BLEKINGE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEADERSHIP STYLE AND SAFETY

CLIMATE: A CASE STUDY OF GOLDFIELDS GHANA LIMITED,
TARKWA-CIL PLANT

Supervisor
Marie Aurell

Author
Mavis Andoh

Sep 15th, 2013

Master Thesis MBA Program 
 

Abstract

The management of efficient and effective work place safety in order to reduce occupational

accidents is one of the paramount interests of stakeholders of the mining industry. Leadership

behavior is an important factor in achieving safety performance in an organization. An

organization’s leadership style can be the cause of accidents and incidents at the workplace. The

way in which safety and health is led and integrated into an organization can impact significantly

on wellbeing at work, including addressing problems of worker absence through ill-health. The

overall goal of the research is to identify different dimensions of leadership style that have

influence on safety climate in general and be able to determine the relationship between the two.

In this study, the research questions are addressed in order to study the relationship between

leadership style and safety climate. Two questionnaires were used to gather data from employees

at the Goldfields Ghana Limited, CIL Plant, comprising supervisors (leaders), technicians

(subordinates). The study used the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) formulated

from Bass and Avolio’s (1997) Full Range Leadership Development Theory to determine

leadership style within the organization and the Nordic Occupational Safety Climate

Questionnaire (NOSACQ-50) to determine the safety climate. The relationship indicated that

Transformational Leadership styles correlated with a better safety climate than Transactional

Leadership style. The study identified the leadership style that contribute to good safety

environment thereby paving way to how safety performance can be improved at Goldfields

Ghana Limited which may result in increase in revenue and maximization of shareholders value.

Key Words: Leadership, Leadership Style, Safety Climate, Transformational Leadership,

Transactional Leadership, Supervisor, Subordinate.

i 
 
Acknowledgements

My sincere gratitude goes to the Almighty God, for His abundant blessings, favors and mercies

that have seen me throughout the educational ladder to this point. Many thanks to the Course

Leaders at the School of Management, Blekinge Institute of Technology for their guidance and

support. Thanks to the Management and Staff of Goldfields Ghana Limited and all the

Metallurgist especially for their enormous support. And last but not the least, thanks to my

husband who stood by me throughout this long process, always offering me support and love.

God bless you all.

ii 
 


iii 
 
CONTENTS
1.  INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 1 
1.1       The case company ......................................................................................................................... 3 
1.2  Key definitions............................................................................................................................... 4 
1.3  Research question ......................................................................................................................... 5 
1.4  Research objective ........................................................................................................................ 5 
1.5  Thesis’ Structure ........................................................................................................................... 6 
2.  THEORY ................................................................................................................................................. 7 
2.1  Introduction to Leadership and Leadership Styles ....................................................................... 7 
2.2  The Full Range Leadership Theory ................................................................................................ 8 
2.3  Transformational Leadership   ............................................................................. 9 
2.4  Transactional Leadership ............................................................................................................ 10 
2.5  Organizational Safety Climate ..................................................................................................... 11 
2.6  Factors Affecting Safety Climate ................................................................................................. 12 
2.7  Improving Safety Climate in an Organization ............................................................................. 13 
    2.8        The role of Leadership in Safety Climate .................................................................................... 14 
3.  METHOD .............................................................................................................................................. 15 
3.1  Research approach ...................................................................................................................... 15 
3.2  Questionnaire and measurements ............................................................................................. 16 
3.3  Sampling and data collection ...................................................................................................... 17 
3.4  Unit and level of analysis ............................................................................................................ 18 
3.5  Validity, reliability and generalizability ....................................................................................... 18 
4.  RESULTS .............................................................................................................................................. 19 
4.1  Descriptive statistics of sample ................................................................................................... 19 
4.2  Research Tools ............................................................................................................................ 20 
4.3  Study of differences between different subgroups .................................................................... 21 
4.4  Survey Results ............................................................................................................................. 21 
5.  ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................................. 22 
5.1  Leadership Style and Work Safety Climate Analysis ................................................................... 22 
 

iv 
 
6.  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................... 25 
6.1  Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 25 
6.2  Limitation Regarding Participant Selection ................................................................................. 25 
6.3  Recommendations for Future Research ..................................................................................... 26 
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................ 27 
APPENDIX .................................................................................................................................................... 30 

v 
 
List of Figures

Figure 1: A model of the Full Range Leadership Development Theory………………………….9

Figure 2: Leadership Measuring Scale…………………………………………………………..23

List of Tables

Table 1: Leadership Behaviors for Safety………………………………………………………14

Table 2: Population and Sample Size…………………………………………………………...19

Table 3: NOSACQ-50 Answer Scale……………………………………………………..........20

Table 4: The NOSACQ-50 Scores………………………………………………………………23

Table 5: Comparing Leadership Style and Safety Climate Score………………………………24

Table 6: Frequency for the Various Groups…………………………………………………….24

List of Appendices

Appendix A: Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Rater)…………………………………..30

Appendix B: Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Leader)…………………………………34

Appendix C: Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Scoring Key…………………………….38

Appendix D: Nordic Occupational Safety Climate Questionnaire…………………………….39

Appendix E: Nordic Occupational Safety Climate Questionnaire Scoring Key………………48

Appendix F: Nordic Occupational Safety Climate Questionnaire Answer Scale……………..49

vi 
 
1. INTRODUCTION
One of the problems faced by the extractive industry is occupational injuries (Flin & Yule, 2004).

Mining companies spend millions of dollars on safety equipment and training to avoid accidents

at the workplace. The management of efficient and effective work place safety in order to reduce

occupational accidents is one of the paramount interests of stakeholders of the mining industry,

and leadership behavior is an important factor in achieving safety performance in organizations.

Managing Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) effectively is a key element in running a

successful business (Kaluza et al, 2012). Managers have a legal and moral duty to safeguard the

health and safety of those who work for them, and the exercise of these duties needs to be seen as

central to the role of leadership. Managers have a pivotal role in ensuring that OSH policies and

practices are given sufficient weight within their organizations. Research shows that the way in

which safety and health is led and integrated into an organization can impact significantly on

well-being at work, and address problems of worker absence through ill-health.

A wealth of literature exists which suggests that management practices and leadership styles

affect the health and wellbeing of workers. Judge & Piccolo (2007) reviewed eighty-seven

studies to examine the impact of transformational leadership on various measures of performance.

The path analysis results by Yang et al (2010) showed that leadership behavior affects safety

culture and safety performance in the health care industry. Safety performance was affected and

improved with contingency leadership and a positive work safety organization culture. The study

suggests improving safety performance by providing a well-managed system that includes

consideration of leadership, worker training courses, and a solid safety reporting system.

Keeloway, Mullen & Francis (2006) analysis via structural equation modeling showed that both

1 
 
transformational and passive leadership have opposite effects on safety climate and safety

consciousness, and these variables, in turn, predict safety events and injuries with the conclusion

that safety-specific passive leadership has direct negative and unique effects on safety climate

and safety consciousness.

