior. Even when there is a code of conduct or ethics policy, a leaders’ behavior still provides a model for how followers should behave. The leader interpret and make judgements about the behavior of the follower and therefore the follower mimics the leaders’ behavior (Wimbush & Shepard, 1994).
A leader determines through verbal and nonverbal interaction with followers, and followers with one another, what behavior is acceptable and unacceptable. In this way, the leader translates the policies and practices of the organization into a behavioral guideline, the ethical climate. When all leaders, including top management, translate the company policies and practices in the same way, a collective ethical climate is established (Wimbush & Shepard, 1994).
Climate should not be confused with culture. Whereas culture “refers to the deep structure of organizations, which is rooted in the values, beliefs, and assumptions held by organizational
members” (Denison, 1996, p. 624), climate, on the other hand “portrays organizational environment as being rooted in the organization’s value system” (Denison, 1996, p. 624). In addition, a climate is subject to direct control and organizational members are aware of the aspects of the social
environment (Denison, 1996). Climates vary per company, sometimes even per department or team, and can change over time. The most common term used is organizational climate, not carrying out a specific message. Therefore, companies now refer to ethical climate or safety climate. This shows the importance of their values to a certain topic. Especially ethical climate is of great importance for organizations. Consider scandals like Volkswagen; they lost a lot of market capitalization and suffer from serious reputation damage because they did not value ethics.
An ethical climate shows the ethical character of an organization. According to Dickson et al. (2001), an ethical climate is unique as it is based on values. This uniqueness should be carried out by the leaders of the organization by communicating and demonstrating the importance of the ethical values to its members. Already in the early stage of an organization’s lifecycle, founders and leaders have an impact on the development of an organization’s climate by enacting organizations’ goals and strategies in order to provide sense to the policies and practices. This continues through all stages and at all levels in the organization (Grojean et al., 2004).
As ethical leadership positively influences ethical climate and ethical behavior, I argue that ethical leadership also positively relates to safety climate and safety behavior. Through role modelling ethical leaders directly influence behavior. By showing what behavior is appropriate and
inappropriate followers learn how to behave. Leaders also create an ethical climate by determine and carrying out the norms, values, and codes of the company. This means leaders can influence their followers directly via role modelling, and indirectly via climate. Both role modelling and climate are guidance for followers’ behavior. If ethical leaders apply the same for safety; carrying out safety norms, values, and codes, a safety climate and safety behavior will be established and developed. Ultimately, followers will act in a way that is needed for a safety environment. Next to this, safety
research has shown us that transformational leadership has a positive impact on workplace safety attitudes and behavior (Zohar & Luria, 2004). Both safety climate and safety behavior will be defined in order to formulate the hypotheses.
2.2.1 Safety ClimateSafety climate is one type of climate that can be
“Safety climate is one type of climate that can be experienced by individuals in organizations” (Griffin & Neal, 2000, p. 347). Safety climate describes the individual perceptions of the value of safety in the work environment, for example, management values for safety and personnel policies. (Neal et al., 2000, Griffin & Neal, 2000). Griffin & Neal (2000) argue that safety climate, a specific type of climate, should be viewed as a higher order factor that includes first-order factors. First-order factors are perceptions of safety-related policies, procedures, and rewards (p. 348). “The higher order factor is the extent to which employees believe that safety is valued within the organization” (p. 348). The literature does not provide one clear first-order factor that represents that higher factor of a safety climate. However, management values for safety appears to be present in most of the research. It has been measured in terms of management concern for employee well-being, management attitudes toward safety, and perception that safety is important to management (Griffin & Neal, 2000, p. 348). Zohar (1980, p.98) determined seven dimensions of a safety climate in an organization that discriminate high versus low-accident companies. When all these
characteristics are integrated, a safe company can be formed.
Perceived management attitudes towards safety: Companies with a successful safety-program have a strong management commitment to safety. High priority to safety in company meetings also contributes to low-accident rates.
Perceived effects of safe conduct on promotion: Open communication links and frequent contact between management and employees promote safety.
Perceived effects of safe conduct on social status: Value and promote safety contributes to the social status of an employee within the company.
