Safety First!? How workload influences the
relationship between leader-member exchange and
employee safety behavior.
JASPER BELTMAN Student number: 1764225
University of Groningen; Faculty of Economics & Business M.Sc. Human Resource Management
Tel: 0613752951
E-mail: Jasperbeltman@gmail.com
2 ABSTACT
Despite recent research on the relationship between leader-member exchange (LMX) and safety behavior, we do not have full understanding of the relationship. Especially the understanding of the facilitating conditions under which individuals engage in safety behavior as a result of LMX is lacking. To provide better understanding, we examine the effect of workload on this relationship. The first hypothesis of this research describes the positive relationship between LMX and employee safety behavior. The second hypothesis states that this relationship is stronger under low levels of workload, and weaker under high levels of workload. Using a survey in a large-scale field study, 39 leaders rated employee safety behavior and 206 members rated their LMX-relationship and workload on the job. In accordance with previous research, the first hypothesis was accepted. However, this research found no empirical evidence for the moderating effect of workload, thereby rejecting the second hypothesis. This research subsequently discussed the theoretical and practical
3 INTRODUCTION
Since work floor accidents can incur human, psychological and financial cost (Nahrgang, Morgeson & Hofmann, 2011), investigating the antecedents to prevent such accidents is imperative. In order to prevent those accidents from happening, it is important that employees engage in role behavior that is safety specific (Hofmann, Morgeson & Gerras, 2003). Such behaviour can be defined as employee safety behaviour, which focusses on improving safety for themselves and other member of the organisation (Hofmann, Morgeson & Gerras, 2003). Such behavior is characterized by individuals raising voice about safety concerns, safety-related helping, whistleblowing, having up-to date safety knowledge and initiating change to improve safety practices (Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Moorman & Fetter, 1990; Morrison & Phelps, 1999).
For employees to engage in such specific role behavior, leaders are of significant importance. Katz and Kahn (1978) state that employee’s achievement of role expectations depends on whether they have good affective relationships with their leader. Furthermore, Graen and Scandura (1987) state that when an individual has a high-quality relationship with the leader, he/she will engage in extended role behavior. Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory describes this relationship between an employee and the supervisor. Therefore, this research argues that LMX is a key determinant in enabling the engagement of employee safety behavior.
LMX can be defined as the extent to which a relationship or partnership is built between the leader and member (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1991). A low-quality LMX relationship is strictly transactional (Bernerth, Armenakis, Field, Giles & Walker, 2007) and is
4 therefore highly emotional (Bernerth, et al. 2007). It can be characterized as the maturity-stage, which contains social exchange that is mutually reinforcing (Grean & Uhl-Bien, 1995).
In this research it is hypothesized that LMX has a positive relationship with employee safety behavior. Since high-quality LMX relationships are mutually reinforcing, members are likely to reciprocate such a relationship by engaging in organizational citizenship behavior (Gouldner, 1960; Organ, 1988). Since employee safety behavior is a specific form of citizenship behavior, individuals can extend their roles by reciprocating a high-quality relationship with such behavior (Liden, Sparrowe & Wayne, 1997; Hofmann & Morgeson, 1999). Although Hofmann, Morgeson and Gerras (2003) have started researching the relationship of LMX and safety behavior and found significant effects, we do not have full understanding of the relationship. Therefore, they indicate that research is needed for possible mediators and moderators influencing this relationship. Furthermore, Neal, Griffin and Hart (2000) indicate that we have very little understanding of the facilitating conditions under which individuals engage in safety behavior. In order to have a better understanding about how the relationship between LMX and employee safety behavior works, this research examines the moderating role of workload.
5 the high existing workload puts a strain on them to perform extra role behavior (Siu, Phillips & Leung, 2004). On the other hand, in situations of low workload, employees are better able to reciprocate high-quality LMX-relationships, since their workload places no strain on them.
Researching the moderating effect of workload on the relationship between LMX and safety behavior leads to both theoretical and practical implications. On a theoretical level, this paper contributes by showing the conditions under which LMX results in safety behavior by researching the moderating effect of workload. Furthermore, this research has practical implications, since in can provide insight into how leaders can influence employee safety behavior. Lastly, the moderating effect of workload can provide insight for managers about how they can deal with periods of high workload, while still letting members reciprocate the high-quality LMX relationship with safety behavior.
