Dawei Wang
Li Wang1
Haichao Sun
Yixin Hu- 1School of Psychology, Shandong Normal University, Jinan, China
- 2School of Education Science, Kashi University, Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, Kashgar Xinjiang, China
- 3School of Teacher Education, Taishan College, Tai'an, China
- 4Shengli Petroleum Engineering Yellow River Drilling Corporation, Dongying, China
Safety behavior is one of the focal concerns to occupational health researchers and safety managers. This study examined the relationship between authoritarian leadership and safety behavior based on social exchange theory and locus of control theory, and further explored the mediating role of trust in leadership and the moderating role of locus of control. In this study, a total of 636 employees from petroleum enterprises were recruited, with random sampling used to collect data in two stages. The result showed that: (1) Authoritarian leadership is significantly and negatively related to employees' safety compliance behavior and safety participation behavior. (2) Trust in leadership plays a partially mediating role in the impact of authoritarian leadership on employees' safety compliance behavior and safety participation behavior. (3) Locus of control moderates the first half of the pathway through which authoritarian leadership affects employees' safety behavior through trust in leadership. For externals, the negative effect of authoritarian leadership on their trust in leadership is stronger, which in turn decreases their safety compliance behavior and safety participation behavior.
Introduction
World Health Organization statistics show that economic losses in terms of workplace-related fatalities, injuries, and illnesses account for 4–5% of the world's GDP. And 70% of this is caused by unsafe employee behavior (1). More unfortunately, millions of employees suffer workplace injuries and thousands lose their lives every year as a result (2, 3). The safety behavior of employees not only affects the socio-economic development and long-term operation of enterprises (4), but also has a bearing on people's lives and well-being and social harmony and stability. In China, both the Party Central Committee and government sectors attach great importance to work safety. For example, Chairman Xi Jinping has put forward the opinion in the report of the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China “ Strengthen the enterprise safety production infrastructure to curb serious accidents” (5). Therefore, it is necessary to conduct more research in the area of safety behavior.
In order to avoid losses due to the lack of safety behavior of employees, numerous researchers have explored the factors that influence safety behavior, among which organizational factor is a significant factor that influences safety behavior (6–10). Further, leadership, as an critical element of an organization, is also an essential factor in influencing employees' behavior and attitudes, and different types of leadership styles have been shown in most studies to be closely related to employees' safety behavior (11–15). However, the existing literature is biased toward the study of leadership styles such as transformational leadership and ethical leadership proposed based on the Western cultural context (16, 17), and less explores paternalistic leadership, which is based on traditional Chinese cultural and prevalent in Chinese companies (18). Zheng et al. (19) considered paternalistic leadership as a typical leadership style in the Chinese context and classified it into three dimensions: benevolent leadership, moral leadership, and authoritarian leadership. Among them, authoritarian leadership refers to the leader who focus on establishing their authority and demanding absolute obedience from employees, which is a leadership style that tends to be authoritarian and autocratic. Currently, there are few studies and mixed findings on authoritarian leadership and employees' safety behavior. Liu et al. (20) demonstrated that authoritarian leadership has a significant positive effect on highway drivers' safety behavior; a small number of other studies have shown that authoritarian leadership affected employees' safety behavior significantly and negatively (21–23). Therefore, exploring the influence of authoritarian leadership on employees' safety behavior in the Chinese context can not only enrich the research in the field of safety behavior, but also provide new ideas for corporate safety management practices.
In addition to examining the relationship between authoritarian leadership and safety behavior, this study also sought to explore the underlying mechanisms between them. Occupational health psychology researchers argue that occupational safety is embedded in psychosocial and interpersonal environments (24). Psychological explanations of the work environment can account for differences in employee health and safety that go beyond what can be explained by physical, biological, and chemical hazards (25). Authoritarian leadership, as a negative leadership style, with its authoritarian and high power distance, tends to make employees feel that the leader is impersonal and not easily communicated with (26–29), which may reduce employees' trust in the leader. The less employees trust their leaders, the less likely they will be conscientious and proactive in completing the work emphasized by their leaders and the organization, i.e., employees may slack off on the safe behavior valued by their leaders and the organization. Thus, employees' trust in leadership may mediate the relationship between authoritarian leadership and safety behavior. Furthermore, if authoritarian leaders act on safety behavior through employees' trust in leadership, is this effect influenced by individual factors? According to cognitive appraisal theory of emotion, an individual's cognitive appraisal of information determines his or her emotional response, and this process is influenced by intra-individual psychological factors (30). Locus of control, which is a kind of individuals' typical cognitive attributional preference, may influence employees' evaluations of authoritarian leaders and subsequently their trust in them. Therefore, we suggest that locus of control may moderate the relationship between authoritarian leadership and employees' safety behavior.
