Examining the Impact of Transactional Leadership on Workplace Health and Safety.

By Racheal O, D., Gbenga G, J., Olayemi A, O., Oladotun, D, O., and Folusade M, O.

?Introduction

The definition and interpretation of leadership have changed, despite its lengthy history, making it difficult for academics, researchers, and authors to come to a consensus. "There are almost as many different definitions of leadership as there are people who have attempted to define it," as Bass (1990) correctly observed. Within this wide range of views, Cooper's (2015) and Cooper's (2010) definitions of safety leadership stick out for emphasising the importance of establishing desirable states, assembling successful teams, and participating in activities that advance safety principles. This definition is recognised as crucial, especially in situations where the dominant safety culture is weak (HSE, 2001; Martínez-Córcoles, Gracia, Ines, et al., 2011).

Within the field of workplace safety, Bass (1985) proposed the concept of transactional leadership, which is associated with theories of path-goal leadership and leader-member interaction (Graen & Cashman, 1975). Leaders provide tasks and attend to employee requirements in this strategy, which is characterised by a reward-based exchange to inspire staff (Bian, et al., 2019; Xu and Shi, 2005). In order to bring employee activities into line with organisational policies and goals, it combines management by exception with dependent compensation (Chen & Shi, 2007).

The International Labour Organisation (2016) highlights the need to comprehend the influence of leadership styles on workplace health and safety, given the contemporary and inventive business environment characterised by a notable prevalence of work-related illnesses and workplace mishaps. Workplace safety theories and models emphasise how views of the safety climate are shaped by leadership and how this influences safety behaviour and workplace incidents (Christian et al., 2009; Clarke, 2010). Transactional leadership concentrates on proactive monitoring and corrective actions, which are crucial in safety-critical environments (Griffin and Hu, 2013; Clarke, 2013). In contrast, transformational leadership is linked to positive safety outcomes because of its inspiring and motivating nature (Nielsen et al., 2016).

The article's main objective is to evaluate transactional leadership's benefits and drawbacks concerning?occupational health and safety from a general perspective and as applicable to various industries. This article, which draws from a range of sources such as academic databases, research papers, and journals, will examine the ways in which transactional leadership, with its focus on proactive error identification and recovery, affects the safety culture within organisations. The importance of leadership in maintaining safety in diverse industries, where there is a significant inherent risk of occupational hazards, cannot be overemphasised. The transactional method, which emphasises precise instructions and prompt feedback, can be helpful in upholding high safety standards. However, doing so may come at the expense of a safety culture that is less engaging and adaptable, which is detrimental when it comes to handling the intricate and ever-changing safety issues that arise within industries.

Understanding Transactional Leadership

According to Avolio (1999), there are three components to transactional leadership behaviour: active management-by-exception, passive management-by-exception, and dependent reward. The transactional leadership approach clarifies what is expected of transactional contingent reward leadership and offers recognition for goals met. A major focus of transactional leadership, whether active or passive, is on followers' thoughts (Bass & Avolio, 1994). It gives the immediate, basic needs of a subordinate’s top priority (Koh et al., 1995) and provides financial rewards for doing predefined duties and meeting set criteria and goals (Bass & Avolio, 1994). Bass et al. (2003) established that followers of transactional leadership obey, accept, or agree with the leader in exchange for resources, praise, and prizes, or to avoid facing disciplinary action. People who successfully carried out their jobs and obligations were rewarded and recognised. As a result, leaders who take a transactional stance by monitoring their followers' behaviour and focusing on their duties and responsibilities appeal to their subordinates' "ought selves" and may arouse their prevention focus (Kark et al., 2015; Kark & van Dijk, 2007).

Furthermore, it emphasises the repercussions that followers will experience if they are unable to meet these goals. In order to satisfy their followers' urgent needs, transactional leaders involve their subordinates in exchange procedures (Bass, 1999). The transactional leader sets expectations, supervises both accomplishments and inadequacies and inspires followers to carry out responsibilities in a specified way. The transactional leader encourages dependence on the leader's discretion rather than mandating that followers come up with original answers to issues. It is expected that both individuals and groups will reach the expected levels of performance by setting clear goals and objectives and acknowledging successes (Bass, 1985).

