







































Business Management Research and Applications: A Cross Disciplinary Journal 

1  

 

 

 

    

 

Leadership Style as a Predictor of Employee Safety 
Performance in the Oil and Gas Industry 
 

Dr. Arjun Kathayat, Columbia Southern University  

Dr. Jodine Burchell, Columbia Southern University https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4927-5489 

 

To correspond with the first author:  

Tel: (1)306.453.0077. Cell: (1)306.575.8019, E: rjnkathayat@hotmail.com, ohnscentre@gmail.com 

 

Abstract 

Some managers experience challenges addressing workplace safety concerns and employees' needs to 

enhance worksite safety performance. This quantitative simple linear regression research examined if/to 

what extent a relationship existed between managers’ safety-specific transformational leadership style and 

employee safety performance in the oil and gas industry in southeast Saskatchewan, Canada’s oil and gas 

industry. We used 89 valid anonymous responses from 32 organizations for the data analysis. The 

statistical test showed that managers’ safety-specific transformational leadership styles could significantly 

predict employees’ safety performance (F(1, 89) = 49.03, p<0.001, R2 = 0.36). Additionally, the curve 

estimation of the data revealed that about 35.4% to 38.30% of the change in employees’ safety 

performance was attributed to managers' safety-specific transformational leadership behaviors. This 

research has broad implications, a medium to large effect size, and a higher confidence level. The 

findings of this research encourage the oil and gas businesses to promote and grow more safety-specific 

transformational leaders to attain higher employee safety performance excellence in the industry.  

 

Keywords: Safety-specific transformational leadership, safety motivation, safety incident, and safety 

performance 

 

 

 

 

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4927-5489


January 2025 | Volume 4, Number 2 
2  

Introduction  

Leadership involves efficiently making a difference 

in the personal and professional lives of colleagues, 

subordinates, business organizations, communities, and 

other stakeholders. Business issues are essential, especially 

those related to human suffering or losses due to 

preventable or controllable workplace incidents. Employee safety performance is a critical business issue 

for the employees and colleagues working together around the safety-sensitive oil and gas job sites and 

the families and loved ones waiting for their safe arrival at home.  

Both the province of Saskatchewan and Canada face significant workplace incidents each year, 

causing a tremendous amount of lost-time injury claims and even fatalities. There were 334 fatalities in 

Canada-wide, and Saskatchewan experienced 15 workplace fatalities in 2021. The compensation provided 

by Canada to the injured workers was 7,993.6 million dollars, 8439.6 million dollars, 8612.3 million 

dollars, and 9,128.0 million dollars in 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021, respectively. Saskatchewan's WCB 

paid 215.8 million dollars, 222 million dollars, 222.0 million dollars, 215.7 million dollars, and 228.6 

million dollars to the injured workers in 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021, respectively (Association of 

Workers' Compensation Boards of Canada, n.d.-a, n.d.-b, n.d.-c, n.d.-d). Hence, it is pertinent for the 

business world to proactively address workplace safety-related issues, especially employee safety 

performance and appropriate leadership style. Scholars have extensively studied workplace safety, 

leadership styles in general, and the significance of safety leadership for workplace safety in the past.  

Various oil and gas industry studies discovered or recommended multiple leadership styles for 

workplace safety or employee safety performance. Further, as per Furey and Rixon (2020), leadership 

lacked, to some extent, commitment and honesty in Atlantic Canada’s offshore oil sector. Despite being 

mandated by the Canada Energy Regulatory, only 72% of the oil and gas industry companies allocated 

the resources to grow the safety culture (Government of Canada: Canada Energy Regulator, 2021) in 

2020. On the other hand, Addo and Darty-Baah (2019) claimed that the transformational leadership style 

of leaders could predict employee safety behaviors, also referred to as employee safety performance. 

Thus, there was contradictory or confusion and ambiguity on what leadership style business organizations 

and managers in the oil and gas industry in southeast Saskatchewan, Canada, could or should embrace to 

cultivate and grow higher employee safety performance in the workplace to generate values for multiple 

stakeholders, including owners/investors, communities, and employees of the business organizations.  

 

Literature Review 

To complete the extensive literature review in this research, the researchers scanned the reference 

pages of credible peer-reviewed journal articles by previous scholars. We reviewed the secondary 

sources, websites, conferences, and other such sources and cited if required to provide a specific context 

to the readers. Even though it appeared there were over 110 years of workplace safety literature (Eastman, 

1910; Hofmann et al., 2017), due to the limited time and resources, we primarily focused on how the 

research variables, safety-specific transformational leadership and safety performance had been 

researched since 2018 to date.  

 

Transformational Leadership 

 A transformational leader can be described as “one who motivates us to do more than we 

originally expect to do” (Bass, 1985a, p. 20, 1985b, p. 31), which is also introduced as “the one, best way 

to lead” (Willis et al., 2021). During the literature review of past studies, this research observed that 

scholars were primarily inspired by Burns’ (1978, 2003) definition or Bass’ (1985a) interpretation of 

transformational leadership. In short, transformational leadership is a change agent (Kariuki et al., 2022) 

Note: This research was presented 

at the 2024 CCGA Symposium, 

Regine, Saskatchewan, Canada on 

November 5, 2024 



Business Management Research and Applications: A Cross Disciplinary Journal 

3  

that motivates subordinates to attain more meaningful goals for teams, organizations, or individuals by 

“challenging the status quo” (Mwesigwa et al., 2020, p. 255). The conceptual framework for this research 

included the Full-Range Leadership Model (FRLM) by Bass (1985a). The FRLM is a generic leadership 

theory with three separate categories: transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire, also known as 

“non-leadership” (Bass & Riggio, 2006, p. 7) or passive-indifference (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Draghici et 

al., 2022; Khan et al., 2014; Lee et al., 2019; Northouse, 2019, 2022; Yukl, 2013). Employee (safety) 

performance or job satisfaction was the second theory in the conceptual framework of this research.  The 

Theoretical Framework: Leadership Styles as a Predictor of Employee Safety Performance depicts the 

study's theoretical framework (See Figure 1). 

 

Figure 1 

Theoretical Framework: Leadership Styles as a Predictor of Employee Safety Performance 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
aSafety-Specific Transformational Leadership is the independent variable (IV) measured with the 

customized eight-item measuring instrument Sawhney and Cigularov (2019) utilized for safety-specific 

transformational leadership behaviors in this research. 
bEmployee Safety Performance (DV) is the dependent variable measured in this research using the three-

item Overall job satisfaction survey by Cammann et al. (1983). 