In summary, we examine whether authoritarian leadership negatively affects safety behavior and whether employees' trust in leadership mediates the relationship between them. In addition, we examine the moderating role of locus of control in this mediation model.
Theory and Hypotheses
The Relationship Between Authoritarian Leadership and Safety Behavior
Neal et al. (31) argued that safety behavior consists of two dimensions: safety compliance behavior and safety participation behavior. In this regard, safety compliance behavior refers to the ability of employees to work in accordance with established safety codes of conduct while engaged in safety-related tasks; safety participation behavior means that employees join in behaviors that contribute to safety management and safe operation out of their own initiative. Safety compliance behavior and safety participation behavior represent different goals of employees. Specifically, Safety compliance behavior is more akin to a passive compliance forced by the corporate system and is often seen as part of the employees' in-role behavior; while safety participation behavior means that employees take the initiative to participate in the construction of a safety climate and is always regarded as a kind of employees' extra-role behavior (32). Specifically in terms of the job content of petroleum enterprises, checking safety equipment routinely, wearing safety helmets and overalls during production, not bringing cell phones on the body during oil field site exploration, wearing alarm devices at all times when entering refineries, using copper tools (instead of iron tools) and other job behaviors are all safety compliance behavior, which are explicitly stipulated in the safety management regulations of petroleum enterprises and need to strictly enforced by oil employees; while behaviors such as proposing more feasible safety management methods based on one's work experience in weekly meetings, reminding colleagues with low safety awareness to operate production equipment safely in the workplace, using walkie-talkies to confirm colleagues' safety at all times, and calling on colleagues to actively participate in safety training are all safety participation behavior, which are not within the scope of safety management regulations but contribute to the construction of corporate safety management. And it is the spontaneous behavior of employees based on their own recognition of the importance of safety. In addition, specifically in terms of petroleum enterprise jobs, both front-line employees and management leaders are expected to perform safety compliance behavior and safety participation behavior, with front-line employees required to carry out actual safety work on a daily basis and management leaders being responsible for site safety supervision and the overall safety building of the company. petroleum enterprises have jobs such as refining position, extraction position, and substation operations position, all of which are expected to perform safety compliance behavior and safety participation behavior. Current research on the antecedent variables of safety behavior has mainly focused on leadership style (12, 14–16, 33). However, most of the existing research has been concentrated on transformational leadership, transactional leadership, ethical leadership, and empowering leadership. For example, it has been found that transformational leadership is positively related to employees' safety behavior and that this process is mediated by job stress, job strain (16, 34, 35); transactional leadership negatively affects employees' safety behavior by reducing organizational safety climate and employees' psychological empowerment (36); ethical leadership has a positive effect on employees' safety behavior (37); and empowering leadership is positively correlated with employees' safety behavior (38). Faced with authoritarian leadership, a leadership style that is unique and more prevalent in Chinese organizations and reveals the deep-rooted qualities of traditional Chinese culture (39–41), few scholars have investigated its relationship with safety behavior. Moreover, its relationship with two dimensions of safety behavior is yet to be explored.
Authoritarian leadership is the leadership type that best reflects the leadership style of Chinese society among the three dimensions of paternalistic leadership (39, 40, 42, 43). It fully expresses the idea of “the three cardinal guides and the five constant virtues” and “upper respect and lower inferiority” that have been emphasized in traditional Chinese Confucianism and feudalism for thousands of years (44). Viaing studying authoritarian leadership, Fan and Zheng (45) concluded that it should include four dimensions, namely, “authoritarian style, image modification, degradation of subordinates' abilities, and teaching behavior.” The “authoritarian style” means that the leader concentrates power in his own hands, closely monitors his employees and does not have emotional communicate with them; “image modification” means that leaders maintains a confident and authoritarian image of themselves in front of their employees; “degradation of subordinates' abilities” means that the leader devalues employees' abilities, does not accept their suggestions, and never praises them for their contributions; “teaching behavior” means that the leader sets high performance standards for employees and directly reprimands those who do not perform well.
