Reconciling general and safety-specific transformational leadership: a paradox perspective

Abstract

Research exploring the relationship between transformational leadership and safety has used transformational leadership in context-free (e.g., “general transformational leadership,” or GTL) and context-specific forms (e.g., “safety-specific transformational leadership,” or SSTL), assuming these constructs are theoretically and empirically equivalent. In this paper, we draw on paradox theory (Schad et al., 2016; Smith & Lewis, 2011) to reconcile the relationship between these two forms of transformational leadership and safety. We do so by (1) investigating whether GTL and SSTL are empirically distinguishable, (2) testing the relative importance of GTL and SSTL in explaining variance in context-free work outcomes (i.e., in-role performance, organizational citizenship behaviors) and context-specific (i.e., safety compliance, safety participation), and (3) examining the extent to which perceived safety concern in the work environment renders GTL and SSTL distinguishable. Two studies (one cross-sectional, one shortterm longitudinal) show that GTL and SSTL are psychometrically distinct albeit highly correlated. Furthermore, SSTL explained statistically more variance than GTL in both safety participation and organizational citizenship behaviors, whereas GTL explained more variance in in-role performance than did SSTL. However, GTL and SSTL were only distinguishable in lowconcern contexts but not high-concern contexts. These findings challenge the “either-or” (vs. “both-and”) approach to considering safety and performance, cautioning researchers to consider nuanced differences in context-free and context-specific forms of leadership and to avoid further proliferation of often redundant context-specific operationalizations of leadership