Other studies detected evidence of a relation between management practices and leadership

styles on the safety of employees in various occupations and industries. For instance Duchon &

Smith (1994) studied about the extended workdays in mining and other industries; Geldart, et al

(2010) studied about organizational practices and workplace health and safety in manufacturing

companies; Komacki, Barwick, & Scott (1978) examined the behavioral approach to

occupational safety: pinpointing and reinforcing safe performance in a food manufacturing plant;

Cox, Jones & Rycroft (2004) studied the behavioral approaches to safety management within UK

reactor plants.

Several studies and research findings have concluded that bad management practices and

leadership styles are potentially dangerous to workers’ health. However, existing research is

general and not specific to some occupations and industries. Moreover, few studies have

examined the impact of management practices and leadership styles on safety performance at the

workplace. Besides majority of these studies were conducted in the United States, Europe, Asia

and Scandinavia and not much can be said about Africa in this case. In addition there is no

thorough research about the effect of management practices and leadership styles on the safety of

mine workers in Ghana.

2 
 
This thesis asks: “To what extent does an organization’s leadership style (transactional or

transformational) correlates with safety climate at the workplace?” The objective of this thesis is

to study the relationship between leadership style and the safety climate at Goldfields Ghana

Limited - CIL Plant.

1.1. The Case Company

Gold Fields Ghana Limited (GFGL) is a gold mining company which was incorporated in Ghana

in 1993 as the legal entity holding the Tarkwa concession mining rights (www.goldfields.co.za).

Gold Fields Ghana Holdings Limited now holds 90% of the issued shares of GFGL. The

government of Ghana holds a 10% free carried interest, as required under the mining law of

Ghana. Goldfields Ghana Limited is made up the Tarkwa mine (CIL Plant and Heap Leach Plant)

and the Damang mine. The Tarkwa Gold Mine operates under seven mining leases covering a

total area of approximately 20,825 hectares. The vision of Goldfields Ghana Limited is “To Be a

Global Leader in Sustainable Gold Mining” and the core values of the company are the

following: Safety, Responsibility, Honesty, Respect, Innovation and Delivery. To carry out its

gold production, Goldfields Ghana Limited is divided into the following departments: Human

Resource, Metallurgy, Engineering, Protection Services, Mineral Resource Management, Mining,

Environmental, Safety, Finance, Information Technology, Community Affairs and Project. The

CIL Plant is under the Metallurgy and Engineering Department. A general manager is responsible

for the overall leadership of the company and each department is headed by a departmental

manager who supervises unit managers of the various units within the department. The unit

managers are also supervisors of the superintendents who are responsible for the direct

supervision of various lower level staff. Thus there is a linked hierarchy of leadership that

3 
 
ensures that the policies and leadership style encouraged by management is reflected in each

department and subunit, however, individual leadership styles of leaders may play a role in

influencing the safety climate perceptions of their subordinates. Thus it is hoped that when the

leadership styles of the various leaders are compared to the safety climates as perceived by the

subordinates, a relationship may be realized to determine the preferred leadership style(s) with

regards to work safety climate.

4 
 
1.2. Key definitions

Leadership - the ability to inspire confidence in and support among the people who are needed
to achieve organizational goals

Leadership Style – the relatively consistent pattern of behavior that characterizes a leader.

Safety Climate – workgroup members’ shared perceptions of management and workgroup safet

y related policies, procedures and practices

Transactional Leadership – an exchange relationship between leader and follower which is

grounded in the social learning and social exchange theories, which recognize the reciprocal

nature of leadership

Transformational Leadership – this is a leadership style where tools such as intellectual

stimulation, inspiration, vision, developmental orientation, challenges, and determination are

used by the leader to improve employee competency.

Supervisor - person in the first-line management who monitors and regulates employees in their

performance of assigned or delegated tasks

Subordinate - an employee ranked below another employee in terms of seniority or office

hierarchy

5 
 
1.3. Research question

In this study, one research question (with two sub questions) is addressed in order to study the

relationship between leadership style and safety climate. The research question asks:

1. To what extent does an organization’s leadership style (transactional or transformational)

correlates with safety climate at the workplace?

The first sub-question asks:

i. What leadership style (transactional or transformational) correlates with higher safety

climate?

And the second sub-question asks:

ii. What leadership style correlates with lower safety climate

1.4. Research objective

The overall goal of the research is to identify the relationship between leadership style and safety

climate. The study is based on the hypothesis that leadership style has a great deal of influence

on safety climate at the workplace thereby contributing to safety performance of employees. The

null hypothesis states that there is no statistical significant relationship between leadership style

and safety climate in the company and the alternate hypothesis states that there is a statistically

significant relationship between leadership style and safety climate in the company. The results

of the research will pave way for safety performance to be improved at companies with similar

characteristics as Goldfields Ghana Limited. The significance of the research is that it will

contribute to the knowledge and understanding of the fields of transactional/transformational

leadership and safety climate at the workplace and the relationship between the two. The

outcomes of this study will help close the gap between leadership theories their applications as

well as help organizational leaders to improve their influence on organizational conditions such

6 
 
as the safety climate.

1.5. Thesis’ Structure

The study is divided into six chapters. Chapter one is the introductory chapter in which the

research problem is defined, the research motivation is provided and the case company is

introduced. The relevant literature review is carried out in Chapter two. The review provides the

background that guides the investigation of the relationship between leadership style and safety

climate at the workplace. Chapter three talks about the research approach i.e. the qualitative and

quantitative research approach, the case study method as well as sampling and data collection.

Chapter four contains the result and descriptive statistics of the sample as well as the discussion

and analysis of the case evidences. Analysis of the result is done in chapter five to determine the

relationship between leadership style and safety climate. The main findings of the study as well

as the implication of the results are discussed and conclusion drawn in Chapter Six. Limitations

of the research are also identified and further research on the relationship between leadership

style and safety climate are recommended.

7 
 
2. THEORY
This chapter present the review of literature on leadership style and safety climate that serves as

the theoretical framework for the study. The chapter begins with an introduction to leadership

and leadership styles followed by the characteristics of both the transformational and

transactional leadership styles. The Full Range Leadership theory is also reviewed to

demonstrate how it is used to measure transformational and transactional leadership. The chapter

continues with the review of organizational safety climate, factors affecting it, how it can be

improved and ends with the role of leadership in safety climate.

2.1. Introduction to Leadership and Leadership Styles

According to Yukl (1989) researchers usually define leadership according to their individual

perspectives and the aspects of the phenomenon of most interest to them. Burns (1978) for

instance, explains leadership as a stream of evolving interrelationships in which leaders are

continuously evoking motivational responses from followers and modifying their behavior as

they meet responsiveness or resistance in a ceaseless process of flow and counter flow. DuBrin

(2010) also defines leadership as the ability to inspire confidence and support among the people

to achieve organizational goals and further explains that examining the roles carried out by

leaders contributes to an understanding of the leadership function. Nine of such leadership roles

are the figurehead, spokesperson, negotiator, coach and motivator, team builder, team player,

technical problem solver, entrepreneur, and strategic planner.