Perceived organizational status of safety officer: Safety officers with a higher status in the company contribute to less-accidents.
Perceived importance and effectiveness of safety training: Companies with low-accident rates have safety training as a standard for new employees and re-train current employees on a frequent basis. Perceived risk level at work place: Frequent safety inspections carried out by appropriate personnel, environmental control and good housekeeping all contribute to a safe work place.
Perceived effectiveness of guidance in promoting safety: An effective way of promoting safety is guidance and counselling, but also recognition for safe performance.
Several other authors also have identified a range of components of a safety climate. Combined and summarized, including Zohar’s seven dimensions, these components are management values (management concern for employee well-being), management and organizational practices (adequacy of training, provision of safety equipment, quality of safety management systems), communication, and employee involvement in workplace health and safety (Neal et al., 2000).
In one of his latest works, Zohar (2010) highlights three important attributes that contribute to a successful safety climate.
First, safety policies, procedures, and practices might compete with other domains like productivity or efficiency. Therefore, an employee must sort out what behavior is expected, rewarded, and supported in a complex web of patterns and competing signals (Zohar, 2010, p. 1518). If productivity is valued higher than safety in one or more situations, employees will adjust their behavior
accordingly and this might not align with the safety policies. Leaders can have an influence on this. Zohar and Luria (2004) showed that employees’ perception of safety climate is predicted by the decisions of supervisors in a situation where they had to choose between safety and reaching a target.
A second attribute is the alignment between espoused and enacted priorities, or the alignment or misalignment between words and deeds of a manager (Zohar, 2010, p. 1518). Based on the enacted policies, employees can determine which behavior is rewarded and supported. If managers are inconsistent with espoused priorities, employees might conclude that safety priority decreases meaning enacted priorities change. On the other hand, if a leader continues to be consistent even if circumstances change, it signifies a high safety priority and espoused and enacted priorities are aligned.
Third, where inconsistencies can arise between a managers’ word and deed, the same applies for policies, procedures, and practices (Zohar, 2010, p. 1518). Policies define strategic goals, procedures are tactical guidelines, and practices determine the implementation of both policies and procedures. Practices are applicable for the operational level whereas senior management establishes policies and procedures. This means that employees receive signals from both senior management and direct supervisors. Inconsistencies can arise when a supervisor instructs their employees to deviate from the safety policies and procedures in order to meet a schedule. For a successful safety climate, signals from all levels of the organization should be consistent and policies, procedures, and
practices must be consequently implemented in the same way.
A safety climate is characterized by concern for employee well-being, management and
organizational practices, communication, and involvement in safety. The components concern for employee well-being, communication, and involvement are key attributes of ethical leadership, which thus contribute to a safety climate. Therefore, hypothesis 1 is set to be tested:
2.2.2 Safety behavior
Neal and Griffin (1997) proposed a model of safety performance. This model includes performance components, determinants of performance, and performance antecedents.
The components of performance specify the dimensions of task-relevant behaviors of a job. Two dimensions of safety performance are covered: compliance and participation. Safety compliance involves following safety procedures and carrying out work in a safe way. Safety participation includes helping coworkers, promoting the safety program within the workplace, demonstrating initiative, and putting effort into improving safety in the workplace (Neil et al., 2000). The determinants of safety performance cover the aspects that generate individual differences in
compliance and participation. According to Campbell et al. (1993), there are only three determinants of individual difference in performance: knowledge, skill, and motivation. Therefore, safety behavior could be defined by knowledge and skills, and by the motivation of individuals to perform this behavior. Knowledge and motivation predict the two dimensions of safety performance, compliance and participation. However, both knowledge and motivation have a stronger relation with
compliance than with participation. On the other hand, safety climate influences knowledge and motivation (Neal et al., 2000). Antecedents of performance are individual-level factors such as ability, experience and personality, and group-level and organizational-level factors, such as leadership, group norms, and (safety) climate (Neal et al., 2000).