All four dimensions of authoritarian leadership reflect strict hierarchical relationships, high power distance, and low emotional communication between leaders and employees, which would have an impact on employees' subjective perceptions psychological feelings and subsequently on their work behaviors, including safety behavior (46, 47). And we can explain it in terms of social exchange theory. Homans (48) argued that in the process of social interaction, people analyze the “cost” they pay and the “reward” they receive in a relationship, and satisfactory social relationships should follow the reciprocity rule, which ensures a balance between payoffs and rewards. The “cost” and “reward” here include not only tangible material things (e.g., money) but also intangible feelings (e.g., respect, understanding, love). The social determinants of health in the field of social medicine emphasize the important influence of psychological and social interpersonal factors on a person's overall health. The behaviors of authoritarian leaders are not conducive to the performance of employees' safety behavior, which in turn can threaten the overall health of employees. Specifically, in authoritarian leadership, the leader strictly dominates and controls employees, rarely interacts with them in a positive way, and does not empower them; besides, the leader often belittles employees' abilities and reprimands them severely when their performance is not satisfactory, lacking encouragement and guidance. Consequently, these can surely cause negative emotions and a series of negative cognitions of employees (49–51). Employees' perceived organizational support (22) and psychological empowerment (52, 53) will decrease, and their organizational commitment, job satisfaction will also decline (54). As a result, employees may believe that they receive very limited “rewards” from their leaders and then choose to give less in return by reducing positive work behaviors or even displaying negative work behaviors. That is, employees will develop a sense of job alienation (28, 55, 56) and lower their work engagement (57, 58), which negatively affects their cognition and concentration of activities in terms of compliance with safety behavioral norms, etc.; in addition, employees will also increase their job insecurity (47), develop a rebellious mentality (59) and counterproductive work behavior (60), exhibiting behaviors such as slowdown, not following prescribed processes, and disregarding safety compliance regulations. Accordingly, we infer that authoritarian leadership has a negative effect on employees' safety compliance behavior. Similarly, these traits of authoritarian leadership will also reduce employees' innovativeness and initiative (47, 61, 62), decrease their organizational citizenship behavior (60, 63) and voice behavior (53, 64, 65). While safety participation behavior is the active behavior of employees who actively contribute to the organization's safety production, such as actively helping colleagues to operate production machines safely, advising in safety management activities, and consciously maintaining the company's safety environment. Obviously, employees under authoritarian leadership may be less likely to be willing to perform the safety participation behavior. Accordingly, we infer that authoritarian leadership also has a negative effect on employees' safety participation behavior. Therefore, the following hypotheses were proposed in this study.
Hypothesis 1a: Authoritarian leadership is negatively correlated with employees' safety compliance behavior.
Hypothesis 1b: Authoritarian leadership is negatively correlated with employees' safety participation behavior.
The Mediating Role of Trust in Leadership
Trust is the basis for people's positive interactions and relationship-building (66). Trust in work situations plays an important role in facilitating coordination within organizations and achieving organizational strategic goals (67–69). And it has been received increasing attention from academic researchers and business managers. Rousseau (70) argued that trust is a psychological state that is based on positive expectations about the intentions and behaviors of others, and that people who trust others are willing to maintain a relationship with them and to take the risks that come with that relationship. McAllister (71) further classified trust into two dimensions: cognitive trust and affective trust. The former reflects an individual's trust in the reliability, dependability, integrity, and competence of others, and depends on a reasonable and objective assessment of the attributes of others (72); while the latter reflects the emotional connection between individuals and others, which is derived from the mutual care and concern between individuals and others (73). In the field of organizational behavior, employees' trust in leadership refers to the psychological state in which employees' willingness to the leaders in the work process is positive, and employees are willing to take risks for the leader and even accept the shortcomings of the leaders (70).