 

Components of Transformational Leadership 

 Past scholars identified multiple components (three, four, and even six components) of 

transformational leadership. Bass (1985a) alluded that transformational leadership had “three 

components: charisma, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration” (Hofmann & 

Morgeson, 2004, p. 176), and Podsakoff et al. (1990) recognized six behaviors or components of 

transformational leadership, as also cited by Ferozi and Chang (2021) and Peng et al. (2020): articulating 

a vision, fostering the acceptance of group goals, setting high-performance expectations, providing an 

appropriate model, intellectual stimulation, and individualized support” (p. 112). Past scholars, such as 

Bass and Avolio (1990), Bass and Riggio (2006), Hoch et al. (2016), Irshad et al. (2021), Kayaalp et al. 

(2021), Minhaj et al. (2019), Mwesigwa et al. (2020), Peng et al. (2020), Smith et al. (2020) studied the 

four components or 4I’s of transformational leadership: Idealized Influence (II), Inspirational Motivation 

(IM), Intellectual Stimulation (IS), and Individualized Consideration (IC). The 4I’s are components of 

transformational leadership as explained by Bass and Riggio (2006, pp. 5-7) and measured safety-specific 

transformational leadership (independent variable) with the customized eight-item measuring instrument 

inspired with Barling et al. (2002), by Sawhney and Cigularov (2019). Despite the criticism regarding 

(Re)Investment from 

shareholders/owners 

Greater participation from employees for higher 

safety performance 

bEmployee Safety  

Performance (DV) 

aSafety-Specific  

Transformational Leadership (IV) 

A continuous cycle of workplace safety performance 

excellence 

Measured with 

Cammann et al. (1983) – 

Overall Job Satisfaction 

Survey (3 items) 

Measured with Sawhney and 

Cigularov’s Safety-Specific 

Transformational Leadership 

Behaviors (8 items) 



January 2025 | Volume 4, Number 2 
4  

transformational leadership pointed out by Yukl (1999), Northouse (2019), and Andersen (2015), 

transformational leadership has a broader application, as Burns (1978) claimed and posited that safety-

specific transformational leaders, with those four specific components (II, IM, IS, and IC), might generate 

an “additive effect” (Northouse, 2019, p. 273, 2022), motivating subordinates to attain higher safety 

performance.  

 

Safety Performance/Job Satisfaction Theory 

 Safety performance in this research represented employees’ ability to perform the job safely, 

minimizing workplace injuries or preventing workplace incidents while complying with the applicable 

rules and regulations (Barling & Frone, 2004; Barling et al., 2002; Najj et al., 2021). The literature agree 

that a close relationship exist between workplace injuries, accidents, and motivation (Mariani et al., 

2015). On the other hand, “job satisfaction is the pleasurable emotional state resulting from the appraisal 

of one’s job as achieving or facilitating the achievement of one’s job value” (Locke, 1969, p. 316). As per 

Robbins and Judge (2018) and Spector (2022), job satisfaction is an attitude and “the extent to which 

people liked (satisfaction) or disliked (dissatisfaction) their jobs” (Spector, 1997, p. 2). Simply put, 

employees with higher job satisfaction have greater positive feelings towards their jobs than employees 

with lower job satisfaction. 

 

Safety-Specific Transformational Leadership (Predictor) 

 Safety-specific transformational leadership (SSTL) is the only predictor variable of this research. 

Business researchers have extensively studied safety-specific transformational leadership to examine or 

explore the effectiveness or impact of safety-specific transformational leadership on workplace safety. 

Despite the previous research, such as Lu et al. (2019) and Mirza and Isha (2020) on workplace safety and 

safety leadership, Irshad et al. (2021) called out the limited knowledge of safety leadership in the body of 

literature. They completed a quantitative time-lagged study to examine if/to what extent safety-specific 

transformational leadership and safety consciousness of healthcare workers impact the employees’ 

perceived risk on COVID-19 and psychological well-being at the workplace.  

 

Safety Performance (Outcome Variable) 

 According to Campbell et al. (1993), “performance is what the organization hires one to do and 

do well” (p. 40). The opponents of Campbell et al. (1993) model of performance criticism, such as 

Hesketh and Neal (1999), also noticed by Neal et al. (2000, p. 101) that Campbell et al. (1993) do not 

consider “the situational factors” that can impact the individual's performance. Nevertheless, Campbell et 

al. (1993) significantly reviewed and cited literature on performance. Adapting the concept from the 

definition of performance by Campbell et al. (1993), should safety-sensitive organizations or industries, 

as noted in Burke et al. (2002, p. 431), such as chemical processing, manufacturing, and mining, define 

safety performance in what the organizations hired employees to do and do well.  

 For this research, safety performance was defined as the employees’ workplace safety-related job 

performance as (un)expected by the business leaders, including managers and supervisors, business 

organizations, industry, and the laws. The quality of employee safety performance can be expected 

because, as Campbell et al. (1993) define it, this research posited that employees in the oil and gas 

industry in southeast Saskatchewan, Canada, are considered hired to do work and do it safely. The 

business organizations in the oil and gas industry in southeast Saskatchewan, Canada, generally provide 

employees with workplace health and safety orientation to be informed on workplace safety expectations 

and to perform their jobs safely.  

 

Safety-Specific Transformational Leadership and Safety Performance 



Business Management Research and Applications: A Cross Disciplinary Journal 

5  

 Literature, such as Zhao et al. (2022), discover the relationship between safety-specific 

transformational leadership and safety participation. Additionally, various literature on safety-specific 

transformational leadership and safety behaviors (Draghici et al., 2022), optimal safety leadership and 

safety performance (Willis et al., 2021), safety-specific transformational leadership and employee’s near-

miss recognition ability (Lu et al., 2019), safety-specific transformational leadership and employee’s 

learning goal orientation (Lu et al., 2019), safety-specific transformational leadership and workplace 

accidents (Mirza & Isha, 2020), safety-specific transformational leadership and safety voice (Conchie et 

al., 2012), and safety-specific transformational leadership and safety motivation (Smith et al., 2020) 

indicate that safety-specific transformational leadership and employee safety performance having, to 

some extent or significant statistical relationship.  

