Leading the way to a safer workplace: What enables supervisors to be servant leaders and enhance subordinates’ workplace safety behaviors?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Drawing on the Motivation-Ability-Opportunity (MAO) framework and social information processing (SIP) theory, we hypothesized that supervisors demonstrate the highest level of servant leadership when their prosocial motivation (motivation), perspective taking (ability), and perceived collaborative-based HR configuration (opportunity) are all high. Moreover, we also hypothesized that servant leadership plays an important channeling role that links the three-way interaction and subordinates' workplace safety behaviors. METHOD: We recruited 167 supervisor-subordinate dyads across high-risk and non-high-risk industries via LinkedIn and authors' professional networks. We then conducted hierarchical moderated regressions and SPSS Macro to test the proposed hypotheses. RESULTS: The three-way interaction of prosocial motivation, perspective taking, and collaborative-based HR configuration significantly predicted perceived servant leadership behaviors, which in turn enhanced subordinates' safety compliance and participation. CONCLUSIONS: In accordance with the MAO framework and SIP theory, a leadership system that simultaneously comprises these three key elements is most conducive to the emergence of servant leadership, which in turn enhances subordinates' workplace safety behaviors. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: First, we recommend that organizations consider perspective taking and prosocial motivation as potential selection criteria for leadership or supervisory roles, to ensure that supervisors have the required capabilities to serve. Second, organizations could benefit from designing interventions to improve supervisors' perspective taking and prosocial motivation. Third, organizations could use team-based pay design (e.g., team-based incentives) to further enhance the influence of a collaborative-based HR configuration. Fourth, given that the more subordinates emulate supervisors' behaviors of putting others' first and self-transcendence, the more they demonstrate safety behaviors, organizational interventions that can increase the salience of supervisors' behaviors in the eyes of subordinates could be useful.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".