Impacts of Transactional Leadership on Workplace Safety

Studies have shown that safety compliance is significantly related to transactional leadership, particularly in safety-critical organisations (Clarke, 2013; Willis et al., 2017; Griffin and Hu, 2013). This leadership style promotes active monitoring and proactive detection of possible problems, as well as knowledge development, in order to prevent safety mishaps (Rodriguez and Griffin, 2009). According to Neal et al. (2000) and Zou et al. (2015), leadership behaviour includes safety motivation and psychological cognitive orientation, which influence employees' perceptions of the workplace, including the safety climate. One negative impact of this is that transactional leaders assign tasks and deliver orders without taking responsibility for the outcomes, frequently blaming subordinates for failures. This technique has the potential to produce a poor work atmosphere by encouraging manipulation and decreasing shared goal identification (Delegach, 2017). As further explained by Hansez and Chmiel (2010), transactional leadership has no meaningful influence on factors such as organisational commitment and trust, both of which are critical for a holistic safety culture. Furthermore, Pillai et al. (1999) discovered a negative relationship between transactional leadership and proactive behaviours such as organisational citizenship, all of which have a significant effect on safety compliance in the workplace.

?It is also possible to argue that transactional leadership theories violate two ethical standards, one established by the prominent and mainstream philosophers of ethics, Immanuel Kant and Jeremy Bentham. Kant provided his interpretation of the "Golden Rule" to what you want to see universalized throughout the world (transactional leadership theories) (Delegach, 2017). Would a transactional leader be willing to bend to the will of another transactional leader? Bentham stated that one should do whatever increases happiness and that this should be done on a global scale. A transactional leader will never recognise that blind obedience is not the ultimate behaviour; he is just concerned with giving orders. The era of dominance is not yet finished, but considerable opposition to it arose decades ago. Domination is the cornerstone of transactional leadership, which is losing traction in today's business environment as compared to the transformative leader, who intellectually encourages, stimulates, and personally cares for their employees (Delegach, 2017). However, transactional leadership styles have been demonstrated to reduce injuries and facilitate error recovery (Zohar, 2002; Reason, 1997). It is especially useful in high-risk industries such as the railway industry and nuclear power plants, where protocol adherence is important for averting system failures (Grote et al., 2009). Transactional leadership is beneficial in certain organisational settings for clearly articulating objectives and ensuring employee job satisfaction, as established by (Dartey-Bah and Ampofo, 2016). However, in our opinion as a team, job satisfaction using transactional leadership style or otherwise as a criteria to justify this is not sufficient to conclude there is job satisfaction in such an organisation; there might be other factors such as the ambience in which the job was carried out, that have not been included in this research.

According to Neal and Griffin (2000), employee safety behaviour is classified as safety involvement or compliance. Transactional leadership, which focuses on compliance, may not stimulate proactive safety participation as much. Furthermore, there is a negative correlation between the implementation of transactional leadership and the participation of individuals in proactive behaviours, including organisational citizenship behaviour (Pillai et al., 1999). This is supported by the findings of Bian et al. (2019), who discovered that transactional leadership had a limited effect on improving employee safety behaviours beyond basic compliance. However, for safety participation and conformance to be ensured, workers must believe that their organisations' leadership places a high value on a secure workplace environment for all personnel. Safety climate acts as a mediator in the relationship between transactional leadership and employee safety behaviour, according to research conducted by Bian et al., (2019). Safety climate pertains to the way in which employees perceive the safe work policies and strategies implemented by an organisation. This perception subsequently influences the safe work practices of individual employees (Morrow et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2018). While transactional leadership has the potential to inspire and support employees in enhancing their work conduct, safety concerns are distinct from those regarding other work behaviours. These concerns extend beyond the personal welfare of individual employees and encompass their families and society at large (Bian et al., 2019).

Transactional leadership is thought to be simple to implement, with clear directives for followers (Delegach, 2017). This clarity has been shown in studies by Rizi et al. (2013) and Islam et al. (2012), where transactional leadership was positively linked with work satisfaction and student performance. Furthermore, transactional leadership ensures that people understand their duties and responsibilities by providing a well-defined chain of command (Delegach, 2017). However, transactional leaders are frequently rigid and may fail to recognise or appreciate subordinates' efforts. Employees may experience a lack of enthusiasm and creativity as a result of this (Delegach, 2017). It has also been established from previous research that this leadership style promotes hierarchical structures and can be perceived as dictatorial, which may not be compatible with today's corporate environment which values leader-follower interactions above boss-subordinate dynamics (Delegach, 2017; Maslow, 1943).