Leadership style as explained by DuBrin (2010) is the relatively consistent pattern of behavior

8
 
that characterizes a leader. The study of leadership style is an extension of understanding

behaviors and attitudes. Most classification of leadership styles are based on the dimensions of

consideration and initiating structure. Burns (1978), in his book Leadership identified the two

types of political leadership which are the transactional and the transformational. Transactional

leadership occurs when one person takes the initiative in making contact with others for the

purpose of an exchange of something valued; that is, "leaders approach followers with an eye

toward exchanging" whiles transformational leadership is based on more than the compliance of

followers; it involves shifts in the beliefs, the needs, and the values of followers (Kuhnert &

Lewis, 1987). According to Bass & Avolio (1994), the impressive body of empirical research on

leadership has extensively compared styles and models of leadership of which the most salient is

the distinction between transformational and transactional leadership proposed by the full range

model of leadership.

In this study, the full range leadership theory was used to determine leadership characteristics.

There are so many leadership theories that have been studied by researchers throughout the years.

According to Handsome (2005), leadership theories such as the McGregor’s theory X and theory

Y, Likert’s democratic and autocratic styles, and Fiedler’s contingency theory (Haakonsson et al.,

2008; Kay, 2004) have be studied by researchers over the years but the transformational and

transactional leadership theory are utilized most by several researchers because it represents a

trend in leadership theory.

2.2. The Full Range Leadership Theory

Bass and Avolio (1994; 1997) created the Full Range Leadership approach which includes a

9
 
range of leadership behaviors. According to the model, a leader displays several leadership styles

from transformational leadership to transactional leadership and even some elements of laissez-

faire leadership style (Bass & Avolio, 1994).

Figure 1 illustrates the impact of each of the leadership styles discussed above as presented by

Bass & Avolio (1994). For instance, transformational leaders are seen to have a strong influence

on individuals and organizations by inspiring workers to perform beyond expectations whereas

transactional leaders influence by ensuring that compliance to expectations are met with rewards.

Thus the leadership styles can be differentiated from each other based on the fact that

transformational leadership results in followers that are more motivated than followers of

transactional leaders.

Figure 1 A Model of the Full Range Leadership Development Theory (Bass and Avolio, 1994)

10
 
2.3. Transformational Leadership

Transformational leadership is regarded by DuBrin (2010) as the leadership style that brings

about positive improvements in an organization. A transformational leader focusses on making

accomplishments through a good relationship with group members. To bring about change, the

transformational leader attempts to overhaul the organizational culture or subculture. Specific

change techniques include raising people’s awareness of the importance of certain rewards and

getting people to look beyond their self-interests for the sake of the team and the organization.

Both Bass (1985) and Burns (1978) explains that transformational leaders operate out of deeply

held personal value systems that include such values as justice and integrity. By expressing their

personal standards, transformational leaders are able both to unite followers and to change

followers' goals and beliefs (Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987). This form of leadership according to Bass

(1985) results in achievement of higher levels of performance among individuals than previously

thought possible.

A transformational leader helps people reach for self-fulfillment and understands the need for

change. As a result, this type of leader commits to greatness, adopts a long-range perspective,

builds trust, concentrates resources where change is needed the most and can arouse followers to

a higher level of thinking and to engage in more constructive behavior. In addition,

transformational leaders are likely to be strong on moral reasoning and always place emphasis on

empowerment, innovative thinking and leading by example. They are charismatic, extraverted,

visionaries, encourage personal development of the staff and give supportive leadership (DuBrin,

2010)

11
 
2.4. Transactional leadership

Transactional leadership represents those exchanges in which both the superior and the

subordinate influence one another reciprocally so that each derives something of value (Yukl,

1981). Further explanation on Transactional leadership describes it as a relationship between

leader and subordinates which is based on the social learning and social exchange theories. These

theories recognize the reciprocal nature of leadership and thus the transactional leader focuses on

more routine transactions, rewarding group members for meeting standards (contingent

reinforcement) (DuBrin 2010, Bass 1990).

According to Pastor & Mayo (2006), there are two main dimensions in a transactional leadership

relationship. The first dimension is contingent reward which refers to the aspects of the

relationship in which leaders clarify goals, talk about expected behaviors and accomplishments

and reward subordinates for expected levels of performance. In this case, the leaders see their

relationship as an exchange process in which their role is to assign and get agreement from

followers by clarifying the rewards that will likely be obtained in exchange for satisfactory

performance. The second dimension is management by exception which refers to the behaviors

of leaders who often engage in corrective transactions with followers. In this case, the leaders

arrange to monitor subordinates performance and look out for errors in order to correct them.

This process of searching for mistakes can either be passive, waiting for errors to occur, or active

when leaders closely examine work processes so that mistakes can be prevented and corrected.

2.5. Organizational Safety Climate

Kines et al, (2011), defines Safety climate as workgroup members’ shared perceptions of

12
 
manager as well as workgroup safety related policies, procedures and practices. And further

explains that safety climate reflects workers' perception of the true value of safety in an

organization - as a contributing factor towards the reduction of accidental injuries. Wiegman et al.

(2002) also defines Safety climate as the temporal state measure of safety culture, subject to

commonalities among individual perceptions of the organization. As a result, safety climate is

situational based, refers to the perceived state of safety at a particular place at a particular time, is

relatively unstable, and subject to change depending on the features of the current environment

or prevailing conditions. Neal et al. (2000) define safety climate as a specific form of

organizational climate that describes the individual perceptions of the value of safety in the work

environment. This shared perception indicates that the psychological climate perceptions of

safety in the particular work environment are shared among the employees, which then allow the

climate to be able to be defined at the group or organizational level (Neal & Griffin, 2004).

Safety Climate in an organization may be classified as positive (good or high), neutral (medium)

or poor (bad, weak or low).

Safety climate directly influence employees safety motivation and knowledge , which in turn

directly influence safety performance behaviors, which then directly related to safety outcomes

(accidents and injuries)(Neal and Griffin, 2004). Taylor (2005) explains that having a good safety

climate in an organization can bring several benefits such as avoiding injuries which reduces

downtime and eventually leads to the generation of substantial cost savings. The company also

builds a good reputation for itself as well as creating job satisfaction for employees. However,

Poor safety climate according to Probst & Estrada (2010) leads to higher accident some of which

are under-reported. When the safety climate in an organization is perceived by employees to be

13
 
weak, it moderates the relationship between job insecurity and other factors resulting in lower

levels of safety knowledge, less employee safety compliance, a greater number of employee

accidents, more near-misses, a greater likelihood of workplace injury, and a greater incidence of

repetitive motion injuries (Probst, Brubaker & Barsotti, 2008)

2.6. Factors Affecting Safety Climate

There are many factors which can affect the safety climate in an organization. These factors

explained by Khdair, Shamsudin & Subramanim (2011) are human, behavioral, economic,

psychological, organizational, individual, social and environmental factors. In manufacturing

industries, examples of these factors according to (Zohar,2000;Varon, 2000; Hofman, 1999&

Shanon, 1996) are the following:

 Supervisory systems and behaviors- this includes the individual supervisor’s attitudes,

actions, expectations, and communications

 The attitudes and behaviors of the workers as influenced by the system

 Inclusion of safety in the supervisor’s position duties and responsibilities.

