Safety-specific transformational leadership and safety outcomes at workplaces: a scoping review study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Safety-specific transformational leadership (SSTL) has garnered much attention in recent years. This scoping review aims to explore; (1) the industries within which the impacts of SSTL are investigated; (2) the impacts of SSTL on the leading and lagging safety indicators; (3) mechanisms through which SSTL can affect safety outcomes; (4) the safety impacts of SSTL compared with other leadership styles; and (5) research gap to be covered by future studies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This review was conducted in accordance with the standard procedure proposed by PRISMA-ScR. Three major databases including Web of Science, PubMed, and SCOPUS were searched. After removing duplications, initial screening, and eligibility assessment steps, 28 articles were included in the study. RESULTS: Coined in 2002, SSTL is a distinct construct from general transformational leadership with a greater influence on safety outcomes. Most studies are conducted in Canada and among construction workers. SSTL could affect both leading and lagging safety indicators, particularly safety behavior and occupational accidents. Safety climate and safety motivation mediate the impact of SSTL on safety outcomes. Social exchange theory and leader-member exchange theory explain how SSTL can modify the safety behavior of employees. SSTL is much stronger than passive leadership in affecting safety, and its effects are comparable with safety-specific active transactional leadership. CONCLUSION: SSTL appears to be a significant factor influencing workplace safety outcomes, affecting both leading and lagging safety indicators. However, long-term longitudinal studies are needed to fully understand the impact of SSTL on these safety outcomes. Additionally, safety knowledge could serve as a mediator in the relationship between SSTL and safety results. Future research should compare the effectiveness of SSTL with authentic leadership style in enhancing safety outcomes. It would also be beneficial to assess how well SSTL can mitigate the negative effects of factors such as occupational fatigue, work-family imbalance, and production pressure on workplace safety.
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 | 0.012 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".