Currently, there are two different theoretical perspectives on the process of forming employees' trust in leadership: one is based on leader traits; the other is based on the leader-employee relationship. From the leader traits-based perspective, employees' perceptions of leaders' traits have a significant impact on the formation of trusting relationships between them. Employees tend to develop high levels of cognitive trust with leaders who are fair, reliable, sincere, kind, and competent (74). However, the autocratic, harsh, high power distance and impersonal qualities of authoritarian leadership are the opposite of the above qualities. When employees are confronted with authoritarian leaders, they may perceive them as unreliable and thus reduce their cognitive trust in them. In addition, the leader-employee relationship-based perspective focuses on the quality of the relationship between employees and leaders, because the quality of the relationship between superiors and subordinates depends on the level of trust between them (75, 76). When leaders show support, empowerment, care and concern for their employees, employees will increase their affective trust in their leaders (77, 78), which in turn facilitates the formation of good social exchange relationships between them. In authoritarian leadership, however, leaders are reluctant to empower their employees, rarely consider their needs and welfare, and refuse to communicate with them emotionally, which makes it difficult to develop higher quality exchange relationships between employees and leaders as they only remain in superficial economic exchanges (e.g., labor transactions). Naturally, the affective trust between them is also at a low level (27, 79, 80).
Trust is the basis of social exchange (81). Low level of trust between authoritarian leaders and employees is detrimental to the formation of high-quality exchange relationships between them (82, 83), and subsequently triggers a series of negative work attitudes and behaviors among employees. Studies have shown that employees' low level of trust in their leaders decreases their job satisfaction and work engagement (74, 84). Besides, employees' degree of effort, conscientiousness, and efficiency in completing tasks assigned by their leaders are also reduced (85), and employees are less able to produce the results expected by their leaders (86). Accordingly, we infer that when employees have low level of trust in their leaders, they are more likely to fail to comply with their leaders' safety requirements as well as the company's safety regulation and engage in less safety compliance behavior. In addition, Choi (87) showed that the level of trust between employees and leaders positively affects employees' psychological security; Burke (88) found that high level of employees' trust in leaders increases their willingness to provide more quality services to the organization; Pappas et al. (89) argued that employees' trust in leadership enhances their intention to take risks and promotes their greater involvement in the organization's strategic decision-making process. This means that low level of trust in leaders also decreases employees' psychological security and willingness to better serve the organization. And employees may be less likely to voluntarily and proactively engage in behavior that facilitates safety management and operations, such as actively contributing ideas about safety management in the workplace and urging colleagues to operate production equipment safely. From this we infer that low level of trust between employees and leaders also negatively affects employees' safety participation behavior. Therefore, the following hypotheses were proposed in this study.
Hypothesis 2a: Employees' trust in leadership will mediate the relationship between authoritarian leadership and employees' safety compliance behavior.
Hypothesis 2b: Employees' trust in leadership will mediate the relationship between authoritarian leadership and employees' safety participation behavior.
The Moderating Role of Locus of Control
Cognitive appraisal theory of emotion suggests that the mechanism underlying emotional responses can be viewed as a cognitive appraisal mechanism of emotions, i.e., individuals' cognitive appraisal of information determines their emotional response, and that this appraisal process is influenced by intra-individual psychological factors (differences in beliefs, attitudes, personalities) (30, 90, 91). This results in large differences in the emotional experiences that people produce when faced with the same stimulus information (92, 93). That is, employees will have different emotional experiences of authoritarian leaders because their evaluations of authoritarian leaders vary. For example, it has been shown that authoritarian leadership can be evaluated as either “authoritarian” motivation, which emphasizes the control and discipline harshly, or “strict” motivation, which emphasizes the respect and focus on systems and norms (94–96), in which employees' individual differences play an important role.
Rotter's locus of control theory is a good explanation for the individual differences in employees' evaluations of authoritarian leaders (97, 98). Locus of control is the degree to which individuals perceive the outcome of behavior as internal or external. It is classified into two categories: internals (i.e., employees with internal or high LOC) and externals (i.e., employees with external or low LOC). Internals tend to believe that the outcome of behavior depends on their own actions (99), whereas externals tend to believe that the outcome of behavior depends on external factors beyond their control, such as the power of others, luck, or the environment (100–102). Research has shown that when faced with authoritarian leaders, who are characterized by “demeaning subordinates' abilities and relentless teaching and reprimanding,” internals tend to believe that they are responsible for the abusive behavior of authoritarian leaders (103), because they may attribute it to their poor performance or failure to satisfy the leader in other aspects of their work. In addition, internals usually believe that they have the ability to influence future outcomes (100, 104). Therefore, under the indignity of authoritarian leaders, they will experience more of a sense of failure that they failed to prevent or control the occurrence of abusive behavior by authoritarian leaders and a sense of shame that the image of the dedicated employee has been tarnished (105). However, internals also have a high sense of control and self-efficacy (106–110). They will behave proactively and dominate things to happen in their controllable direction when they perceive negative events. For example, employees will work harder to improve their performance and increase communication with their leaders (105, 111, 112) to repair their relationship with their leaders and reshape the image of dedicated employee, etc., all of which will contribute to enhancing their trust with authoritarian leaders. Therefore, we believe that internals may be more likely to build trust with authoritarian leaders and more willing to trust them than externals.