We start this paper with a short outline of LMX-theory. Subsequently, the influence of LMX on safety behavior and the interacting effect of workload will be conceptually explained. The method section will contain sample descriptions, information on the data gathering procedure, the measures and the analytic approach. After the result section, the results will be discussed. The discussion section will contain theoretical and practical implications, limitations, and possibilities for future research.
THEORY
Leader-Member Exchange Theory
Original LMX-theory focused on specific linkages that leaders develop with their
subordinates (Graen & Cashman, 1975, Dansereau, Graen & Haga, 1975). This indicates that leaders do not develop an average leadership style, but a differentiated style for each
6 loyalty, trust and respect (Zalesny, & Graen, 1987). The reason for differentiated exchanges across dyads can be explained by the resource constraints placed on the leader, who is unable to engage in high-quality LMX relationships with all subordinates (Grean & Uhl-Bien, 1995). When leaders do develop high-quality LMX relationships with their members, it has various positive outcomes, such as increased performance, citizenship behavior and commitment (Dunegan, Duchon & Uhl-Bien, 1992).
Uhl-Bien and Graen (1993) have developed and described the process by which leaders create high-quality LMX relationships. The three-step process begins with the stranger-phase, where independent individuals meet and engage in formal economic
exchange. Once a proposal is made and accepted by either party, the individuals move into a more improved relationship called the acquaintance-stage. In this stage, individuals carefully begin to exchange small pieces of social information and resources. In the last stage, the maturity-stage, the relationship is fully developed and of high quality, containing high social and emotional exchange with long periods of reciprocity. Furthermore, the relationship is characterized by obligation toward each other, respect, and mutual trust. The leader and member of the relationship see themselves as peers, instead of supervisor and subordinate. In such a stage, individuals have greater access to information and resources (Fairhurst, Rogers & Sarr, 1987) and members are willing to exert activities beyond the roles demanded by the organisation (Graen, 1989).
The Effect of LMX on Safety Behavior
7 Maslyn, 2000). Therefore, employee safety behavior is a specific form of citizenship
behavior (Hofmann & Morgeson, 1999). For employees to engage in such extended role behavior, leaders are of significant importance, because employees reciprocate high-quality LMX relationships with citizenship behavior (Graen, 1976; Katz & Kahn, 1978). LMX finds the basis of this exchange in Blau’s theory of social exchange (1964). According to Blau, "social exchange as here conceived, is limited to actions that are contingent on rewarding reactions from others", which implies a two-sided, mutually contingent, and mutually
rewarding process involving "transactions" or simply "exchange" (Emerson, 1976: 336). It is this social exchange, which is based on mutual trust, which creates a sustainable relationship and makes employees willing to reciprocate gestures of goodwill from the leader in the future (Blau, 1964).
8 On the other hand, low-quality LMX relationships only create economic obligations, since the relationship is characterized by economic exchanges (Grean & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Employees reciprocate salary only with performance that is in accordance with the formal contract (Settoon, Bennet & Liden, 1996). Therefore, employees do not develop feelings of social obligations or indebtedness in the relationship and consequently will not extend their roles by engaging in citizenship behavior (Greenberg & Westcott, 1983).
A specific form of citizenship behavior of interest in this research is employee safety behavior. Although the relationship between LMX and employee safety behavior is only recently researched, some studies provide insight. Hofmann and Morgeson, (1999) indicate that high-quality LMX relations have a positive effect on employee safety communication and safety commitment. However, they did not focus specifically on employee safety behavior. Furthermore, Hofmann, Morgeson, and Gerras, (2003), did find a positive relationship between LMX and employee safety behavior. This indicates that employees reciprocate high-exchange relationships with employee safety behavior. From these arguments, this research will test the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: LMX is positively related to employee safety behavior
The Moderating Effect of Workload
Employees engage in different types of behavior depending on specific work situations (Nahrgang, Morgeson & Hofmann, 2011). Situations with a high workload contain emotional conflict, role overload, and administrative hassles (Crawford, LePine & Rich, 2010).
9 forming a perception of these costs and compare that with their individual values (James, James & Ashe, 1990). This comparison process has a strong influence on employee
motivation and engagement to achieve their targets or perform extra role behavior (Brown & Leigh, 1996).