Conclusion

According to Clarke (2013) and Willis et al., (2017), transactional leadership promotes safety-monitoring habits and aids in the prevention of safety hazards. According to Bian et al. (2019), this leadership style may prioritise productivity over safety, exposing its flaws. While incentives and rewards promote compliance, they may not develop a proactive safety culture, which necessitates a more comprehensive leadership strategy. As explained by Neal et al., (2000) and Zou et al., (2015), the safety atmosphere is critical to understanding how transactional leadership affects workplace safety. Transactional leadership has a detrimental impact on the safety climate while having little impact on organisational commitment and trust (Bian et al., 2019), emphasising the importance of balanced leadership. Despite its limitations, such as its focus on a single industry and reliance on survey data, the Bian et al., (2019) study contributes significantly to our understanding of the multifaceted influence of leadership on safety habits. According to Grote et al. (2009), transactional leaders in high-risk industries prioritise prevention, which is consistent with the requirement for error prevention and knowledge acquisition. Nonetheless, a balanced combination of transactional and transformational components is required to encourage not only obedience but also proactive engagement in safety practices and a genuine commitment to workplace safety. As businesses negotiate changing workspaces, the different impacts of leadership styles on safety must be recognised. Finding the right mix and recognising the contextual appropriateness of transactional leadership will produce a safer, healthier, and more productive workplace. If an organisation wants to survive and grow, it must understand that the period of dominance-based leadership, as demonstrated by transactional leadership, is rapidly coming to an end. It is now time to share ideas and attain goals with creativity, which is more evident in transformational leadership styles (Delegach, 2017) than in transactional leadership styles.

?

?

?

?

?

REFERENCE

Avolio, B.J., 1999.?Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations. Sage.

Bass, B.M. and Bass Bernard, M., 1985. Leadership and performance beyond expectations.

Bass, B.M., 1990. From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision.?Organizational dynamics,?18(3), pp.19-31.

Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J., 1994. Transformational leadership and organizational culture.?The International journal of public administration,?17(3-4), pp.541-554.

Bass, B.M., 1999. Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership.?European journal of work and organizational psychology,?8(1), pp.9-32.

Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J., Jung, D.I. and Berson, Y., 2003. Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership.?Journal of applied psychology,?88(2), p.207.

Bian, X., Sun, Y., Zuo, Z., Xi, J., Xiao, Y., Wang, D. and Xu, G., 2019. Transactional leadership and employee safety behavior: Impact of safety climate and psychological empowerment.?Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal,?47(6), pp.1-9.

Chen, W. J., & Shi, K., 2007. Transformational and transactional leadership and its mechanism [In Chinese]. Management Review, 19, pp.22-29. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2LQHPhg

Christian, M.S., Bradley, J.C., Wallace, J.C. and Burke, M.J., 2009. Workplace safety: a meta-analysis of the roles of person and situation factors.?Journal of applied psychology,?94(5), p.1103.

Clarke, S., 2010. An integrative model of safety climate: Linking psychological climate and work attitudes to individual safety outcomes using meta‐analysis.?Journal of Occupational and Organizational psychology,?83(3), pp.553-578.

Clarke, S., 2013. Safety leadership: A meta‐analytic review of transformational and transactional leadership styles as antecedents of safety behaviours.?Journal of occupational and organizational psychology,?86(1), pp.22-49.

Cooper, D., 2015. Effective safety leadership: Understanding types & styles that improve safety performance.?Professional Safety,?60(02), pp.49-53.

Cooper, M.D., 2010. Safety leadership.?Retrieved from www. behavioral-safety. com/behavior-based-safety-solution-center/safety-coaching-and-training/safety-leadership.

Dartey-Baah, K. and Ampofo, E., 2016. “Carrot and stick” leadership style: Can it predict employees’ job satisfaction in a contemporary business organisation?.?African Journal of Economic and Management Studies,?7(3), pp.328-345.

Delegach, M., Kark, R., Katz-Navon, T. and Van Dijk, D., 2017. A focus on commitment: The roles of transformational and transactional leadership and self-regulatory focus in fostering organizational and safety commitment.?European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,?26(5), pp.724-740.

Graen, G.B. and Cashman, J., 1975. A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process.?Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,?38, pp.46-78.

Griffin, M.A. and Hu, X., 2013. How leaders differentially motivate safety compliance and safety participation: The role of monitoring, inspiring, and learning.?Safety science,?60, pp.196-202.