Further, based on the findings of multiple literature, we posited that the general leadership style 

of transformational leadership and employee performance had to have, to some extent a significant 

relationship, even though Nelviana et al. (2022) suggested that there was no significant relationship 

between transformational leadership and employee performance during COVID-19 pandemic on remote 

working employees in various companies in Jakarta. Further, Chen et al. (2018) discovered a “U-shaped 

relationship” (p. 19) between transformational leadership and employee task performance in northern 

China’s specific manufacturing, telecommunications, and hotel industries, as well as the Bank of China. 

In addition, Bazzoli et al. (2020) reported that safety-specific transformational leadership, also known as 

transformative safety leadership, predicted a promotive safety voice in the workplace.  

The literature review during this research gained no knowledge or limited knowledge on if/to 

what extent safety-specific transformational leadership could predict employee safety performance in the 

oil and gas industry in southeast Saskatchewan, Canada. Thus, the following research question and 

hypothesis are used for this research: 

 

Research Question (RQ): Do Safety-specific transformational leadership style scores of 

managers predict employee safety performance in the oil and gas industry in southeast Saskatchewan, 

Canada? 

Null Hypothesis 1 (H10): Managers' safety-specific transformational leadership style scores do 

not significantly predict employee safety performance in the oil and gas industry in southeast 

Saskatchewan, Canada. 

Alternative Hypothesis 1 (H1a): Managers' safety-specific transformational leadership style 

scores significantly predict employee safety performance in the oil and gas industry in southeast 

Saskatchewan, Canada. 

 

Methods 

This research study utilized a quantitative, simple linear regression design. The two primary data 

sources were the safety-specific transformational leadership instrument and the employee-perceived 

overall job satisfaction instrument, excluding the demographic questionnaires. The existing survey 

instrument was adopted for safety-specific transformational leadership style (predictor) customized by 

Sawhney and Cigularov (2019). Further, Sawhney and Cigularov (2019) completed the confirmatory 

factor analysis (CFA) on the measuring instrument in their study’s context. Thus, this research reused 

Sawhney and Cigularov’s (2019) safety-specific transformational leadership instrument by following the 

approach of previous scholars and had a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.93. The employee-perceived overall or 

global job satisfaction survey developed by Cammann et al. (1983) was used even though there was a 

debate in academia about whether the global job satisfaction or facet-composite job satisfaction survey 

had greater validity (Bowling & Zelazny, 2022).  

 

Population and Sample  



January 2025 | Volume 4, Number 2 
6  

This research study was conducted in southeast Saskatchewan, Canada’s oil and gas industry. The 

participants were associated with multiple business organizations that provided products and services to 

the local oil and gas industry, including contractors and self-employed persons, and internal employees of 

the business organizations that explored, extracted, produced, and refined oil and gas energy in southeast 

Saskatchewan, Canada. A convenience sampling strategy and G*Power 3.1.9.4 software were used to 

determine the sample size. Effect size was 0.30, type I error (α) was 0.05, and type II error (1-β) was 0.80 

to calculate the sample size. The likelihood of type I and type II errors was reduced with a confidence 

level of 95%. This research's minimum sample size was 29 employees working in the oil and gas industry 

in southeast Saskatchewan, Canada. 

 

Data Collection Procedures 

 

Paper format survey packages were created for participants who preferred paper format and 

online versions of survey instruments with the help of SurveyMonkey, an online platform for the 

participants who chose technology to complete the survey instruments. Responses were collected from the 

population interested in participating in this research voluntarily. Before and after reviewing the consent 

form, the potential participant could freely decide to leave the study or proceed to complete the survey 

instruments of this research. Participants completed the surveys electronically via SurveyMonkey online 

or returned the completed surveys to the author personally or via their company representative, enclosing 

them in sealed envelopes. The research participants from the oil and gas industry in southeast 

Saskatchewan, Canada, rated their managers' or supervisors’ safety-specific transformational leadership 

styles on a Likert scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being “not at all” and 5 being “frequently, if not always.” Finally, 

participants rated their overall job satisfaction on a Likert scale of 1 to 7, with 1 being “strongly disagree” 

and 7 being “strongly agree.” The overall job satisfaction survey with three items used in this research 

also had an item with a Reverse (R) score.  

 

Data Analysis 

 

Invitations were sent to 41 business organizations, including larger and small oil and gas 

producers, contractors, and consultants, via emails and personal text messages. Among 41 business 

organizations, 31 oilfield businesses and one non-profit organization, which had the authority to inspect, 

issue, or reject operating licenses of the boiler and pressure vessels used in the oil and gas industry in 

southeast Saskatchewan, participated in this research. Nine business organizations did not respond to the 

invitations or did not wish to participate in this research. Ninety-seven anonymous responses (paper 

format: 34 and online surveys: 63) were collected from January 24 to January 31, 2023. Only one 

anonymous online response was submitted on February 1, 2023, after the deadline set by this research, 

which was also considered in the data analysis. Participants took about 2 to 10 minutes to complete online 

surveys, and most of the responses were submitted on the first day of the study (January 24, 2023). Thus, 

the response rate of the oilfield business organizations for this research was 78%, and a total of 89 valid 

responses were accepted for the data analysis of this research. The data were compiled, cleaned, and 

outliers were addressed in the data analysis procedure.  The assumptions associated with the research 

design were assessed. Regression testing was performed.  The results are reported below.  

  

Results and Discussion 
 

Descriptive Statistics 

 

Demographic responses were coded to simplify the descriptive statistics analysis process in SPSS 

28.0. We coded “male = 0,” “female = 1,” “yes = 1,” and “no = 0” for both “EC” and “C” in SPSS 28.0. 

“EC” was short form for the oil and gas energy companies that explored, extracted, produced, refined, or 



Business Management Research and Applications: A Cross Disciplinary Journal 

7  

transported oil and gas energy in southeast Saskatchewan, Canada, and “C” represented companies that 

provided products or services to the oil and gas industry in southeast Saskatchewan, Canada, including 

oilfield contractors/ consultants. “EM” in this research represented the research participants’ experience 

in the number of years working with/under the current managers/supervisors, and “IE” was abbreviated 

for the participants’ industry experience in the number of years in this research. Table 1 displays the 

frequency and statistics associated with the demographic of the research participants. 