 Involvement of senior management and workers in safety issues.

 The organization’s commitment to safety and its willingness to assume responsibility and

solve safety problem

Neal et al. (2000) on the other hand explains that the important components of safety climate

consist of management values (management’s extent to place high priority on safety), safety

communication (how open the exchange is regarding safety information), safety training (how

accessible, relevant and comprehensive training is) and safety systems (how safety procedures

are viewed in regard to being effective in preventing accidents).

14
 
2.7. Improving Safety Climate in an Organization

Rewards, Training, and Management commitment are found by studies to be the key components

for improving safety climate (Vredenburgh, 2002). Implementing a systematic and

comprehensive environmental, safety and health Training program in an organization provides

the means for making accidents more predictable as employees become more aware of the

hazards they are exposed to. Secondly, rewards and incentives motivate the employees to avoid

hazardous practices in the workplace. Lastly good management practices such as management

commitment help organizations to create positive safety climate that include management

commitment help organizations to create safety culture. When these measures are undertaken,

employees are motivated and they remain committed to perform a job in a safe manner.

2.8. The role of leadership in Safety Climate

Relating to behavioral outcomes high quality leader–subordinate exchange contributed to

improved safety communication and safety commitment, which results in the reduction of

incidence of accidents. Leadership styles have both direct and indirect effects on safety climate.

The direct effects relate to managers’ and supervisors’ modelling of safe and unsafe behaviors,

and to their reinforcement of subordinates’ behavior through monitoring and control. The indirect

effects of leadership styles relate to the establishment of norms relating to practices and

procedures, thus creating a particular safety culture or climate. Both directly and indirectly these

leader actions influence workers’ expectations and motivation, thus influencing the likelihood of

particular behaviors (Flin & Yule, 2004). The direct and indirect effects of leadership styles are

presented in Table 1 below.

15
 
Table 1: Leadership Behaviors for Safety (source: Flin & Yule, 2004)

Transactional Behaviors Transformational Behaviors

Supervisors Monitoring and reinforcing workers’ safe Being supportive of safety
behaviors initiatives

Participating in workforce safety Encouraging employee involvement

activities (can also be transformational) in safety initiatives

Middle Becoming involved in safety initiatives Emphasizing safety over

managers (can also be transformational) productivity

Adopting a decentralized style

Relaying the corporate vision for

safety to supervisors
Senior Ensuring compliance with regulatory Demonstrating visible and
managers requirements consistent commitment to safety
Showing concern for people
Providing resources for a comprehensive Encouraging participatory styles in
safety program middle managers and supervisors
Giving time for safety

16
 
3. METHOD

This chapter contains a description of the research methodology for testing the hypothesis, the

population, the sampling methods, and a brief explanation of the statistical methods used.

To develop a research methodology, a research question must be clearly identified and defined. A

Collection of data can then be carried out after a research design has been developed to address

the specific question. There are key dimensions of any research design that determines its ability

to address a given research question. The types of social research methods that are utilized in

experimental studies are exploratory research, descriptive research and explanatory research

(Babbie & Mouton, 2002). Since this research is the first of its kind that explores the relationship

between leadership style and safety climate in GFGL, Tarkwa – CIL Plant, the nature of the

study can be termed as an exploratory research.

3.1 Research Approach

Qualitative and Quantitative methods are used for this thesis because the problem statement aims

at findings which are coded into numbers and others which are not coded into numbers but text.

According to Axinn & Pearce (2006), the use of mixed methods affords opportunities to use the

strength of one method to counterbalance the weakness of the other method. The objective of this

research is to study the relationship between leadership styles and safety climate. Thus the nature

of the research required that both quantitative and qualitative data from the target population are

employed to answer the research questions.  The research starts with an overview of leadership

styles, safety climate and the role of leadership in safety climate. A review of a number of papers

17
 
written on the subject was also carried out with the objective of explaining the roles played by

leadership in organizational safety climate. Two survey questionnaires were employed for

gathering information during the study. The first questionnaire which was used to identify the

leadership styles is the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) developed by Bass and

Avolio (1997). The second questionnaire which was used to measure the safety climate was

derived from a questionnaire developed by a Nordic network of occupational safety researchers

(NOSACQ-50), headed by the National Research Centre for the Working Environment, Denmark

(Kines et al, 2011).

3.2 Questionnaire and measurements

The questionnaire used to determine organizational safety climate is the Nordic Occupational

Safety Climate Questionnaire (NOSACQ-50) developed by a Nordic network of occupational

safety researchers, headed by the National Research Centre for the Working Environment,

Denmark. Nordic Occupational Safety Climate Questionnaire (NOSACQ-50) is a tool for

diagnosing occupational safety climate and evaluating safety climate interventions. It is based on

organizational and safety climate theory, psychological theory, previous empirical research, and

empirical results acquired through international studies and a continuous development process.

(Kines et al, 2011). The questionnaire consists of 50 items across seven safety climate

dimensions.

Participants were asked to state to what degree they agreed with questions which falls under the

following seven safety climate dimensions (Management safety priority, commitment, and

competence, Management safety empowerment, Management safety justice, Workers’ safety

18
 
commitment, Workers’ safety priority and risk non-acceptance, Safety communication, learning,

and trust in co-workers safety competence and Trust in the efficacy of safety systems). The

response categories were “Strongly Disagree”, “Disagree”, “Agree” and “Strongly Agree”.

The measurement of leadership styles were done using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

(MLQ) developed by Bass and Avolio (1995). This questionnaire determines the degree to which

leaders exhibited transformational and transactional leadership as well as the degree to which

their followers were satisfied with their leader and their leader's effectiveness. The MLQ is

provided in both self and rater forms. Both the Self form (which measures self-perception of

leadership behaviors) and the Rater form (used to measure leadership) are used in this study.

Participants were required to assess how frequently the behaviors described by each of the

statements are exhibited by their leaders. The response ratings were  from 0 to 4 with 0 for “Not

at all”; 1 for “Once in a while”; 2 for “Sometimes”; 3 for “Fairly often” and 4 for “Frequently if

not always”.

3.3. Sampling and data collection

There are three common methods of data collection, namely, observation, interviews and

questionnaires (Axinn & Pearce, 2006). Questionnaires are an efficient data collection

mechanism provided the researcher knows exactly what is required and how to measure the

variables of interest. Questionnaires can be administered personally, mailed to the respondents or

even electronically distributed depending on the situation (Sekaran, 2003).

The group to which a research is generalized is referred to as the research population and the

group selected to be in the study from the population is the sample (Axinn & Pearce, 2006).

19
 
The supervisors were given the self-assessment MLQ questionnaires, and subordinates under

each supervisor were randomly selected and given the rater MLQ questionnaires. The NOSACQ-

50 questionnaire was given to both the supervisors and the subordinates to fill. The two sets of

questionnaires were administered in this way to obtain a holistic view of the type of leadership

style and the pertaining safety climate in each unit. A sample of 120 subordinates was selected

from a population of 180. On the part of the supervisors, a total sample of 28 were selected from

a population of 28 supervisors. In all a total sample size selected was 148 (supervisors and their

corresponding subordinates) representing 71.15% of the total population. The questionnaires

were sent to the e-mails of some employees and others were hand delivered to employees with

no access to internet.