Grote, G., Weichbrodt, J.C., Günter, H., Zala-Mez?, E. and Künzle, B., 2009. Coordination in high-risk organizations: the need for flexible routines.?Cognition, technology & work,?11, pp.17-27.

Hansez, I. and Chmiel, N., 2010. Safety behavior: Job demands, job resources, and perceived management commitment to safety.?Journal of occupational health psychology,?15(3), p.267.

Health & Safety Executive (HSE). (2001). Safety culture maturity model: Offshore technology report 2000/049. London, U.K.: Author

International Labour Organization (2016). Safety and Health at Work. Available at: https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/safety-and-health-at-work/lang–en/index.htm (accessed: April 2016).

Islam, T., Aamir, M., Ahmed, I. and Muhammad, S.K., 2012. The impact of transformational and transactional leadership styles on the motivation and academic performance of students at university level.?Journal of Educational and Social Research,?2(2), pp.237-244.

Kark, R. and Van Dijk, D., 2007. Motivation to lead, motivation to follow: The role of the self-regulatory focus in leadership processes.?Academy of management review,?32(2), pp.500-528.

Kark, R., Katz-Navon, T. and Delegach, M., 2015. The dual effects of leading for safety: The mediating role of employee regulatory focus.?Journal of Applied Psychology,?100(5), p.1332.

Koh, W.L., Steers, R.M. and Terborg, J.R., 1995. The effects of transformational leadership on teacher attitudes and student performance in Singapore.?Journal of organizational behavior,?16(4), pp.319-333.

Martínez-Córcoles, M., Gracia, F., Tomás, I. and Peiró, J.M., 2011. Leadership and employees’ perceived safety behaviours in a nuclear power plant: A structural equation model.?Safety science,?49(8-9), pp.1118-1129.

Maslow, A.H., 1943. A theory of human motivation.?Psychological Review, pp.370-396.

Morrow, S.L., McGonagle, A.K., Dove-Steinkamp, M.L., Walker Jr, C.T., Marmet, M. and Barnes-Farrell, J.L., 2010. Relationships between psychological safety climate facets and safety behavior in the rail industry: A dominance analysis.?Accident Analysis & Prevention,?42(5), pp.1460-1467.

Neal, A., Griffin, M.A. and Hart, P.M., 2000. The impact of organizational climate on safety climate and individual behavior.?Safety science,?34(1-3), pp.99-109.

Nielsen, M.B., Skogstad, A., Matthiesen, S.B. and Einarsen, S., 2016. The importance of a multidimensional and temporal design in research on leadership and workplace safety.?The Leadership Quarterly,?27(1), pp.142-155.

Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C.A. and Williams, E.S., 1999. Fairness perceptions and trust as mediators for transformational and transactional leadership: A two-sample study.?Journal of management,?25(6), pp.897-933.

Reason, J.T, 1997.?Managing the risks of organizational accidents. Ashgate, Aldershot, UK.

Rizi, R.M., Azadi, A., Farsani, M.E., Aroufzad, S. and Mirsafaei, R., 2013. Relationship between leadership styles and job satisfaction among physical education organizations employees.?European journal of sports and exercise science,?2(1), pp.7-11.

Rodriguez, M.A. and Griffin, M.A., 2009. From error prevention to error learning: The role of error management in global leadership. In?Advances in global leadership?(Vol. 5, pp. 93-112). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Wang, D., Li, X., Zhou, M., Maguire, P., Zong, Z. and Hu, Y., 2018. Effects of abusive supervision on employees’ innovative behavior: The role of job insecurity and locus of control.?Scandinavian journal of psychology,?60(2), pp.152-159.

Willis, S., Clarke, S. and O'Connor, E., 2017. Contextualizing leadership: Transformational leadership and Management‐By‐Exception‐Active in safety‐critical contexts.?Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,?90(3), pp.281-305.

Xu, C.J., and Shi, K., 2005. A contingent analysis of transformational and transactional leadership [In Chinese].?Advances in Psychological Science, 13, pp.672-678.

Zohar, D., 2002. The effects of leadership dimensions, safety climate, and assigned priorities on minor injuries in work groups.?Journal of organizational behavior,?23(1), pp.75-92.

Zou, W.C., Tian, Q. and Liu, J., 2015. Servant leadership, social exchange relationships, and follower's helping behavior: Positive reciprocity belief matters.?International Journal of Hospitality Management,?51, pp.147-156.