 

Table 1 

Frequency Table: Summary of the Demographic Data 

Demographic 

Statistics 

Full Sample 

 

 

Demographic 

Statistics 

Full Sample 

 

Gender N % EC N % 

Male 75 84.3% No 40 44.9% 

Female 14 15.7% Yes 49 55.1% 

Age   IE   

18-25 10 11.2% 1-5 14 15.7% 

26-41 38 42.7% 5-10 16 18.0% 

42-57 29 32.6%                          10+ 59 66.3% 

58-67 11 12.4% EM   

67+ 1 1.1% <1 17 19.1% 

   1-5 35 39.3% 

C   5-10 12 13.5% 

No 14 15.7% 10+ 25 28.1% 

Yes 75 84.3% 5-10 16 18.0% 

   10+ 59 66.3% 

Note. Table 1 represents the demographic statistics of the data collected from 89 participants. 

 

Preliminary Statistics 

 

Outlier Analysis 

 Outliers outside +3 to -3 standard deviations from the mean of each variable would be considered 

extreme outliers. The data analysis of this research did not reveal any extreme outliers in the collected 

data.  

 

Reliability Analysis 

Table 2 reported the reliability scores of research instruments for safety-specific transformational 

leadership (predictor variable) and employees perceived overall job satisfaction (response variable) in this 

research. The reliability scores of safety-specific transformational leaderships (predictor variable) with 

eight items and employee's perceived overall job satisfaction scores (response variable) with three items 

to measure employee safety performance were significantly reliable in this research.  

 

Table 2 

 



January 2025 | Volume 4, Number 2 
8  

Reliability Statistics 

Variables 

Cronbach's Alpha 

Cronbach's Alpha Based on 

Standardized Items N of Items 

Predictor Variable 0.924 0.929 8 

Response Variable 0.900 0.908 3 

 

 

Testing Assumptions Associated with the Research Design 

Normality Testing 

 Normality testing is a statistical method for evaluating the (non-normal distribution of research 

data. Table 3 displays the tests of normality associated with this research’s data. 

 

Table 3 

Tests of Normality 

 

Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk 

Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig. 

LDRAVG 0.148 89 <0.001 0.892 89 <0.001 

JSAVG 0.217 89 <0.001 0.844 89 <0.001 

 
a Lilliefors Significance Correction 

 

The p-values for both independent and dependent variables were significantly less than 0.05. 

However, “reporting p-value with null hypothesis testing” (Nahm, 2017, p. 241) is not a universally 

accepted practice or free from criticisms. Based on the literature, such as that of Nahm (2017), this 

research posited that p>0.05 only meant “no evidence” of the normal distribution of data. Still, it did not 

mean there was “evidence of no” normal data distribution. This research further analyzed skewness, 

kurtosis statistics, histograms, QQ plots, and PP-Plots of the dependent and independent variables to 

assess the normal distribution of the research data. The skewness and kurtosis of the research data should 

be within the range of +2 to -2 for the normal data distribution (Garson, 2012). In this research, the 

average scores of safety-specific transformational leaderships had skewness of -0.962 with a standard 

error = 0.255 and kurtosis of 0.144 with a standard error = 0.506. The average scores of employees' 

perceived overall job satisfaction variable had skewness of -.1.166 with standard error = 0.255 and 

kurtosis of 1.129 with standard error = 0.506. We plotted histograms and QQ-plots of both research 

variables (independent and dependent variables) to make an informed decision regarding the (non-normal 

distribution of the research data or residuals.  

The early data points emerged as an imaginary line closer to a slope of 45 degrees, though later, 

some data points scattered ununiformly. Based on this finding, we assumed that the data points were 

approximately normally distributed enough to satisfy the assumption related to the normal distribution of 

the residuals of the dependent variable for this simple linear regression study. Figures 2 and 3 represent 

the approximately normal distribution of residuals associated with the dependent variable (JSAVG). 

Therefore, we determined to test the simple linear regression in the following section of this research. 

 

 

 

 

 



Business Management Research and Applications: A Cross Disciplinary Journal 

9  

 

Figure 2 

Histogram - Regression Standardized Residual (Dependent Variable -JSAVG) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note. Histogram of regression standardized residual showing an approximately normal distribution of 

residuals associated with the dependent variable (JSAVG). 

 

 

 

Figure 3 

Chart: Normal P-P Plot of Regression Standardized Residual (Dependent Variable – JSAVG) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note. Normal p-p plot of regression standardized 

residual showing an approximately normal 

distribution of residuals. “The P-P plot of the residuals is the preferred graphical tests for normality” 

(Flatt & Jacobs, 2019, p. 488). 

 

Testing Linear Regression 

In this section, we performed simple linear regression and developed various tables and charts 

associated with the regression test results. The Pearson correlation value displayed in Table 4 shows a 

significant relationship between the independent and the dependent variables. 

 

 

 

 



January 2025 | Volume 4, Number 2 
10  

Table 4 

Correlations Test Results 

 JSAVG LDRAVG N 

Pearson Correlation JSAVG 1.00 0.60 89 

LDRAVG 0.60 1.00 89 

Sig. (1-tailed) JSAVG . <0.001 89 

LDRAVG 0.00 . 89 

 

The model summary (see Table 5) with an R-square value of 0.36 is significant, suggesting that 

36% of the change in employee safety performance (dependent variable) can be influenced by managers’ 

safety-specific transformational leadership styles (independent variable). 

 

Table 5 

Model Summaryb 

Model R 

R 

Square 

Adjusted 

R Square 

Std. Error of 

the Estimate 

Change Statistics 

R 

Square 

Change F Change df1 df2 

Sig. F 

Change 

1 0.600a 0.36 0.35 0.68 0.36 49.03 1 87 <0.001 

Note. Where applicable, each numerical number has been rounded to two decimal places using Microsoft 

Excel. 
a Predictor: (Constant), LDRAVG 

 b Dependent Variable: JSAVG 

 

Table 6 shows that the impact of managers’ safety-specific transformational leadership on 

employees’ safety performance is significant, F(1, 87) = 49.03, p <0.001. 