We first argue that situations with a high workload will negatively moderate the relationship between LMX and employee safety behavior. High workload leads to a process that weakens the health of employees by depleting them of physical and mental resources, which can lead to burnout (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner & Schaufeli, 2001). Such demands can form a hindrance and therefore impede learning, growth and goal attainment. Furthermore, employees see these demands as constrains when they are not in accordance with their values and they consequently hinder employees’ effort towards reaching their goals (Cavanaugh, Boswell, Roehling & Boudreau, 2000). Crawford, LePine and Rich (2010), specifically identify these feelings of role overload and role conflict as hindering employee engagement.
10 On the other hand, in situations with low workload, employees are more able to engage in behavior by which they achieve their goals. In situations of low workload,
employees can focus their cognitive, emotion, physical skills and efforts on the attainment of goals (Rich, LePine & Crawford, 2010). This focus leads to more energy and gives
employees the ability to reciprocate with complete and active role behavior. Furthermore, more physical and psychological energy fosters a cognitive frame by which employees see their role broader, also containing for example citizenship behavior (Kahn, 1992). In such situations, workers have more control over their work situations and therefore are able to reciprocate with extended role behavior, such as safety communication (Hofmann &
Morgeson, 1999). Therefore, in situations with low workload, employees have the mental and physical capacity, and are more motivated and enabled, to reciprocate a high LMX
relationship with their leader in terms of safety citizenship behavior.
Hypothesis 2: Workload moderates the positive relationship between LMX and employee safety behavior, such that this relationship is stronger under low workload, and weaker under high workload.
METHOD
Sample and Procedures
First of all, questionnaires for both leader and members were developed to measure the constructs. Leaders answered questions about the safety behavior of their members, while the members answered questions about the LMX-relationship with their leader and their
11 Secondly, companies were approached for gathering the data. To find participants, convenience sampling was used to approach acquaintances. For the companies that had stated their interest, company email addresses were gathered to which the questionnaires could be sent. To reduce workload and to make sure that answers were reliable, leaders could rate up to ten subordinates.
The sample consisted of eight companies. The organizations differed in both size and industry, with for example companies providing education, a consulting company, an
insurance company and a company in the dairy industry. A total of 39 leaders filled in the questionnaire with an age of 29 to 60 years (M = 46.92; SD = 8.63) and a tenure of 0 to 30 years as a supervisor (M = 6.62; SD = 6.87). 7 supervisors (17.90%) were female and 32 supervisors (82.10%) were male. Ten (25.60%) leaders finished higher vocational education and fifteen (38.50%) leaders had a university degree. A total of 206 subordinates filled in the questionnaire with an age of 18 to 64 years (M = 42.53; SD = 12.47) and a current
organizational tenure of 0 to 48 years (M = 21.48; SD = 13.39). 42 employees (20.50%) were female and 163 employees (79.5%) were male (one respondent did not report his/her gender). 73 (35.60%) employees finished higher vocational education and 36 (17.60%) employees possessed a university degree.
12 Measures
For all the measures, participants had to rate the answers along a five point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The complete item-list can be found in Appendix A. The factor analysis of these items can be found in Appendix B.
Leader-Member Exchange was measured by having employees answer eleven
questions about the relationship they have with their supervisor. This scale was developed by Liden and Maslyn (1998). The measure consists of the dimensions loyalty, affect,
contribution, and professional respect. The factor analysis showed four underlying factors, which is consistent with the dimensions of the construct. However, as shown by Liden and Maslyn (1998), one higher underlying factor can be constructed. Therefore, we made one variable based on all eleven items, which had a good internal consistency (α = .90). An example item of this scale is: “I like my supervisor very much as a person” (affect).
Workload was measured by having employees answer five questions about their workload. This scale was developed by Van Yperen and Hagedoorn (2003). The factor analysis showed one underling factor and internal consistency was good (α = .87). An example item of this scale is: “I have to work too fast.”
Employee safety behavior was measured by having leaders answer three questions for each subordinate. The measure is based on the measure developed by Hofmann, Morgeson and Gerras (2003). The factor analysis showed one underling factor and internal consistency was good (α = .92). An example item of this scale is: “This employee assists others to ensure that they carry out their work safely.”