3.4. Unit and level of analysis

The data analysis for this research was conducted using descriptive statistics including frequency,

proportional comparison and correlation.  Comparisons between groups were examined using

qualitative analysis techniques such as graphical and statistical techniques. Chi Square test of

independence was used to examine the association between leadership styles and work safety

climate.

3.5. Validity, reliability and generalizability

The goodness of a measure is mainly evaluated in terms of validity and reliability. Lack of

validity introduces systematic error while lack of reliability introduces random error. Validity is

concerned with the measuring of the right concept while reliability is concerned with stability

and consistency in measurement. Reliability indicates dependability, stability, predictability,

20
 
consistency and accuracy (Forza, 2002). In order to provide validity for this research, it was

ensured that evidence provided in this research is confirmed by at least five respondents. To

provide reliability, conformability was ensured as the survey and the review of documents on the

subject all lead to similar conclusions.

The Nordic Occupational Safety Climate Questionnaire (NOSACQ-50) used in this study has

been pilot tested in various industries in all the Nordic countries, and the results confirm the

reliability and validity of the questionnaire. (Kines et al, 2011). Also studies by Bass and Avolio

(1997) has it that reliability of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) has been proven

many times through test-retest, internal consistency methods and alternative methods.

21
 
4. RESULTS
Data collection for the study followed the methodology described in Chapter 3. This chapter

describes the gathered data, methods used in the data collection, and the research and statistical

tools used for statistical analysis. The purpose of the collected data was to determine a

relationship between leadership style and safety climate.

4.1 Descriptive statistics of sample

The targeted population for this research were GFGL-CIL Plant employees comprising

supervisors (leaders), technicians (subordinates). The means of distribution of the questionnaire

was through the corporate email as well as hand distribution with each participant receiving

either an email or a printed copy of the questionnaires.

Table 2: Population and Sample Size

Supervisors Subordinates

Population 28 180

Sample 28 120

Response 16 92

Due to the limited number of supervisors, all 28 supervisors were included in the study, but 120

of the 180 subordinates were randomly selected for the study using Excel random generator on

the subordinate’s unique numbers. As shown in Table 2, 16 supervisors successfully completed

and submitted the questionnaires representing a proportion of 57.14% and 92 subordinates

22 
 
representing 76.6%.

4.2 Research Tools

Two tools were used in the study and these tools were the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

(MLQ), and the Nordic Occupational Safety Climate Questionnaire (NOSACQ-50). The MLQ is

used for determining and measuring leadership styles whereas the NOSACQ-50 is for measuring

the perception of workers about the value management places on safety.

The MLQ measures the attributes of transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership

styles with a magnitude scale of 0,1,2,3, and 4. The scales are represented by 0 for not at all, 1

for once in a while, 2 for sometimes, 3 for fairly often, and 4 for frequently. The results were

determined by averaging the scores for each item in each leadership style scale and a leadership

style with higher scores indicating a strong tendency toward that leadership style. The

NOSACQ-50 is made up of 50 questions requiring answers that are ratings 1, 2, 3, and 4 but the

rating is dependent on the formulation of the question as shown in the Table 3 below.

Table 3: NOSACQ-50 Answer scale

Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree

Score for positive items 1 2 3 4

Score for reversed items 4 3 2 1

The NOSACQ-50 covers seven dimensions, namely:

 Management safety priority and ability

 Management safety empowerment

23 
 
  Management safety justice

 Worker’s safety commitment

 Workers safety priority and risk non-acceptance

 Safety communication, learning, and trust in safety ability, and

 Workers’ trust in the efficacy of safety systems.

To determine the results from NOSACQ-50, a true mean score is determined for each dimension

for each respondent and the mean for all the respondents is then determined from the true means

from each respondents.

4.3 Study of differences between different subgroups

In a study of the demography of the sample, it was determined from the responses to the

questionnaires that 85 (92.4%) of the subordinates were male and 7 (7.6%) female but the

leaders (supervisors) were all male. Information was also sought on the years spent working in

the company by participants and these were classified into those who had been working under a

leader for less than 5 years and those who had been working under a supervisor for more than 5

years. A proportion of 30 (32.6%) of the respondents have worked for less than 5 years under

their supervisor and 62 (67.4%) have worked under their supervisors for more than 5 years.

4.4 Survey Results

To determine the MLQ scores for each leader, the scores from the respondents were averaged for

each leadership style scale. For transformational leadership, the scales on idealized attributes,

24 
 
idealized behaviors, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individual

consideration was used. Thus questions 2, 6, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 23, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31,

32, 34, and 36 were identified as related to transformational leadership. The scale for

transactional leadership consisted of contingent reward and management by exception active and

are captured by questions 1, 4, 11, 16, 22, 24, 27, and 35. Laisseez-faire leadership is

characterized by laissez-faire leadership and management by exception passive and comprised of

questions 3, 5, 7, 12, 17, 20, and 28.

25 
 
5. ANALYSIS
In this chapter, the data collected from the two sets of questionnaires are analyzed to determine

any relationship between leadership style and workers safety climate. This analysis is carried out

by determining the predominant leadership style of each leader and comparing it to the workers

safety priority (sum of the average scores of items from survey for each leader). A Chi square test

of independence is used to determine if there is a statistically significant relationship between the

leadership style and workers safety priority.

5.1. Leadership Style and Work Safety Climate Analysis

Figure 1 below shows the average values as recorded from the analysis of the results. The results

indicate a mean rating of 3.41 (n = 108) with a standard deviation of 0.08 for idealized attributes

(IA), a mean rating of 3.33 (n=108) with a standard deviation of 0.15 for idealized behavior (IB),

a mean rating of 3.65 (n=108) with a standard deviation of 0.22 for Inspirational Motivation (IM),

a mean rating of 3.25 (n=108) with a standard deviation of 0.15 for Intellectual Stimulation (IS),

a mean rating of 3.27 (n=108) with a standard deviation of 0.39 for Individual Consideration (IC).

Contingent Reward (CR) had a mean rating of 3.47 with a standard deviation of 0.27,

management by exception active (MBEA) had a mean rating of 2.74 (n=108) with a standard

deviation of 0.24, management by exception passive (MBEP) had a mean rating of 2.60 with a

standard deviation of 0.40, laissez-faire (LF) had a mean rating of 2.15 (n=108) with a standard

deviation of 0.22.

26 
 
 4

3,5

3
MLQ Mean Rating

2,5

1,5

0,5

0
IA IB IM IS IC CR MBEA MBEP LF

Figure 2: Leadership Measuring Scale

From the analysis, it is seen that transformational leadership is more prevalent with an average

score of 3.38, followed by Transactional Leadership with an average score of 3.01, and then

Laissez faire Leadership with an average score 2.38. The NOSACQ-50 responses indicated

average scores as shown in Table 4 below.