 

Table 6 

 

ANOVAa 

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 

1 Regression 22.92 1 22.92 49.03 <0.001b 

Residual 40.66 87 0.47   

Total 63.58 88    

Note. Where applicable, each numerical number has been rounded to two decimal place using Microsoft 

Excel. 
a Dependent Variable: JSAVG 

 b Predictor: (Constant), LDRAVG 

 

Multicollinearity  

Multicollinearity was tested in this study, and findings indicated no significant issue.  

Residuals 

 



Business Management Research and Applications: A Cross Disciplinary Journal 

11  

Table 7 shows various statistics associated with residuals, such as Cook’s distance, which has a 

minimum value of 0 and a maximum value of 0.264. This indicates that this study's residual or point is 

not highly concerning.  

 

Table 7 

Residuals Statisticsa 

 Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation N 

 Predicted Value 4.70 6.72 6.17 0.51 89 

 Std. Predicted Value -2.89 1.07 0.00 1.00 89 

 Standard Error of  

 Predicted Value 
0.07 0.22 0.10 0.03 

89 

 Adjusted Predicted Value 4.86 6.75 6.17 0.51 89 

 Residual -1.88 1.05 0.00 0.68 89 

 Std. Residual -2.76 1.536  0.00 0.99 89 

 Stud. Residual -2.78 1.60 0.00 1.01 89 

 Deleted Residual -1.92 1.14 0.00 0.70 89 

 Stud. Deleted Residual -2.90 1.61 -0.01 1.03 89 

 Mahal. Distance 0.01 8.36 0.99 1.43 89 

Cook's Distance 0.00 0.264   0.02 0.04 89 

Centered Leverage Value 0.00 0.10 0.01 0.02 89 

Note. Where applicable, each numerical number has been rounded to two decimal places using Microsoft 

Excel. 
a Dependent Variable: JSAVG 

 

The test results were significant, F(1, 89) = 49.03, p<0.001, R2 = 0.36. This test result could be 

interpreted as about 36% of the change in employee safety performance in southeast Saskatchewan, 

Canada's oil and gas industry, can be attributed to managers' or supervisors’ safety-specific 

transformational leadership behaviors at workplaces. We are convinced that the cases or so-called outliers 

mentioned were associated with the research sample. Hence, the simple linear regression analysis was 

computed considering those cases or outliners and was valid in this research’s context. 

 

Additional Data Analysis: Curve Estimation 

 During the data analysis process, simple linear regression data points seemed skewed on one side 

of the charts, scattered ununiformly or appeared non-normally distributed or had a curvilinear pattern at 

some points. Curve estimation was performed because of the data distribution in this research. We 

computed complex regressions with the help of SPSS 28.0. We compared the tests of curve estimation 

with the findings of this research’s central research design and data analysis: simple linear regression. The 

following section reports the model equations for each regression model calculated by this research. Table 

8 displays the comparative results of linear, logarithmic, inverse, quadratic, cubic, S-curve, and 

exponential regression. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



January 2025 | Volume 4, Number 2 
12  

Table 8 

Result of Curve Estimation 

Curve Estimation 

(Regression Types) 

R2 F N Df P-value 

 

Linear Regression 0.36 49.03 89 1 <0.001 

Logarithmic 0.37 51.22 89 1 <0.001 

Inverse 0.371 51.276 89 1 <0.001 

Quadratic 0.369 25.10 89 1 <0.001 

Cubic 0.369 25.10 89 1 <0.001 

S-curve 0.383 54.00 89 1 <0.001 

Exponential  0.354 47.755 89 1 <0.001 

 

Table 8 represents the test results of various curve estimations: logarithmic, inverse, quadratic, 

cubic, S-curve, and exponential via SPSS 28.0. All seven R2 values associated with linear regression, 

logarithmic, inverse, quadratic, cubic, S-curve, and exponential, were statistically closer. The curve 

estimations in this research discovered that 35.40% to 38.30% of the change in employee safety 

performance in the oil and gas industry in southeast Saskatchewan, Canada, could be attributable to 

managers’ safety-specific transformational leadership behaviors at the workplace. 

This successful quantitative simple linear regression study was uniquely designed to measure 

employee safety performance using employees perceived overall job satisfaction. This approach of 

measuring employee safety performance with employee’s perceived overall job satisfaction is new and 

alternative in southeast Saskatchewan, Canada's oil and gas industry. This research contributes to the 

literature associated with workplace safety and advances theoretical knowledge on safety-specific 

transformational leadership, employee safety performance, and employee-perceived overall job 

satisfaction. Thus, by promoting safety-specific transformational leadership styles or behaviors, the oil 

and gas industry in southeast Saskatchewan could significantly improve and grow employee safety 

performance in the oil and gas industry in southeast Saskatchewan, Canada. 

 

Recommendations and Conclusions 

This section discusses the recommendations and the theoretical and practical implications of this 

research’s findings. 

 

Theoretical Implications 

 

The simple linear regression data analysis revealed a significant statistical relationship between 

safety-specific transformational leadership behaviors (independent variable) and employee safety 

performance (dependent variable) measured with employees’ overall job satisfaction. The following are 

the theoretical implications of this research.  

1. Managers' safety-specific transformational leadership scores could predict employee safety 

performance in southeast Saskatchewan, Canada's oil and gas industry. Additionally, this research 

established the significant relationship between safety-specific transformational leadership and 

employee overall job satisfaction.  

2. This research calculated the curve estimation, especially logarithmic, inverse, quadratic, cubic, s-

curve, and exponential regressions. We noticed that the curve estimation and linear regression 

findings in this research’s context were statistically closer or similar.  



Business Management Research and Applications: A Cross Disciplinary Journal 

13  

3. This research’s data represented individual or group levels more than organizational levels. 

Nevertheless, this research’s findings supported the findings of Hasan et al. (2021), Lu et al. 

(2019), Zhao et al. (2022), and Zulkifly et al. (2021) that safety-specific leadership or safety 

leadership could have a (higher) impact on employee safety participation, employee safety 

performance, or workplace safety performance.  

4. This research contributed a definition of employee safety performance by building upon 

Campbell et al.'s definition of employee performance (1993).  

5. Yukl et al. (2022) stated that “most of the studies did not examine curvilinear relationships” (p. 

417). Still, this research made a brief scholarly effort to understand the impact of safety-specific 

transformational leadership behaviors on employee’s perceived overall job satisfaction or 

performance by performing “curve estimation” in the data analysis process.  