Figure 3 Safety performance
The link between perceived safety climate and safety motivation can be explained by the social exchange theory. In return for perceiving concern for an employees’ well-being, the employee carries out behavior that benefits the organization, the so-called reciprocate-effect (Neal & Griffin, 2006). The positive experience from an employee in an employment relationship is reciprocated by setting their core tasks as a high standard. In an environment that values safety, this means that employees comply with the safety procedures (Neal & Griffin, 2006). Another explanation for the relation between safety climate and safety motivation is the expectancy-valence theory. This theory suggests that employees will follow safety procedures if they believe this will lead to valued
outcomes (Neal & Griffin, 2006, p. 947). The employees’ beliefs about safety priority is reflected by his perceptions of safety climate and based on these perceptions, behavior-outcome expectancies are determined (Neal & Griffin, 2006, p. 947).
Cooper and Phillips (2004) argued in the same direction, employees’ perceptions of the importance of safety training determines the actual levels of safety behavior (p. 497). They defined safety climate as the degree to which employees believe priority is actually give to organizational safety performance (p. 497).
So far, safety behavior is influenced through organizational factors such as safety climate. However, there is also research available that advocates direct influences on safety behavior. Mullen (2004)
Safety Climate Safety Knowledge Safety Motivation Safety Compliance Safety Participation
asked employees why they conducted unsafe behavior. The results show that organizational factors like role overload (not enough time to perform safely), socialization (new employees are informed by co-workers about the do’s and don’ts, the perceived subjective norms regarding safety), but also image (violation of safety procedures to ensure image is not damaged), and avoiding negative outcomes (teasing, harassment, and the fear of losing one’s good position) play a role. All these causes for unsafe behavior leads back to management behavior. If management tolerates unsafe behavior or even encourages it (employees choose performance over safety because otherwise the manager gets angry), employees have no reason to change their attitude towards safety. Especially not if they are rewarded in the current situation.
Power sharing, one of the three behavioral components of ethical leadership as defined by De Hoogh and Den Hartog (2008), provides followers with a voice, they are asked for their input, and are involved in decision making when it concerns their tasks. This component is also called the empowerment element of ethical leadership.
Empowerment, according to Thomas and Velthouse (1990), is increased intrinsic task motivation and based on four cognitions: meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact.
Meaning “concerns the value of the task goal or purpose, judged in relation to the individual's own ideals or standards” (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990, p. 672).
Competence “refers to the degree to which a person can perform task activities skilfully when he or she tries” (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990, p. 672).
Self-determination (or choice) “involves causal responsibility for a person’s action” (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990, p. 672).
Impact “refers to the degree to which behavior is seen as "making a difference" in terms of accomplishing the purpose of the task” (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990, p. 672).
Taking the above into account, employees’ safety behavior is indirectly influenced through safety climate. Role modelling and empowerment directly influence the individual’s attitude towards safety. Ethical leadership can play a vital role in establishing a safety climate and safety behavior. As the research of Mullen (2004), Grojean (2004), Neubert et al. (2009), and Tenbrunsel et al. (2003) learned us, role modelling is crucial to create safety or ethical behavior. Empowerment involves employees in decision-making and gives them a voice. If employees are involved in safety and organizational practices, it more likely they show safety behavior because the risks of damaging one’s image, harassment, or losing your good position decreases. Furthermore, the perceived subjective norms regarding safety are more likely to be the same among employees and leaders. Ethical leadership provides role modelling in a way that it generates behavioral guidance for
followers, gives employees a say in the way work should be executed and increases responsibility for their actions. Therefore, ethical leadership directly influences safety behavior.
Based on the above literature review, the following hypotheses are set to be tested: H2: Ethical leadership increases safety behavior.
H3: Safety climate increases safety behavior.
H4: Ethical leadership increases safety behavior and is partial mediated by safety climate.
Social factors that influence a situation, decision, way of (re)acting, etc. are lying in the context. Culture is a contextual factor and therefore can influence (ethical) leadership and the way it is executed. Because of this, the effect of ethical leadership might vary per culture and thus organization. For this reason, cultural dimensions are considered a moderating variable in this research.