Control variables. Individual demographics shape the frame of reference of
13 Analytic Approach
To test the hypotheses, correlation and regression analysis were performed. For testing the hypotheses, the control variables and LMX were added to the hierarchical regression model. In the next regression model, workload was added, whereas in the last regression model, the interaction term between LMX and workload was added. Following Aiken and West (1991), this interaction term is based on standardized variables of LMX and workload.
RESULTS
First of all, correlations between the control variables, LMX, workload and employee safety behavior were calculated. The results can be found in Table 1.
--- Insert Table 1 about here ---
The table indicates that several variables have a significant correlation with each another. Control variables that have a significant correlation with the main constructs are gender, age and education. Because these control variables correlate with the main constructs we add these variables in the regression analyses (Becker, 2005). With regard to the
correlations between the main constructs, LMX had a significant negative correlation with workload and a significant positive correlation with employee safety behavior. Workload did not correlate significantly with employee safety behavior.
14 Hypothesis 2 stated that workload moderates the positive relationship between LMX and employee safety behavior, such that this relationship is stronger under low workload, and weaker under high workload. The results of the regression analysis in Table 2 indicated that workload did not significantly moderate the relationship between LMX and employee safety behavior (β = .04, p > .10). Therefore, hypothesis 2 is rejected.
--- Insert Table 2 about here ---
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Summary of the Results
As indicated in the results section, LMX has a significant positive relationship with employee safety behavior, thereby supporting hypothesis 1. However, workload does not moderate the relationship between LMX and employee safety behavior, thereby rejecting hypothesis 2. Although beyond the scope of the research model, an interesting result shown by the correlation table is the significantly negative correlation between LMX and workload.
Theoretical Implications
15 Secondly, this research did not find empirical evidence that the relationship between LMX and employee safety behavior is moderated by workload. Although theoretically a high workload can lead to both psychological and physical demands for employees over sustained periods of time (Schaufeli, Bakker & van Rhenen, 2009), workload did not empirically influence the relationship between LMX and employee safety behavior. This provides insight in the facilitating conditions under which LMX influences employee safety behavior.
This non-significant moderating effect of workload can possibly be explained by the significantly negative correlation between LMX and workload, also found in this research. Years of research indicate that a high-quality LMX relationship leads to sharing of work-related resources such as challenging assignments, autonomy and information (Graen & Scandura, 1987; Bass, 1990). Leaders provide valued resources to specific high- exchange members, which include physical resources (monetary support, equipment and materials), provision of vital information and serving as a mentor (Graen & Cashman, 1975; Kim & Yukl, 1995). These provided resources enhance job performance and let members in the high-exchange relationship better cope with periods of high workload (Liden & Graen, 1980; Dunegan, Duchon & Uhl-Bien, 1992). The provision of these resources can possibly provide an explanation for the insignificant effect of workload as a moderator on the relationship between LMX and employee safety behavior.
The findings in the current article provide further empirical support for the
16 Managerial Implications
With regard to managerial implications, the findings can provide valuable information about how LMX influences employee safety behavior. Namely, when leaders develop high-quality relationships with their subordinates, these subordinates will more likely initiate safety related change. Thereby, employees gain more safety-related knowledge, and subsequently can reduce work accidents. Therefore, leaders should not develop relationships purely based on economic exchange. When leaders get training in how they can develop more social exchange relationships with their subordinates, this will likely improve safety behavior. Furthermore, a high-quality LMX relationship enables employees to cope with situations of high workload due to the provided resources. Additionally, there was no direct effect of workload on employee safety behavior. This means that managers can increase workload of their employees without affecting employee safety behavior. Furthermore, reducing workload in an effort to increase employee safety behavior will likely not be effective.
Limitations and Future Directions
17 the performance of their subordinates on employee safety behavior. This bias has to be taking into consideration when interpreting the findings of this research.
Secondly, LMX is more predictive of subjective outcomes in comparison with objective outcomes (Yukl, 2013). However, this research did not include outcomes that are more objective, such as number of accidents. Therefore, there is no certainty that LMX results in objectively measured employee safety behavior. Furthermore, there is no certainty that employee safety behavior leads to a reduction of accidents. Although some researchers have found a significant influence of safety behavior on accidents (Hofmann & Stetzer, 1996), future research should incorporate outcomes that are more objective. For example, research could incorporate the number of accidents.