 

Implications for Professional Practice 

 

This research’s research data came from various high-risk business organizations. Thus, with a 

medium to larger effect size, higher Cronbach’s alpha values of survey instruments, and significantly 

higher confidence level in the statistical test results of this research, we posit that this research’s findings 

have broad implications and applications and have wider generalizability for professional practice in the 

real business world. This research’s findings encourage promoting more safety-specific transformational 

leadership behaviors for improved workplace safety, especially employees’ safety performance and 

overall job satisfaction, not only in the oil and gas industry in southeast Saskatchewan but also in other 

high-risk industries, such as construction, welding, trucking, ground transportation of controlled product 

or chemicals, hydro-facing, equipment maintenance, and steaming. By proactively educating leaders, 

managers, and supervisors about the significance of safety-specific transformational leadership, business 

organizations are prepared for workplace safety emergencies and to reduce workplace safety incidents or 

tragedies. This research also posits that other high-risk not-for-profit business organizations or 

governmental agencies can benefit from this research’s findings. Also, this research suggests that more 

safety-specific transformational leadership means less burden to the healthcare system, fewer lost-time 

injury claims, fewer workplace fatalities, and less economic burden to compensate for workplace injuries 

or incidents to workers. More importantly, when business organizations in the oil and gas industry in 

southeast Saskatchewan take sincere initiatives to improve employees’ safety performance or perceived 

job satisfaction, such an approach not only helps business organizations to obtain their mission, vision, 

and values but also assures the families waiting for the safe return of their loved ones from the job sites at 

the end of every day. 

 

Recommendations for future research 

A further causal-comparative study can be done to assess the differences in the impact of safety-

specific transformational leadership behaviors on employees’ safety performance based on various age 

groups or generations, genders, levels of education, salary, work shifts or schedules, and work-family 

conflicts in southeast Saskatchewan, Canada’s oil and gas industry and other similar high-risk industries 

by using a convenience or random sampling method. Future research can replicate this research in 

different geographical regions or countries and populations from southeast Saskatchewan’s oil and gas 

industry to validate the broader application and generalizability of this research’s findings in other 

geographical regions, territories, or provinces or countries. A further correlational study can be done 

using other credible employee safety performance and safety-specific transformational leadership surveys 

used in this research to evaluate the strength of the relationship between the variables in other high-risk 

industries. Finally, future researchers can design this research around qualitative research, triangulate the 

internal safety data associated with employee safety performance and safety-specific transformational 

leadership behaviors, and explore and validate the findings of this research in high-risk industries, 

including the oil and gas industry. 



January 2025 | Volume 4, Number 2 
14  

 

Recommendations for practice 

This research makes five significant recommendations for practice. These five recommendations, 

addressed to multiple stakeholders, help ensure a safer industry, a more safety-conscious workplace 

environment, safer communities, and a better quality of life for the family members who depend on the 

employees’ health and safety.  

1. This research recommends that practitioners and business organizations in southeast Canada’s oil 

and gas industry embrace and promote more safety-specific transformational leadership behaviors 

to improve workplace safety and employees’ safety performance and achieve ever-growing 

employee safety performance or overall job satisfaction.  

2. This research recommends that the regional, provincial, and federal governments introduce 

legislation recognizing safety professionals or safety leaders as stakeholders in the internal 

workplace system.  

3. This research recommends that the Occupational Health and Safety Legislation or the 

Employment Act direct (high-risk) business organizations to train their managers, supervisors, 

and internal safety personnel or professionals on more safety-specific transformational leadership 

styles, behaviors, or skill sets.  

4. This research recommends that practitioners support the provincial and federal governments in 

implementing the new legislation mentioned above by revisiting their traditional workplace safety 

management system. The practitioners: academia, safety professionals, safety associations, safety 

training providers, business leaders, and managers can play active roles in developing and 

facilitating employee training on safety-specific transformational leadership to grow more safety-

specific leaders in the oil and gas industry. 

5. In oil and gas or similar high-risk industries, business organizations and managers craft, develop 

and execute more practical, measurable, and attainable safety goals. This research recommends 

that safety associations, industries, and business organizations promote safety slogans or safety 

goals, encouraging the honest reporting of workplace incidents, injuries, and safety-related 

events, such as safety audits, to employees or contractors.  

 

Concluding Remarks 
 

Workplace safety should be a shared business responsibility of all internal stakeholders, including 

managers and employees. Business leaders and managers should provide clear missions, visions, values, 

or short-term and long-term directions associated with shared objectives of workplace safety and 

employee safety performance while making a business effort to generate value for multiple stakeholders. 

Employees with more effective leadership styles feel inspired or more motivated to exert their best efforts 

to create higher employee safety performance. Through this research, we essentially made an academic 

effort to research what leadership styles would be the most effective or appropriate to cultivate and grow 

employee safety performance in the oil and gas industry in southeast Saskatchewan, Canada. There are 

three main takeaways from this research for enthusiastic readers in academia and practitioners of 

workplace safety: safety leadership, job satisfaction, and employee safety.  

First, business leaders, managers, policymakers, associations, and professionals associated with 

workplace safety have vital roles in creating a safer workplace and a more safety-conscious industry by 

promoting more safety-specific transformational leadership behaviors. These behaviors predictably help 

improve workplace safety, employee safety performance, and overall job satisfaction. 

Second, this research demonstrated academically that workplace safety, especially employee 

safety performance, could be alternatively assessed with employee's perceived overall job satisfaction 

effectively. Therefore, this research encourages business leaders, policymakers, safety associations, 

business managers, and professionals in workplace safety to employ and promote this new approach of 

assessing or measuring employee safety performance with employees’ (overall) job satisfaction. 



Business Management Research and Applications: A Cross Disciplinary Journal 

15  

Employees or followers also need to play proactive roles in attaining higher safety performance by 

reporting workplace job satisfaction honestly and encouraging coworkers to do so.    

Third, we posit that business organizations and leaders benefit by welcoming the presence of 

shareholders and investors to safety-specific corporate-level meetings or activities. Such opportunities 

offer investors the opportunity to understand the values of workplace safety and safety-specific 

transformational leaders’ roles in employee safety performance. Moreover, such business initiatives on 

workplace safety, safety performance, job satisfaction, and safety-specific leadership behaviors benefit 

today’s stakeholders tremendously and help create a safer and more joyful place of employment for the 

generations of stakeholders yet to come. 