2.3 Cultural Dimensions
This paragraph starts with defining culture and explain why it is important to understand a culture. The dimensions of a culture are covered by both Hofstede and GLOBE. Next, the dimensions power distance and collectivism are described in detail in order to formulate the last hypotheses.
2.3.1 Culture
“Culture is the collective programming of the human mind that distinguishes the members of one human group from those of another” (Hofstede, 1980, p. 24). Culture is “a system of collectively held values” (Hofstede, 1980, p. 24). Where an individual has a personality, culture can be defined as a human collectivity and determines the identity of a group (Hofstede, 1980).
Culture can refer to a society (nation), ethnic group, an organization, a family, or any other group of people.
A culture is like an onion, determined by several layers and the deepest layers are difficult to observe. According to Hofstede et al., (2010), culture has four layers of depth.
Figure 4 Culture Layers
Symbols are words, gestures, pictures, or objects. Also status symbols, dress, and hairstyle belong to Symbols
Heroes Rituals Values
this category. They all have a specific meaning and this is only recognized by the members of the culture. Symbols are easily developed and therefore old ones disappear and are replaced with new symbols (Hofstede et al., 2010).
Heroes are served as models for behavior as they are highly appreciated by the culture, and can be alive or dead, real or imaginary. (Hofstede et al., 2010).
Rituals are collective activities that seem to be needless to reach goals but are essential within a culture. For example greetings, paying respect to others, and linguistics; the way language is used in all daily activities (Hofstede et al., 2010).
Hofstede et al. (2010) argue that rituals, heroes, and symbols are practices as they are visible for an outsider. However, their meaning is only visible for members of the culture. An organizational culture is based on these practices, whereas values are based on a societal culture. Values are attitudes that show what is preferred over another, for example evil versus good, moral versus immoral, decent versus indecent (Hofstede et al., 2010).
For a leader, culture is very important. Every society (and organization) is a culture with different values, rituals, heroes, and symbols. This makes the members of this culture to who they are and is the basis for their behavior, decisions, and responses. According to Hofstede (1983), there are three reasons for this importance.
First, there is a political motivation. Societies are politics: forms of government, legal systems, educational systems, employer’s systems, and labor. These systems are formed based on the history of the nation. This also determines the informal way they are used. Hofstede (1983) refers to the French, where the law protects the rights of individuals against the state much better than for example in the Netherlands. However, only a few French nationals have ever won a case against the state, whereas the Dutch win regularly. This shows that understandings of the informal systems might even be more important than knowledge of the national law.
Second is the sociological motivation. The society we are from (partly) determines who we are; this is where we derive our identity. Therefore, it has a symbolic value and creates strong feelings of belonging. Members of the society tend to project their identity when they feel threatened. For some it is a reason to go to war. Even if differences between societies are not that strong, it still feels real.
The last reason is psychological. Part of our thinking is based on societal culture. We have had life experiences in the family and later in school and other organizations like sport clubs, hobby clubs, internships, and side-jobs. However, within the societal culture differences arise because of the so-called process of conditioning by experience. Things can be interpreted in different ways. Hofstede (1983) describes the experiment with a picture of an attractive young woman and an ugly old woman. At the beginning, half of the group only sees the attractive young woman, the other half the ugly old woman. When afterwards the whole picture is shown to the group, the majority who first saw the attractive young woman, still only sees the attractive young woman and not the ugly old woman. The same appears for the group who firs saw the ugly old woman. What we see first is what we see later as well and remember, even if something else is added.
Political, sociological, and psychological factors have a significant impact on who we are, what we do, and why we do this. Therefore, for a leader to be successful and reach the company goals, it is important to understand the cultural factors.
In order to understand (and measure) the differences between cultures, Hofstede came up with six dimensions.
Power distance: the extent to which less powerful members of institutions and organizations accept and expect that power is distributed unequally” (Hofstede & Bond, 1984, p. 419).
Individualism versus collectivism: refers to the degree to which individuals are integrated into groups (Hofstede & Bond, 1998).
Masculinity versus femininity: represents a preference in society for achievement, heroism, assertiveness, and material rewards for success (Hofstede & Bond, 1998).
Uncertainty avoidance: the degree to which members of a society feel uncomfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity (Hofstede & Bond, 1998).
