Affiliations: [a]
School of Management, Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang, China
| [b]
School of Engineering Audit, Nanjing Audit University, Nanjing, China
| [c]
School of Design and The Built Environment, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia
Correspondence:
[*]
Address for correspondence: Qingfeng Meng, School of Management, Jiangsu University, 301 Xuefu Road, Zhenjiang, China. E-mail: [email protected] and Heap-Yih Chong, School of Engineering Audit, Nanjing Audit University, Nanjing, China/School of Design and the Built Environment, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia. E-mails: [email protected]; [email protected].
Abstract: BACKGROUND:Frontline supervisors have the most frequent interactions with workers on construction projects. Although Supervisors’ Safety Leadership (SSL) is commonly practiced, its specific inter-relationship with workers’ safety violations remains unclear, especially when it comes to detailed interactions between supervisors and workers, such as supervisors’ safety coaching/safety controlling/safety caring against workers’ situational/routine safety violations. OBJECTIVE:This study aims to uncover the intrinsic relationship between SSL and safety violations from the perspective of construction workers with the help of mediating variables at both organizational and individual levels. METHODS:A questionnaire survey was conducted to test all hypotheses based on empirical data from 346 construction workers. The path coefficient of the fitted model was then analyzed, including associated mediating effects. RESULTS:Situational safety violations are directly affected only by safety caring (β= –0.161, p < 0.05), while routine safety violations are impacted only by safety coaching (β= –0.159, p < 0.05). SSL can influence different types of safety violations through differing mediators. In particular, safety coaching acts on individuals’ routine safety violations mainly through self-efficacy (β= 0.199, p < 0.01; standardized indirect effect = –0.121, 95% CI[–0.226, –0.024]); safety controlling is more oriented to influence individuals’ situational safety violations through group safety norm (β= 0.383, p < 0.001; standardized indirect effect = –0.091, 95% CI[–0.177, –0.036]); and safety caring further influences individuals’ situational safety violations mainly through safety motivation (β= 0.581, p < 0.001; standardized indirect effect = –0.263, 95% CI[–0.418, –0.146]). CONCLUSION:The research enhances existing knowledge by clarifying the complex relationships between supervisor behavior and safety outcomes, particularly from the perceptions of construction workers towards supervisors’ actions and leadership.
Keywords: Supervisors’ safety leadership, construction worker, safety violations, safety motivation, group safety norm, self-efficacy
DOI: 10.3233/WOR-240048
Journal: Work, vol. 79, no. 4, pp. 2003-2021, 2024