 

 

References 

Addo, S. A., & Darty-Baah, K. (2019). Leadership in the safety sense: Where does perceived  

organisational support fit? Journal of Management Development, 39(1), 50–67. 

https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-04-2019-0136 

Andersen, J. A. (2015). Barking up the wrong tree. On the fallacies of the transformational leadership 

theory. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 36(6), 765-777. 

https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-12-2013-0168 

Association of Workers' Compensation Boards of Canada. (n.d.-a). Detailed key statistical measures 

report-2018. https://awcbc.org/en/statistics/ksm-annual-report/  

Association of Workers' Compensation Boards of Canada. (n.d.-b). Detailed key statistical measures 

report-2019. https://awcbc.org/en/statistics/ksm-annual-report/  

Association of Workers' Compensation Boards of Canada. (n.d.-c). Detailed key statistical measures 

report-2020. https://awcbc.org/en/statistics/ksm-annual-report/  

Association of Workers' Compensation Boards of Canada. (n.d.-d). Detailed key statistical measures 

report-2021. https://awcbc.org/en/statistics/ksm-annual-report/  

Barling, J., & Frone, M. R. (Eds.). (2004). The psychology of workplace safety. American  

Psychological Association.  

Barling, J., Loughlin, C., & Kelloway, E. K. (2002). Development and test of a model linking  

safety-specific transformational leadership and occupational safety. Journal of Applied 

Psychology, 87(3), 488-496. http://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.87.3.488 

Bass, B. M. (1985a). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. The Three Press. 

Bass, B. M. (1985b). Leadership: Good, better, best. Organizational Dynamics, 13(3), 26–40. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(85)90028-2 

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Developing transformational leadership: 1992 and beyond. Journal 

of European Industrial Training. 14(5), 21-27. https:// 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090599010135122 

Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd Edition). Psychology Press: Taylor 

& Francis Group. 

Bazzoli, A., Curcuruto, M., Morgan, J. I., Brondino, M., & Pasini, M. (2020). Speaking up about 

workplace safety: An experimental study on safety leadership. Sustainability, 12, 1-22. 

https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187458 

Bowling, N. A., & Zelazny, L. (2022). Measuring general job satisfaction: Which is more  

construct valid—global scales or facet-composite scales? Journal of Business and 

Psychology, 37(1), 91-105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-021-09739-2 

Burke, M. J., Sarpy, S. A., Tesluk, P. E., & Smith-Crowe, K. (2002). General safety performance: a test 

of a grounded theoretical model. Personnel Psychology, 55(2), 429-457. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2002.tb00116.x 

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harpercollins. 



January 2025 | Volume 4, Number 2 
16  

Burns, J. M. (2003). Transforming leadership: A new pursuit of happiness. Atlantic Monthly Press. 

Cammann, C., Fichmanm, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1983). Assessing the attitudes and  

perceptions of organizational members. In S. Seashore, E. Lawler, P. Mirvis, & C. Cammann 

(Eds.), Assessing organizational change: A guide to methods, measures and practices (pp. 71-

138). John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 

Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H., & Sager, C. E. (1993). A theory of performance. In E. 

Schmitt, W. C. Borman, & Associates (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 35–70). 

Jossey-Bass. 

Chen, Y., Ning, R., Yang, T., Feng, S., & Yang, C. (2018). Is transformational leadership always good for 

employee task performance? Examining curvilinear and moderated relationships. Frontiers of 

Business Research in China, 12(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s11782-018-0044-8 

Conchie, S. M., Taylor, P., & Donald, I. (2012). Promoting safety voice with safety-specific  

 transformational leadership: The mediating role of two dimensions of trust. Journal of 

Occupational Health Psychology, 17(1), 105-115. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025101 

Draghici, A., Dursun, S., Bașol, O., Boatca, M. E., & Gaureanu, A. (2022). The mediating role of safety 

climate in the relationship between transformational safety leadership and safe behavior—The 

case of two companies in Turkey and Romania. Sustainability, 14(14), 8464. 

https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148464 

Eastman, C. (1910). Work-accidents and the law. P. U. Kellogg (Ed.). Charities Publication Committee.  

Ferozi, S., & Chang, Y. (2021). Transformational leadership and its impact on employee  

performance: Focus on public employees in Afghanistan. Transylvanian Review of Administrative 

Sciences, 63 E, 49-68. https://doi.org/10.24193/tras.63e.3 

Flatt, C., & Jacobs, R. L. (2019). Principle assumptions of regression analysis: Testing, techniques, and 

statistical reporting of imperfect data sets. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 21(4), 

484–502. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422319869915  

Furey, M., & Rixon, D. (2020). What's slowly cooking in the pressure cooker? Safety culture  

contradictions in Atlantic Canada's Offshore oil sector. Journal of Management Policy and 

Practice, 21(4), 27-41. https://https://www-proquest-

com.libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/scholarly-journals/whats-slowly-cooking-pressure-

cooker-safety/docview/2473391301/se-2?accountid=33337 

Garson, G. D. (2012). Testing statistical assumptions. Statistical Associates Publishing. 

Government of Canada: Canada Energy Regulator. (2021). Resources allocated to promote safety culture 

advancement: 2021-22 CER survey results. https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/safety-

environment/safety-culture/resources-allocated-to-promote-safety-culture-advancement.html 

Hasan, N. H., Baharudin, M. R., & Zulkifly, S. S. (2021). The influence of safety leadership and  

safety performance in Malaysia's Small & Medium manufacturing firms. Journal of Safety, 

Health, and Ergonomics, 3(1), 1-6. 

http://www.fazpublishing.com/jshe/index.php/jshe/article/view/27 

Hesketh, B., & Neal, A. (1999). Technology and performance. In Ilgen, D. R., & Pulakos, E. D. (Eds.), 

The changing nature of performance: Implications for staffing, motivation, and development (21-

55). Jossey Bass Publishers. 

Hoch, J. E., Bommer, W. H., Dulebohn, J. H., & Wu, D. (2016). Do ethical, authentic, and servant 

leadership explain variance above and beyond transformational leadership? A meta-analysis. 