Long-term orientation versus short-term orientation: also defined as pragmatic (honor traditions and norms) versus normative (embrace societal changes and prepare for the future) (Hofstede &
Minkov, 2010).
Indulgence versus restraint: this shows the difference between the importance of enjoying life and having fun versus living according to strict social norms (Hofstede, 2011).
Next to Hofstede, GLOBE (Global Leadership and Organizational Effectiveness) also carried out extensive research into culture. They examined the interrelationships between societal culture, organizational culture and practices, and organizational leadership (House et al., 1999). The main reason to conduct this research is to describe, understand, and predict the impact of cultural variables on leadership (House et al., 1999, p. 2). In order to explain the nine cultural dimensions of GLOBE and use the results of their research, it is important to understand their definition of
organizational leadership and culture. Organizational leadership is defined as “the ability of an individual to influence, motivate, and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the organizations of which they are members” (House et al., 1999, p. 13). They define culture as “ shared motives, values, beliefs, identities, and interpretations or meanings of significant events that result from common experiences of members of collectives and are transmitted across age generations” (House et al., 1999, p. 13).
The nine dimensions of GLOBE by which they measured the cultures are:
Uncertainty avoidance: the extent to which members avoid uncertainty by relying on social norms, rituals, and bureaucratic practices (House et al., 1999, p. 25).
Power distance: the degree to which members expect power to be unequally shared (House et al., 1999, p. 25).
Collectivism I: the degree to which organizational and societal practices encourage collective action and sharing resources (House et al., 1999, p. 25).
Collectivism II: “ the degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and cohesiveness in their organizations and families” (House et al., 1999, p. 25).
Gender Egalitarianism: the extend to which a society lets gender differences play a role (House et al., 1999, p. 25).
Assertiveness: the degree to which individuals are assertive and confrontational (House et al., 1999, p. 25).
Future Orientation: the degree to which individuals focus on future (House et al., 1999, p. 25). Performance Orientation: the degree to which a society encourages and rewards group members for performance improvement (House et al., 1999, p. 25).
Humane Orientation: the degree to which a society encourages individuals to be fair, friendly, generous, and caring for others (House et al., 1999, p. 25).
GLOBE extended her research with the Culturally Leadership Theories. They identified six global leader behavior dimensions which should be viewed as classes rather than specific behavior and argue that every society has specific leader behavior(s) that increases effective leadership (House et al., 1999).
Charismatic / Value Based: characterized by integrity, decisive, performance-oriented, visionary, inspirational, and self-sacrificing.
Team-oriented: characterized by diplomatic, team integrator, team-oriented, and administratively competent.
Self-Protective: characterized by self-centered, status conscious, conflict inducer, face saver, and procedural.
Participative: characterized by non-autocratic and participative. Humane: characterized by modesty and human-oriented.
Now that the term culture is explored, this research continues by focussing on two cultural
dimensions: power distance and collectivism. The dimensions will be further developed in order to understand their influence on the relationship between ethical leadership and safety climate. Based on this, the last hypotheses will be formulated.
2.3.2 Dimensions Power distance
The dimension power distance is “the extent to which less powerful members of institutions and organizations accept and expect that power is distributed unequally” (Hofstede & Bond, 1984, p. 419). It is about how inequalities among people is handled. In societies where a large degree of power distance is present, hierarchical order is accepted and everybody has a place which needs no further justification. Low power distance, on the other hand, expresses equalization for the
distribution of power (Hofstede & Bond, 1984).
Collectivism
Collectivism versus individualism refers to the degree to which individuals are integrated into groups. Individualism is defined as “a situation in which people are supposed to look after themselves and their immediate family only” (Hofstede & Bond, 1984, p. 419). Collectivism is defined as “a situation in which people belong to in-groups or collectivities which are supposed to look after them in exchange for loyalty (Hofstede & Bond, 1984, p. 419). In an individualistic society, the connections between individuals are loose. In a collectivistic society, however, strong and cohesive groups exist which continuously look after each other and protect one and another.