Thirdly, because of the cross-sectional design of this research, all the variables were measured within a single moment via a survey. Therefore, this research is unable to provide answers about how LMX-relationships develop over time and is unable to make any
conclusion about the causal inferences between the variables. Future research should address this by measuring the variables in a longitudinal research method.
Lastly, the measure of LMX used in this research measured the established
relationship between the leader and the member, instead of measuring the exchange of social resources (Bernerth, et al. 2007). In order to measure social exchange, Bernerth et al. (2007) have developed a measure that incorporates Blau’s (1964) work on socials exchange. Future research should address this by focusing less on the stable nature of the existing relationship and more on the developing nature of social exchange. This will provide more insight in the exchange relationship between LMX and employee safety behavior.
Furthermore, this research measured LMX from a unilateral perspective, since only subordinates in the LMX relationship rated the relationship. Research indicates that
18 (Gerstner, & Day, 1997). This difference comes into existence because of the different frames of reference that leaders and members have regarding their role towards each other, thereby rating the same relationship differently (Gils, Quaquebeke, & van Knippenberg, 2009). Future research should therefore take a multilateral perspective by researching the effect of the leader-member disagreement on employee safety behavior.
An interesting direction for future research is to examine LMX by utilizing a multiple level model (Rousseau’s, 1985). With regard to group-level LMX research, a differentiation in the quality of LMX across group members is likely to benefit the performance of the group, particularly when member perceive it as appropriate and fair (Liden, Erdogan, Wayne, & Sparrow, 2006). However, when differentiation across group members increases, feelings of favoritism can impede group performance (McClane, 1991). Therefore, an interesting direction could be investigating how this differentiation in dyadic relationships within a group affects safety behavior of the group (Henderson, Liden, Glibkowski, & Chaudrhry, 2009).
Conclusion
19 REFERENCES
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands–resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309–328.
Becker, T. E. (2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in
organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational Research Methods, 8(3), 274-289.
Bernerth, J.B., Armenakis, A.A., Field, H.S., Giles, J.F., & Walker, H.J. (2007). Leader-member social exchange (LMSX): Development and validation of a scale. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 979-1003.
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Brown, S.P., Leigh, T.W., 1996. A new look at psychological climate and its relationship to job involvement, effort, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 358-368.
Cavanaugh, M. A., Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V., & Boudreau, J. W. (2000). An
empirical examination of self-reported work stress among U.S. managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 65–74.
Crawford, E. R., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2010). Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and burnout: A theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 834–848.
20 Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands–
resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499–512.
Duarte, N. T., Goodson, J. R., & Klich, N. R. (1994). Effects of dyadic quality and duration on performance appraisal. Academy of Management Journal,37(3), 499-521.
Dunegan, K.J., Duchon, D., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1992). Examining the link between leadermember exchange and the subordinate performance: The role of task analyzability and variety as moderators. Journal of Management, 18, 59-76. Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2, 335-362. Fairhurst, G.T., Rogers, L.E., & Sarr, R.A. (1987). Manager-subordinate control patterns and
judgments about the relationship. In: M. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communications Yearbook (Vol. 10, pp. 395-415). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-Analytic review of leader–member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of applied psychology, 82(6), 827. Gils, S. van, Quaquebeke, N. van, & Knippenberg, D. van. 2009. The X-factor: On the
relevance of implicit leadership and followership theories for leader-member exchange agreement. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19(3), 333-363.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity. American Sociological Review, 25, 165– 167.
Graen, G. B. (1976). Role-making processes within complex organizations. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1201– 1245). Chicago: Rand McNally.
21 Graen, G., & Cashman, J. F. (1975). A role making model of leadership in formal
organizations: A developmental approach. Leadership frontiers.
Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 175–208). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Graen, G.B., & Schiemann, W. (1978). Leader-member agreement: A vertical dyad linkage approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 206-212.
Graen, G.B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1991). The transformation of professionals into self-managing and partially self-designing contributions: Toward a theory of leader-making. Journal of Management Systems, 3(3), 33-48.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership:
Development of leader–member exchange LMX theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219–247. Greenberg, M. S. (1980). A theory of indebtedness. In K. S. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R.