Table 4: NOSACQ-50 Scores

Managem Manageme Managem Workers’ Workers’ Peer safety Workers

ent safety nt safety ent safety safety safety communicat trust in
priority empowerm justice commitme priority & ion learning safety
ent nt risk non- & trust in systems
acceptance safety ability

Sample 3.21 2.95 3.42 3.40 3.24 3.39 2.80

(N=108)

The scores indicate a high score for management safety justice followed by workers safety

commitment then peer safety communication learning and trust in safety ability, workers safety

priority and risk non-acceptance, management safety empowerment, and workers trust in safety

27 
 
systems.

A summary of the data obtained from the study is presented in the table below showing the

predominant leadership trait of each leader and the corresponding average total score.

Table 5: Comparing Leadership Style and Safety Score

Leader 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Leadership T T R T R R R T T R T T R T T T
style
Safety 25.1 23.3 17.6 22.8 18.7 15.9 21.6 26.3 18.2 17.0 27.4 20.1 15.7 26.3 27.0 20.2
Score

In order to determine if the leadership style is associated with the safety climate score, the

scoring is grouped into 3 ranges with the following categories:

15 to 19 – low safety

20 to 24 – medium safety

25 to 28 – high safety

The frequency for the various groups are presented in the table below.

Table 6: Frequency for the various groups

Low safety Medium safety High Safety

Transformational 1 4 5

Transactional 5 1 0

Using the following hypothesis:

H0 – there is no association between leadership and safety climate

Ha –there is an association between leadership and safety climate

28 
 
A Chi square test of independence resulted in a Chi square value of 9.03 with a corresponding P

value of 0.011. Since the p value is less than 0.05, H0 is rejected and it is concluded that there is a

strong evidence of an association of leadership style with safety climate with Transformational

Leaders scoring higher in climate safety scores compared to transactional leaders.

29 
 
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Conclusions

The purpose of the study was to determine the relationship between leadership styles and safety

climate in Goldfields Ghana Limited - CIL Plant. An analysis of results obtained from the MLQ

and NOSACQ-50 questionnaires concluded that there is a statistically significant relationship

between leadership style and work safety climate. The relationship indicated that

Transformational Leadership styles correlated with a higher (better) safety climate than

Transactional Leadership style.

This finding implies that it is more desirable to have leaders in the mining industry who are

transformational leaders as this may encourage a safe climate for workers. The conclusion is also

in agreement with other researches in other industries that also found a strong correlation

between transformational leadership and work safety climate.

6.2 Limitation Regarding Participant Selection

A few limitations were encountered during this study. Possible limitations include the following:

 The sample size was relatively small.

 Subordinates were not always tied to a single leader and thus the interference of other

leaders with different leadership styles could affect the responses of the respondent and

may not precisely reflect the right safety climate under the targeted leader.

 Another limitation of the current study relates to the characteristics or demographics of

the sample. The sample was gender bias with a female size of less than ten percent. This

is reflective of the trend in a typical mine in Ghana but may not reflect the trend in the

30 
 
 future of in other countries.

6.3 Recommendations for Future Research

Based on the limitations of the study, it is recommended that further studies are carried out in the

mining industry with bigger population sizes to produce results or conclusions that have higher

reliability.

31 
 
REFERENCES
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M. and Jung, D. I. 1995. MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire:
Technical Report. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.

Axin, W. G., and Pearce, L. D. 2006. Mixed Method Data Collection Strategies, Cambridge
University Press, New York

Babbie, E. and Mouton, J. 2002. The Practice of Social Research. Oxford: O.U.P., 282-280

Bass, B. M. and Avolio, B. J. 1994. Improving Organizational Effectiveness through

Transformational Leadership. California: Sage.

Bass, B. M., and Avolio, B. J., E. 1997. The Full Range of Leadership Development: Manual
for the Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire. Binghampton: New York

Bass, B. M. 1985. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press

Burns, J. M. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper & Row

Cox, S., Jones, B., and Rycroft, H. 2004. Behavioral approaches to safety management within
UK reactor plants. Safety Science 42: 839-825.

DuBrin, A. J., E. 2010. Principles of Leadership (6th edition). South-Western/Cengage

.
Duchon J., and Smith T. 1994. Extended workdays in mining and other industries: a review of
the literature. Minneapolis: United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines,
Information Circular, Twin Cities Research Center

Farza, C. 2002. Survey research in operations management: a process-based perspective.

International Journal of Operations & Production Management 22 (2): 152-94.

Flin, R., and Yule, S. 2004. Leadership for safety: industrial experience. Quality and Safety in
Health Care 13: 45-5

Geldart, S., Smith, C., Shannon, H., and Lohfeld L. 2010. Organizational practices and
workplace health and safety: A cross-sectional study in manufacturing companies. Safety Science
48: 569- 562

Haakonsson, D., Burton, R., Obel, B., and Lauridsen, J. 2008. How failure to align
organizational climate and leadership style affects performance. Management Decision 46: 432-
406.

32 
 
Handsome, J. D. 2005. Relationship Between Leadership Style and Job Satisfaction. UMI
Dissertation Publishing

Hofman D.A.1999. Morgeson F.P. Safety-related behavior as a social exchange: the role of
perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology
84(2):286–96.

Judge, T. A. and Piccolo, R. F. 2007. Transformational and Transactional Leadership: a meta

analytic test of the relative validity. Journal of Applied Phsycology:1030-1020.

Kaluza, S., Hauke, A., Starren, A., Drupsteen, L., and Bell, N. 2012. Leadership and
Occupational Safety and Health (OSH): An Expert analysis, European Agency for Safety and
Health at Work

Kay, H. 2004. Matching leadership style to team maturity. Quality Congress: ASQ’s Annual
Quality Congress Proceedings 58:102-97

Keeloway, E. K., Mullen, J., and Francis, L. 2006. Divergent effects of transformational and
passive leadership on employee safety. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 11 (1):86-76

Khdair W. A., Shamsudin F. M. and Subramanim C. 2011. Improving Safety Performance by

understanding relationship between Management Practices and Leadership behavior in the Oil
and Gas Industry in Industry in Iraq. International Conference on Management and Artificial
Intelligence IPEDR IACSIT Press, Bali, Indonesia 6

Kines, P., lappalainen J., Mikkelsen, K. L., Puosette, A., Tharaldsen, J. and Tòrnmasson, K. 2011.
Nordic Safety Climate Questionnaire (NOSACQ - 50): a new tool for measuring occupational
safety climate. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 41 (6): 646-634

Komacki J., Barwick, K.D., and Scott, L. R. 1978. Behavioral approach to occupational safety:
pinpointing and reinforcing safe performance in a food manufacturing plant. Journal of Applied
Psychology 63 (4):445-434

Kuhnert, K. W. and Lewis, P. 1987.Transactional and Transformational Leadership:A

Constructive/Developmental Analysis. Academy of Management Review 12 (4):657-648

Neal, A., and Griffin, M. 2004. Safety climate and safety at work. In J. Barling & M.R. Frone
(Eds.). The psychology of workplace safety 34-15. Washington, DC US: American Psychological
Association.