House et al. (1999) split up the dimension collectivism into societal practices and individuals. Societal practices “encourage and reward collective distribution of resources and collection action” (House et
al., 1999, p. 25) whereas individuals “express pride, loyalty, and cohesiveness in their organizations or families” (House et al., 1999, p. 25).
The Dutch culture is characterized by a consultation-culture (‘overlegcultuur’). Before a decision is made, all parties involved get a say and through bargaining they come to a result.
Furthermore, men and women are seen equally. Both participate in the labor market whereby woman represent a high percentage of part-time workers mainly because of a good work-life balance. This is also generally supported by employers as well as the government. The research of Hofstede confirms this (on his website geert-hofstede.com all scores per country are accessible), the score on masculinity is low which means the Netherlands is a feminine society. Quality of life and mainly doing what you like is important and highly valued by the people. This is furthermore
supported by the high score on the indulgence dimension. Enjoying life, having fun, and leisure time are important.
With regard to leadership style; charismatic, team-oriented, participative, and humane-oriented are styles that are seen as effective according to the GLOBE research (http://globe.bus.sfu.ca).
Autonomous and self-protective inhibits effectiveness. This also complements the consultation culture, teams and participation are important and it is the standard that everyone gets a say. For the dimensions power distance and collectivism versus individualism, the research of Hofstede shows that the Netherlands scores low on power distance (38). In the Netherlands, power is more equally distributed and the use of power is legitimate. Hierarchy means inequality of roles and is only there for convenience. Followers expect to be, and are, consulted. The income distribution is rather equal in the Dutch society and there is a pluralist government based on voting. Next, corruption is very rare and scandals will end someone’s career (Hofstede, 2011).
When it comes to collectivism versus individualism, the Netherlands scores high on individualism (80). This means that there is a preference for loose social framework and people take care of themselves and their direct family. There is ‘I’ consciousness and others are classified as individuals.
It is common to speak about what you think and it is expected that one have a personal opinion. Furthermore, tasks prevail over relationship (Hofstede, 2011).
All together, the Dutch society is characterized by equality, a consultative culture, individualism, and low power distance.
Other Western countries like USA, Canada, United Kingdom, and Australia are all relatively low on power distance and high on individualism. Eastern-European countries like Czech Republic and Poland score slightly higher on power distance but are a more collectivistic society. The same applies for a Middle-East country like Iran. Asian countries usually score significantly higher on power distance and collectivism. Hierarchical order and unequally distributed power is accepted, power is a basic fact. This also generates an uneven income distribution. Followers expect they will be told what to do. Furthermore, a high power distance society has an autocratic government based on co-optation and is changed by revolution (Hofstede, 2011). There is a ‘we’ consciousness, people are born in extend families and are protected in exchange for loyalty. Harmony is highly valued and important. When an opinion is shared, it is determined by the group, not an individual. Therefore, relations are prevailed over tasks (Hofstede, 2011).
As the dimensions power distance and collectivism vary highly per culture, it is expected that their influence on the relationship between ethical leadership and safety climate and safety behavior also vary.
In a high power distance culture, the influence of a leader is very strong. Followers do not speak up against their leader but they act and behave as they are told to. Collectivism ensures group feeling and pressure, there is a lot of bonding and nobody wants to be left out of the group because of deviant behavior. This creates a very strong safety climate and finally safety behavior. Therefore, it is expected that the positive impact of the dimensions collectivism and high power distance on the
relationship between ethical leadership and safety climate and safety behavior is stronger than the dimensions individualism and low power distance.
Based on the above, the following hypotheses are set to be tested:
H5A: Power distance has a positive impact on the relationship between ethical leadership and safety behavior. More specifically, high power distance has a stronger impact on the relationship between ethical leadership and safety behavior than low power distance.
H5B: Collectivism has a positive impact on the relationship between ethical leadership and safety behavior. More specifically, collectivism has a stronger impact on the relationship between ethical leadership and safety behavior than individualism.
H6A: Power distance has a positive impact on the relationship between ethical leadership and safety climate. More specifically, high power distance has a stronger impact on the relationship between ethical leadership and safety climate than low power distance.