H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 3-26). New York: Plenum Press.
Greenberg, M. S., & Westcott, D. R. (1983). Indebtedness as a mediator of reactions to aid. In J. D. Fisher, A. Nadler, & B. M. DePaulo (Eds.), New directions in helping(Vol. 1, pp.85-112). New York: Academic Press.
Henderson, D. J., Liden, R. C., Glibkowski, B. C., & Chaudhry, A. (2009). LMX differentiation: A multilevel review and examination of its antecedents and outcomes. The leadership quarterly, 20(4), 517-534.
22 Hofmann, D. A., Morgeson, F. P., & Gerras, S. J. (2003). Climate as a moderator of the
relationship between leader–member exchange and content specific citizenship: Safety climate as an exemplar. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 170–178. Hofmann, D. A., & Stetzer, A. (1996). A cross‐level investigation of factors influencing
unsafe behaviors and accidents. Personnel Psychology, 49(2), 307-339.
James, L.R., James, L.A., Ashe, D.K., 1990. The meaning of organizations: the role of cognition and values. In: Schneider, B. (Ed.), Organizational Climate and Culture (pp.40-84). Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Kahn, W. A. 1992. To be fully there: Psychological presence at work. Human Relations, 45: 321–349.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd Ed.). New York: Wiley.
Kim, H., & Yukl, G. (1995). Relationships of managerial effectiveness and advancement to self-reported and subordinate- reported leadership behaviors from the multiple linkage model. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 361-377.
Krasikova, D. V., & LeBreton, J. M. (2012). Just the two of us: misalignment of theory and methods in examining dyadic phenomena. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(4), 739. Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. Guilford Press. Liden, R. C., Erdogan, B., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2006). Leader‐member
exchange, differentiation, and task interdependence: implications for individual and group performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(6), 723-746.
23 Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionafity of leader-member exchange: An
empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of management, 24(1), 43-72.
Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader–member exchange theory: The past and potential for future. Research in Personnel and Human Resources
Management, 15, 47–119.
Lord, R.G., & Maher, K.J. (1991). Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions and performance. Boston: Unwin-Hyman.
McClane, W. E. (1991). Implications of Member Role Differentiation Analysis of a Key Concept in the Lmx Model of Leadership. Group & Organization
Management, 16(1), 102-113.
McNeely, B. L., & Meglino, B. M. (1994). The role of dispositional and situational antecedents in prosocial organizational behavior: An examination of the intended beneficiaries of prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 836-844. Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational
citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 845-855.
Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 403–419.
Nahrgang, J.D., Morgeson, F.P., & Hofmann, D.A. (2011). Safety at work: A meta-analytic investigation of the link between job demands, job resources, burnout, engagement and safety outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(1), 71-94.
24 Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107–142.
Rousseau, D.M., 1985. Issues of level of organizational research: Multi-level and cross-level perspectives. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 1-37.
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & van Rhenen, W. (2009). How changes in job demands and resources predict burnout, work engagement, and sickness absenteeism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 893–917.
Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. C. (1996). Social exchange in organizations: Perceived organizational support, leader–member exchange, and employee reciprocity. Journal of applied psychology, 81(3), 219.
Siu, O. L., Phillips, D. R., & Leung, T. W. (2004). Safety climate and safety performance among construction workers in Hong Kong: The role of psychological strains as mediators. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 36, 359–366.
Uhl-Bien, M., & Graen, G.B. (1993). Leadership-making in self-managing professional work teams: An empirical investigation. In: K.E. Clark, M.B. Clark, & D.P. Campbell (Eds.), The Impact of Leadership (pp. 379-387). West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America.
Uhl-Bien, M., & Maslyn, J. M. (2000). Examining the exchange in Leader-Member
25 Van Yperen, N. W., & Hagedoorn, M. (2003). Do high job demands increase intrinsic
motivation or fatigue or both? The role of job control and job social support. Academy of Management Journal, 46(3), 339-348.
Wallace, J. C., & Chen, G. (2005). Development and validation of a work-specific measure of cognitive failure: Implications for occupational safety. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 615–632.
Wayne, S. J., & Green, S. A. (1993). The effects of leader-member exchange on employee citizenship and impression management behavior. Human Relations, 46, 1431-1440. Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th global edition). Boston: Pearson.