Journal of Management, 44(2), 501–529. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316665461  

Hofmann, D. A., Burke, M. J., & Zohar, D. (2017). 100 years of occupational safety research: from basic 

protections and work analysis to a multilevel view of workplace safety and risk. Journal of 

Applied Psychology, 102(3), 375-388. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000114 

Hofmann, D. A., & Morgeson, F. P. (2004). The role of leadership in safety. In Barling, J., &  

Frone, M. R. (Eds.), The psychology of workplace safety (pp. 159-180)  



Business Management Research and Applications: A Cross Disciplinary Journal 

17  

Irshad, M., Majeed, M., & Khattak, S. A. (2021). The combined effect of safety specific transformational 

leadership and safety consciousness on psychological well-being of healthcare workers. Frontiers 

in Psychology, 12, 688463. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.688463 

Kariuki, J. K., Wandiga, E. N., & Odiyo, W. O. (2022). The mediating effect of psychological 

empowerment on the relationship between transformational leadership and staff retention in 

microfinance institutions in Kenya. Economics & Business Quarterly Reviews, 5(2), 105–123. 

https://doi-org /10.31014/aior.1992.05.02.418 

Kayaalp, A., Page, K. J., & Gumus, O. (2021). Job satisfaction and transformational leadership as the 

antecedents of OCB role definitions: The moderating role of justice perceptions. International 

Journal of Business Science & Applied Management, 16(2), 89–101.  

Khan, N. H. B. A. L., Ghazali, Z. B., & Isha, A. S. N. B. (2014). The role of leadership and leaders' 

behavioral characteristics on employees' safety behavior in plant turnaround maintenance of 

PETRONAS petrochemical companies in Malaysia. Global Business and Management 

Research, 6(3), 256-261. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/role-leadership-leaders-

behavioral/docview/1614299498/se-2 

Lee, J. (Jessie), Cho, J., Baek, Y., Pillai, R., & Oh, S. H. (2019). Does ethical leadership predict follower 

outcomes above and beyond the full-range leadership model and authentic leadership?: An 

organizational commitment perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 36(3), 821–847. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-018-9596-6 

Locke, E. A. (1969). What is job satisfaction? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4(4), 

309-336. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(69)90013-0  

Lu, H., Wu, T., Shao, Y., Liu, Y., & Wang, X. (2019). Safety-specific leadership, goal orientation, and 

near-miss recognition: The cross-level moderating effects of safety climate. Frontiers in 

Psychology, N.PAG. https://doi-org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01136 

Mariani, M. G., Curcuruto, M., & Solda, B. L. (2015). Employee safety motivation: perspectives  

and measures on the basis of the Self-Determination theory. Medicina Del Lavoro, 10(5), 333-

341 

Minhaj, S., Jamil, A., & Ul Hadi, N. (2019). Role of transformational leadership and its components on 

organizational innovation through employee engagement: Evidence from Pakistan. City 

University Research Journal (CURJ), 9(3), 439–461 

Mirza, M. Z., & Isha, A. S. N. (2020). Safety-specific transformational leadership, safety climate  

and occupational accidents. Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling, 4(2), 44-52. 

https://10.47263/JASEM.4(2)04 

Mwesigwa, R., Tusiime, I., & Ssekiziyivu, B. (2020). Leadership styles, job satisfaction and 

organizational commitment among academic staff in public universities. The Journal of 

Management Development, 39(2), 253-268. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-02-2018-0055 

Nahm, F. S. (2017). What the p values really tell us. The Korean Journal of Pain, 30(4), 241– 

 242. https://doi.org/10.3344/kjp.2017.30.4.241  

Najj, G. H., Isha, A. S., Mohyaldinn, M. E., Leka, S., Saleem, M. S., Rahman, S. M., &  

Alzoraiki, M. (2021). Impact of safety culture on safety performance; mediating role of 

psychosocial hazard: An integrated modeling approach. International Journal of Environmental 

Research and Public Health, 18(16), 8568. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18168568  

Neal, A., Griffin, M. A., & Hart, P. M. (2000). The impact of organizational climate on safety  

climate and individual behaviour. Safety Science, 34, 99-109. 

Nelviana, M., Koh, Y., Soepriyanto, G., Aljuaid, M., & Hasan, F. (2022). The effect of transformational 

leadership and remote working on employee performance during COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers 

in Psychology, 13, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.919631 

Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and practice (8th edition). SAGE Publications, Inc. 

Northouse, P. G. (2022). Leadership: Theory and practice (9th edition). SAGE Publications, Inc. 



January 2025 | Volume 4, Number 2 
18  

Peng, J., Li, M., Wang, Z., & Lin, Y. (2020). Transformational leadership and employees’ reactions to 

organizational change: Evidence from a meta-analysis. The Journal of Applied Behavioral 

Science, 002188632092036. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886320920366  

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational  

leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational 

citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-

9843(90)90009-7 

Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2018). Organizational behavior (18th Edi.). PEARSON. 

Sawhney, G., & Cigularov, K. P. (2019). Examining attitudes, norms, and control toward  

Safety behaviors as mediators in the leadership-safety motivation relationship. Journal of 

Business and Psychology, 34(2), 237–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-9538-9 

Smith, T. D., DeJoy, D. M., & Dyal, M. A. (2020). Safety specific transformational leadership, safety 

motivation and personal protective equipment use among firefighters. Safety Science, 131. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104930 

Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and consequences.  

SAGE. 

Spector, P. E. (2022). Job satisfaction: From assessment to intervention. Taylor & Francis Group. 

Willis, S., Clarke, S., & O'Connor, E. (2021). Identifying the optimal safety leader: a person-centered 

approach. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 36(3), 226-240. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-03-

2020-0119 

Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership 

theories. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 285-305. https://doi-org/10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00013-

2 

Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th edition). Pearson Education, Inc.  

Yukl, G., Gardner, W. L., & Uppal, N. (2022). Leadership in organizations (9th edition). Pearson 

Education, Inc. 

Zhao, L., Yang, D., Liu, S., & Nkrumah, E. (2022). The effect of safety leadership on safety participation 

of employee: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1-11. 

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.827694 

Zulkifly, S. S., Baharudin, M. R., Mahadi, M. R., & Ismail, S. N. S. (2021). The effect of owner-

manager's safety leadership and supervisor's safety roles on safety performance in SME 

manufacturing. Journal of Technology and Operations Management, 16(1), 11-24. https://e-

journal.uum.edu.my/index.php/jtom/article/download/13989/3340 