H6B: Collectivism has a positive impact on the relationship between ethical leadership and safety climate. More specifically, collectivism has a stronger impact on the relationship between ethical leadership and safety climate than individualism.
A safety climate provides guidance on safety behavior. In addition, it increases safety motivation to comply with rules and raises awareness of the rules and the importance of following them. The most common used explanation by researchers why a safety climate positively relates to safety behavior is the social exchange theory. Management demonstrates their commitment toward safety and their concern for employees’ well-being, employees reciprocate by showing safety behavior (Clarke, 2006).
Safety climate describes the individual perceptions of the value of safety in the work environment (Neil et al., 2000, Griffin & Neil, 2000). If the perception of the individual is that safety is valued, it is more likely he will show safety behavior. In an individualistic culture, there might be differences between individuals. The perception of one individual does not necessarily mean all individuals share
the same perception. In a collectivistic culture however, it is more likely that all members of the group share the same perception. As collectivism is characterized by strong in-group feelings, opinions will not vary within the group. They either think that management is committed to safety and is concerned for their well-being, or not. This also means the whole group will reciprocate by showing safety behavior whereas in an individualistic culture there might be some variance within the group. Next to this, a climate informs employees via rules and norms which behavior is
appropriate. In a collectivistic culture, deviant behavior is not accepted. The group pressure creates uniform behavior among the members. In a more individualistic culture, group members are not afraid to behave differently because social norms might be valued differently within a group. This leads to the seventh and last hypothesis:
H7: The cultural dimension collectivism has a positive impact on the relationship between safety climate and safety behavior. More specifically, collectivism has a stronger impact on the relation between safety climate and safety behavior than individualism.
3 Method 3.1 Sample and procedure
The data for this research is collected through a written (online) questionnaire. The only
requirement for participants was current or recent participation in the labor market as an employee. To ensure this, question 52 was about the current status of the participant with four answer
possibilities: “I am employed fulltime”, “I am employed parttime”, “I am retired” or “I am currently in between jobs”. The participants were selected randomly via a “snowball” procedure (email and social media) and questionnaires were answered voluntarily and anonymously. After one-and-a-half week and one reminder via social media, a total of 155 questionnaires were returned of which 121 were fully completed. The 34 incomplete questionnaires were excluded from further analysis. Continuing with the 121 completed questionnaires, 81 were male participants and 40 female. The average age was 43 years, mainly Bachelor’s or Master’s degree as highest completed educational level, and almost all participants were employed either fulltime or parttime. More than half of them have been working with a large company (5000+ persons) with an average of 10 years and 2.75 years under their current supervisor (99 male supervisors and 21 female supervisors). Manufacturing and energy are the main industries the respondents worked in.
3.2 Measuring instruments
The questionnaire filled out by participants consists of different scales, which are operationalized below. The scales used in this research are ethical leadership, safety climate, safety behavior, power distance, and collectivism. The operationalization is illustrated per variable.
Ethical leadership – the variable ethical leadership is measured based on the ELS of Brown et al. (2005). This scale has 10 items and all items used have been validated in previous research (Brown et al., 2005). Sample items are: “my manager listens to what employees have to say”, “my manager
makes fair and balanced decisions” and “my manager has the best interest of employees in mind”. Responses were obtained on a 7-point Likert type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The reliability of this scale is a satisfactory of 0.93 Cronbach’s Alpha.
Safety Climate – The variable safety climate is measured based on the workplace health and safety questionnaire of Mark Griffin and Andrew Neal (2008). The factors management values (4 items). Communication (4 items), training (2 items), and safety systems (1 item) are used in this
questionnaire. Sample items are: “management is concerned for the safety of employees’, “there is frequent communication about safety issues in this workplace” and “safety issues are given a high priority in training programs”. Responses were obtained on a 5-point Likert type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The reliability of this scale is a satisfactory of 0.95 Cronbach’s Alpha.