26 TABLE 1: CORRELATION TABLE
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Gender1 1.20 .41
2. Age 42.53 12.47 -.19***
3 Education 3.63 .94 .24*** -.30***
4. Leader Member Exchange 3.75 .65 .04 -.13 -.01 (.90)
5. Workload 2.97 .85 .08 .14** .15** -.15** (.87)
6. Employee Safety Behavior 3.68 .74 -.19*** .09 -.03 .25*** -.07 (.92)
1
Dummy coded, 1 = male, 2 = female * p < .10
** p < .05 *** p < .01
27 TABLE 2: HIERARCHICAL REGRESSION TABLE (Moderation)
DV: Employee Safety Behavior: Leader rating Predictors 1 Control variables Gender1 -.35 (.13) -.34 (.13) -.34 (.13) Age .01 (.00)*** .01 (.00)*** .01 (.00)*** Education .04 (.06) .05 (.06) .05 (.06) 2 Main effects LMX (Z-scored) H1: .21 (.05)*** .20 (.05)*** .20 (.05)*** Workload (Z-scored) -.03 (.05) -.04(.06) 3 Interaction
LMX (Z-scored) * Workload (Z-scored) H2: 0.04 (.11)
R2 .11 .12 .12
1
Dummy coded, 1 = male, 2 = female * p < .10
** p < .05 *** p < .01
28 APPENDIX A: Items
Leader-Member Exchange (Employee Rated)
Item nr. Item
LMX_A_1 1 like my supervisor very much as a person
LMX_A_2 My supervisor is the kind of person one would like to have as a friend LMX_A_3 My supervisor is a lot of fun to work with
LMX_L_4 My supervisor defends my work actions to a superior, even without complete knowledge of the issue in question.
LMX_L_5 My supervisor would come to my defence if I were "attacked" by others. LMX_L_6 My supervisor would defend me to others in the organization if I made an
honest mistake.
LMX_C_7 I do work for my supervisor that goes beyond what is specified in my job description
LMX_C_8 I am willing to apply extra efforts, beyond those normally required, to further the interests of my workgroup.
LMX_PR_9 I am impressed with my supervisor's knowledge of his/her job. LMX_PR_10 I respect my supervisor's knowledge of and competence on the job. LMX_PR_11 I admire my supervisor's professional skills.
Workload (Employee Rated)
Item nr. Item
Workload_1 I have to work too fast. Workload_2 I have too much work to do. Workload_3 I work under time pressure. Workload_4 I have to rush.
Workload_5 I have problems with the pace of work.
Employee Safety Behavior (Leader Rated)
This employee… Item nr. Item
29 APPENDIX B: Factor Analysis
A direct Oblimin rotated factor analysis was performed on all items. The extraction was forced to extract 6 factors.
Pattern Matrix 1 2 3 4 5 6 LMX LMX_A_1 -.023 .003 .040 .003 .063 .741 LMX_A_2 .022 .063 -.040 -.004 -.062 .840 LMX_A_3 .063 .074 .085 -.025 .202 .607 LMX_L_4 -.015 .708 .016 .029 .096 .075 LMX_L_5 .002 .937 -.040 -.002 -.070 .038 LMX_L_6 .028 .814 .016 -.056 .071 -.033 LMX_C_7 .451 .087 .130 .093 -.131 -.005 LMX_C_8 .951 -.013 -.122 -.089 .187 .080 LMX_PR_9 -.020 .105 .081 -.038 .800 -.045 LMX_PR_10 -.002 .030 .010 -.021 .825 .117 LMX_PR_11 .062 .054 -.032 .049 .764 .138 Workload Workload_1 -.014 -.036 -.013 .801 -.072 .050 Workload_2 .010 -.024 -.027 .783 -.039 .052 Workload_3 .085 .018 .023 .814 .154 -.122 Workload_4 .114 -.027 .013 .834 -.001 .036 Workload_5 -.169 .025 -.029 .686 -.038 -.033
Employee Safety Behavior
Safety_1 -.008 .017 .915 .004 -.049 .011
Safety_2 .027 -.055 .890 -.047 .012 .055
Safety_3 -.029 .023 .858 .005 .072 -.036