Neal, A., Griffin, M., and Hart, P. 2000. The impact of organizational climate on safety climate
and individual behavior. Safety Science, 34(1):109-99.

Pastor J. C. and Mayo M. 2006. Transformational and Transactional leadership: an examination

of managerial cognition among Spain upper echelons. Institute de Empresa Calle Maria de

33 
 
Molina 11 28006, Madrid Spain

Probst, T., Brubaker, T. and Barsotti, A. 2008. Organizational injury rate underreporting: The
moderating effect of organizational safety climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5):1154-
1147.

Probst, T., and Estrada, A. 2010. Accident under-reporting among employees: Testing the
moderating influence of psychological safety climate and supervisor enforcement of safety
practices. Accident Analysis and Prevention 42 (5):1444 - 1438

Sekaran, U. 2003. Research Methods for Business, A Skill Building Approach, (Fourth
Edition). John Wiley & Sons Inc, New York.

Shannon H.S., Walters V., Lewchuk W., et al.1996. Workplace organizational correlates of lost-
time accident rates in manufacturing. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 29:258–68.

Taylor, R. 2005. Achieving a Good Safety Culture – the people dimensionǁ in health, safety and
environmental performance. Hazards Forum. London

Varonen U, Mattila M. 2000. The safety climate and its relationship to safety practices, safety of
the work environment and occupational accidents in eight wood-processing companies. Accident
Analysis and Prevention 32(6):761–9.

Vredenburgh, A. G. 2002. Organizational safety: Which management practices are most effective
in reducing employee injury rates? Journal of Safety Research 33(2):276-259.

Wiegmann, D. A., Zhang, H., von Thaden, T., Sharma, G. and Mitchell, A. 2002. A Synthesis of
Safety Culture and Safety Climate Research. Aviation Research Lab Institute of Aviation

www.goldfields.co.za

Yang, C., Wang, Y., Chang, S., Guo, S., and Huang M. 2010. A Study on the Leadership
Behavior, Safety Culture, and Safety Performance of the Healthcare Industry. World Academy of
Science, Engineering and Technology L: Educational and Psychological Sciences 2: 94-87.

Yukl, G., (1981). Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Yukl, G. A. 1989. Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. Journal of

Management 15(2):251-289.

Zohar D. 2000 A group-level model of safety climate: testing the effect of group climate on
micro-accidents in manufacturing jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology 85 (4):587–96

34 
 
APPENDIX
APPENDIX A: Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Rater)

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Booklet (MLQM) by Bernard M. Ba

ss and Bruce J. Avolio

DIRECTIONS: This questionnaire is to describe the leadership style of your manager/supervisor.

Describe the leadership style as you perceive it. Please answer all items below by entering in the

block a number from the rating scale that best reflects your perception. If an item is irrelevant, or

if you are unsure or do not know the answer, leave the answer blank. Please answer this

questionnaire anonymously.

Use the following rating scale:

0 1 2 3 4

Not at all Once in a while Sometimes Fairly Often Frequently if not always

0 = Not at all, 1 = Once in a while, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = Fairly Often, 4 = Frequently if not always

THE PERSON I AM RATING...

1. Provides me with assistance in exchange for my efforts

2. Re-examines critical assumptions to question whether they are

appropriate

35 
 
3. Fails to interfere until problems become serious

4. Focuses attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and

deviations from standards

5. Avoids getting involved when important issues arise

6. Talks about their most important values and beliefs

7. Is absent when needed

8. Seeks differing perspectives when solving problems

THE PERSON I AM RATING...

9. Talks optimistically about the future

10. Instills pride in me for being associated with him/her

11. Discusses in specific terms who is responsible for achieving

performance targets

12. Waits for things to go wrong before taking action

13. Talks enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished

14. Specifies the importance of having a strong sense of purpose

15. Spends time teaching and coaching

16. Makes clear what one can expect to receive when performance
goals are achieved

17. Shows that he/she is a firm believer in 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it:'

36 
 
18. Goes beyond self-interest for the good of the group

19. Treats me as an individual rather than just as a member of a group

20. Demonstrates that problems must become chronic before taking

action

21. Acts in ways that builds my respect

22. Concentrates his/her full attention on dealing with mistakes,

complaints, and failures

23. Considers the moral and ethical consequences of decisions

24. Keeps track of all mistakes

25. Displays a sense of power and confidence

26. Articulates a compelling vision of the future

27. Directs my attention toward failures to meet standards

28. Avoids making decisions

THE PERSON I AM RATING...

29. Considers me as having different needs, abilities, and aspirations

from others

30. Gets me to look at problems from many different angles

31. Helps me to develop my strengths

32. Suggests new ways of looking at how to complete assignments

37 
 
33. Delays responding to urgent questions

34. Emphasizes the importance of having a collective sense of

mission

35. Expresses satisfaction when I meet expectations

36. Expresses confidence that goals will be achieved

37. Is effective in meeting my job-related needs

38. Uses methods of leadership that are satisfying

39. Gets me to do more than I expected to do

40. Is effective in representing me to higher authority

41. Works with me in a satisfactory way

42. Heightens my desire to succeed

43. Is effective in meeting organizational requirements

44. Increases my willingness to try harder

45. Leads a group that is effective

38 
 
APPENDIX B: Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Leader)

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Leader Booklet (MLQM) by Bernard M

. Bass and Bruce J. Avolio

DIRECTIONS: This questionnaire is designed to help you describe your leadership style as you

perceive it. Please answer all items below by entering in the block a number from the rating scale

that best reflects your perception. Judge how frequently each statement fits you. The word "othe

rs" may mean your peers, clients, direct reports, supervisors, and/or all of these individuals.

Use the following rating scale:

0 1 2 3 4

Not at all Once in a while Sometimes Fairly Often Frequently if not always

I provide others with assistance in exchange for their efforts

2. I re-examine critical assumptions to question whether they are

appropriate

3. I fail to interfere until problems become serious

4. I focus attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and

deviations from standards

5. I avoid getting involved when important issues arise

6. I talk about my most important values and beliefs

39 
 
7. I am absent when needed

8. I seek differing perspectives when solving problems

9. I talk optimistically about the future

10. I instill pride in others for being associated with me

11. I discuss in specific terms who is responsible for achieving

performance targets 146

12. I wait for things to go wrong before taking action

13. I talk enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished

14. I specify the importance of having a strong sense of purpose

15. I spend time teaching and coaching

16. I make clear what one can expect to receive when performance
goals are achieved

17. I show that I am a firm believer in 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

18. I go beyond self-interest for the good of the group

19. I treat others as individuals rather than just as a member of a group

20. I demonstrate that problems must become chronic before I take

action

21. I act in ways that build others' respect for me

40 
 
22. I concentrate my full attention on dealing with mistakes, complaints,
and failures

23. I consider the moral and ethical consequences of decisions

24. I keep track of all mistakes

25. I display a sense of power and confidence

26. I articulate a compelling vision of the future

27. I direct my attention toward failures to meet standards

28. I avoid making decisions

29. I consider an individual as having different needs, abilities, and

aspirations from others

30. I get others to look at problems from many different angles

31. I help others to develop their strengths 147

32. I suggest new ways of looking at how to complete assignments

33. I delay responding to urgent questions

34. I emphasize the importance of having a collective sense of mission

35. I express satisfaction when others meet expectations

36. I express confidence that goals will be achieved

37. I am effective in meeting others' job-related needs

41 
 
38. I use methods of leadership that are satisfying

39. I get others to do more than they expected to do

40. I am effective in representing others to higher authority

41. I work with others in a satisfactory way

42. I heighten others' desire to succeed

43. I am effective in meeting organizational requirements

44. I increase others' willingness to try harder

4 5 . I l e a d a g r o u p t h a t i s e f f e c t i v e

42 
 
APPENDIX C: Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Scoring Key

Description Leadership Raw Factors # # # #

Factors

Transformational Idealized Influence (Attributes) 10 18 21 25

Transformational Idealized Influence (Behaviors) 6 14 23 34

Transformational Inspirational Motivation 9 13 26 36

Transformational Intellectual Stimulation 2 8 30 32

Transformational Individualized Consideration 15 19 29 31

Constructive Transactional Contingent Reward 1 11 16 35

Transaction

Corrective Transactional Management by Excerption 4 22 24 27

Transaction (Active)

Corrective Transactional Management by Excerption 3 12 17 20

Transaction (Passive)

Non-Transactional Laissez-Fair 5 7 28 33

Outcome 1 Extra Effort 39 42 44 45

Outcome 2 Effectiveness 37 40 43

Outcome 3 Satisfaction 38 41

43 
 
APPENDIX D: Nordic Occupational Safety Climate Questionnaire (NOSACQ-50)

Developed by a Nordic working group of work environment specialists

The purpose of this questionnaire is to get your view on safety at this workplace. Your answers

will be processed on a computer and will be dealt with confidentially. No individual results will

be presented in any way. Although we want you to answer each and every question, you have the

right to refrain from answering any one particular question, a group of questions, or the entire

questionnaire

I have read the above introduction to the questionnaire and agree to complete t Yes

he questionnaire under the stated conditions

Background Information

A Year of Birth? 19

B Are you Male Female

C Do you have a managerial position e.g. manager, No Yes Which?

supervisor?

In the following section please describe how you perceive that the managers and

supervisors at this workplace deal with safety. Although some questions may appear very

similar, please answer each one of them.

44 
 
 Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly
disagree agree

Put only one X for each question

1. Management encourages employees here

to work in accordance with safety rules -
even when the work schedule is tight

2. Management ensures that everyone

receives the necessary information on
safety

3. Management looks the other way when

someone is careless with safety

4. Management places safety before

Production

5. Management accepts employees here

taking risks when the work schedule is
tight

6. We who work here have confidence in the

management's ability to deal with safety

45 
 
7. Management ensures that safety problems
discovered during safety
rounds/evaluations are corrected
immediately

8. When a risk is detected, management

ignores it without action

9. Management lacks the ability to deal with

safety properly

10. Management strives to design safety

routines that are meaningful and actually
work

11. Management makes sure that everyone

can influence safety in their work
environment

12. Management encourages employees

here to participate in decisions which
affect their safety

13. Management never considers employees'

suggestions regarding safety

46 
 
14. Management strives for everybody at the
worksite to have high competence
concerning safety and risks

15. Management never asks employees for

their opinions before making decisions
regarding safety

16. Management involves employees in

decisions regarding safety

17. Management collects accurate

information in accident investigations

18. Fear of sanctions (negative

consequences) from management
discourages employees here from
reporting near-miss accidents

19. Management listens carefully to all who

have been involved in an accident

20. Management looks for causes, not guilty

persons, when an accident occurs
21. Management always blames employees
for accidents

47 
 
22. Management treats employees involved
in an accident fairly

In the following section please describe how you perceive that employees at this
workplace deal with safety

23. We who work here try hard together to

achieve a high level of safety

24. We who work here take joint

responsibility to ensure that the
workplace is always kept tidy

25. We who work here do not care about

each others' safety

26. We who work here avoid tackling risks

that are discovered

27. We who work here help each other to

work safely

28. We who work here take no responsibility

for each others' safety
29. We who work here regard risks as
Unavoidable

48 
 
30. We who work here consider minor
accidents to be a normal part of our daily
work

31. We who work here accept dangerous

behaviour as long as there are no
accidents

32. We who work here break safety rules in

order to complete work on time

33. We who work here never accept risktaking

even if the work schedule is tight

34. We who work here consider that our work

is unsuitable for cowards

35. We who work here accept risk-taking at

Work

36. We who work here try to find a solution if

someone points out a safety problem

37. We who work here feel safe when

working together

49 
 
38. We who work here have great trust in
each others' ability to ensure safety

39. We who work here learn from our

experiences to prevent accidents

40. We who work here take each others'

opinions and suggestions concerning
safety seriously

41. We who work here seldom talk about

Safety

42. We who work here always discuss safety

issues when such issues come up

43. We who work here can talk freely and

openly about safety

44. We who work here consider that a good

safety representative plays an important
role in preventing accidents

45. We who work here consider that safety

rounds/evaluations have no effect on
safety

50 
 
46. We who work here consider that safety
training to be good for preventing
accidents

47. We who work here consider early planning

for safety as meaningless

48. We who work here consider that safety

rounds/evaluations help find serious
hazards

49. We who work here consider safety training

to be meaningless

50. We who work here consider it important to

have clear-cut goals for safety

If you wish to elaborate on some of your answers, or if you have any comments regarding

the study, you are welcome to write them here.

Comments:

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

Thank you for filling in the questionnaire. Please ensure you have checked off

51 
 
the box on the front page showing that you have given your informed consent to
participate in the study

52 
 
APPENDIX E: Nordic Occupational Safety Climate Questionnaire (NOSACQ-50) Scoring Key

Positively Reversed

Formulated Formulated

Items Items

Dimension 1- management safety priority A A3, A5, A8, A9

1, A2, A4, A6, A7

and ability (9 items):

Dimension 2 – management safety empower A10, A11, A12, A14, A13, A15

ment (7 items): A16

Dimension 3 – management safety justice (6 A17, A19, A20, A22 A18, A21

items):

Dimension 4 – workers’ safety commitment A23, A24, A27 A25, A26, A28

(6 items):

Dimension 5 - workers’ safety priority and r A33 A29, A30, A31, A32,

isk non-acceptance (7 items): A34, A35

Dimension 6 – Peer safety communication l A36, A37, A38, A39, A41

earning, and trust in safety ability (8 items): A40, A42, A43

Dimension 7 – workers’ trust in efficacy of A44, A46, A48, A50 A45, A47, A49

safety systems (7 items):

53 
 
APPENDIX F: Nordic Occupational Safety Climate Questionnaire (NOSACQ-50) Answer Scale

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

Score for Positive Items 1 2 3 4

Score for Negative Items 4 3 2 1

54