Safety behavior – The variable safety behavior is also measured based on the workplace health and safety questionnaire of Mark Griffin and Andrew Neal (2008). The factors behavior (8 items) and knowledge (2 items) are used in this questionnaire. Sample items are: “I know how to perform my job in a safe manner”, “I use all the necessary safety equipment to do my job” and “I put in extra effort to improve the safety of the workplace”. Responses were obtained on a 5-point Likert type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The reliability of this scale is a satisfactory of 0.92 Cronbach’s Alpha.
Power distance – The variable power distance is measured based on the Globe Phase 2 Alpha Questionnaire (2006). This scale has 3 items (7-point Likert type scale), “in this organization, a person’s influence is based primarily on: one’s ability and contribution to the organization (1) and the authority of one’s person (7)”, “ in this organization, subordinates are expected to: question their boss when in disagreement (1) to obey their boss without question (7)” and “in this
people (1) to increase their social distance from less powerful individuals (7)”. The reliability of this scale is a satisfactory of 0.73 Cronbach’s Alpha.
Collectivism – the variable collectivism is measured based on the Globe Phase 2 Alpha Questionnaire (2006). This scale has 7 items, sample items are: “this organization shows loyalty towards
employees” and “in this organization, managers encourage group loyalty even if individual goals suffer”. Responses were obtained on a 7-point Likert type scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). The reliability of this scale is a satisfactory of 0.82 Cronbach’s Alpha.
4 Results
In order to address the relation between the variables, a correlation analysis was performed.
Averages, standard deviations, and cross-correlations between all the variables are shown in Table 1. Ethical leadership is significantly and positively associated with safety climate (r = 0.50, p < 0.01), with safety behavior (r = 0.36, p < 0.01), significantly but negatively related with power distance (r = -0.53, p < 0.01), and significantly and positively associated with collectivism (r = 0.54, p < 0.01). Furthermore, safety climate is significantly and positively associated with safety behavior (r = 0.58, p < 0.01). The correlation analysis gives enough significant support to continue with regression analyses in order to address the hypotheses.
Table 1 Means, standard deviations, and correlations among variables
M SD 1 2 3 4 1 Ethical leadership 5.13 1.24 2 Safety climate 4.09 0.88 .50** 3 Safety behavior 4.24 0.65 .36** .58** 4 Power distance 3.65 1.32 -.53** -.42** -.23* 5 Collectivism 4.49 1.01 .54** .38** .24** -.44** **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
In order to test hypotheses 1, 2, 3, and 4, linear regression analyses have been conducted. For hypothesis 1, a linear regression with ethical leadership as independent variable and safety climate as dependent variable has been done. For hypothesis 2, again ethical leadership was the
independent variable and safety behavior the dependent variable for the linear regression analysis. The linear regression analysis for hypothesis 3 was conducted with safety climate as independent variable and safety behavior as dependent variable. Hypothesis 4 was tested with a regression
analysis in which ethical leadership was the independent variable, safety behavior the dependent variable, and safety climate was treated as the mediating variable. The results are presented in table 2.
Table 2 Regression analyses
Safety Climate Safety behavior Safety climate Safety behavior Ethical leadership R² F B • .256 40.53 .36 .51** R² F B • .131 17.98 .19 .36** SC EL R² F B • .347 31.07 .40 .53** .10 Safety Climate R² F B • .340 60.74 .43 .58** **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level
The analyses show us that ethical leadership is positively correlated with safety climate (β= 0.51, p < 0.01). Furthermore ethical leadership is positively and significantly related to safety behavior (β= 0.36, p < 0.01). In addition, safety climate relates significantly and positively to safety behavior (β= 0.58, p < 0.01). This means that hypothesis 1 (ethical leadership increases safety climate), 2 (ethical leadership increases safety behavior), and 3 (safety climate increases safety behavior) are fully supported. Last, the relation between ethical leadership and safety behavior is fully mediated by safety climate (β= 0.53, p < 0.01) meaning hypothesis 4 (ethical leadership increases safety behavior and is partial mediated by safety climate) is partly supported.
Next, hypothesis 5A and 5B, 6a and 6B, and 7 have been tested with linear regression analyses including moderating variables. The regression analysis for hypothesis 5A was conducted with ethical leadership as independent variable, safety behavior as independent variable, and power distance as