In contrast, externals tend to perceive themselves as having little responsibility for the abusive behavior of authoritarian leaders (104). And they often have a stronger self-serving bias, i.e., they are inclined to consider themselves victims when things go wrong and blame external factors, e.g., the abusive behavior of authoritarian leaders may be caused by the leader's personal emotions or personality (111, 113). Thus, the victim mentality of the externals, which is motivated by self-protection, saves them from feelings of self-blame and shame for the negative events (99). What's more, the externals also believe that they cannot cope with the current situation and cannot control the future development of the events (111). Also faced with low quality relationships with authoritarian leaders, externals usually suffer from greater psychological stress (114) and have lower self-efficacy (106) than internals. They will have less confidence to act proactively to try to achieve positive results, and choose to be negative or just avoid it. Externals' cognitive blame and negative behavior toward authoritarian leaders can weaken their trust with authoritarian leaders. From this we argue that externals will be less prone to build trust with authoritarian leaders than internals. Therefore, the following hypotheses were proposed in this study.
Hypothesis 3: Locus of control will moderate the first half of the pathway by which authoritarian leadership affects employees' safety behavior through employees' trust in leadership. For externals, the negative effect of authoritarian leadership on their trust in leadership will be stronger, which in turn will decrease their safety compliance and safety participation behavior.
In summary, based on social exchange theory and locus of control theory, this paper explored the relationship between authoritarian leadership and employees' safety compliance behavior and safety participation behavior. In addition, this paper also examined the mediating role of employees' trust in leadership and the moderating role of locus of control in order to examine the intrinsic mechanism of authoritarian leadership on employees' safety behavior, as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. The hypothesized model.
Methods
Sample and Procedures
The study was conducted in petroleum enterprises. In order to improve sample representativeness and facilitate sample selection, we used a random sampling method to select oil workers in different oil work bases, and the administration sites and administration time were arranged by the head of each site. With different oil working bases as units, the person in charge of each unit unified to arrange the measurement staff, measurement location and measurement time. A total of 700 questionnaires were distributed, and 636 valid questionnaires were returned, with a recovery rate of 90.86%. Of the total sample respondents, 41.2% were male and 58.8% were female. With regard to age, the minimum age of the sample respondents was 23 years old and the maximum age was 60 years old, with a mean age of 40.27 years (SD = 6.30), 5.8% were under 30 years old, 18.3% were 31–35 years old, 29.7% were 36–40 years old, 23.6% were 41–45 years old, 18.2% were 46–50 years old, and 4.4% were over 51 years old. Regarding years of working, the shortest working years of sample respondents is 1 year, the longest working years is 43 years, the average working years is 18.91 years (SD = 8.34), 22.5% had worked for <10 year, 32.8% for 11–20 years, 37.6% for 21–30 years, 6.9% for 31–40 years, and 0.2% for more than 41 years. In terms of education level, 0.9% had a junior high school degree or less, 31.6% had a high school or junior college degree, 30.3% had a college degree, 27.4% had a bachelor's degree, and 1.7% had a master's degree or higher. Besides, 95% sample respondents were married and the distribution of positions was dominated by front-line employees (77.7%).
To avoid common method bias, a two-stage data collection approach was adopted. The first phase collected authoritarian leadership and employee trust in leadership, and the second phase collected psychological sources of control and safety behaviors, with a 1-month interval before and after. The study received ethical approval from the academic committee of the authors' university and complied with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki. The surveys were conducted with the consent of the company's human resources department and the employees themselves, and informed consent forms were signed.
Measures
Safety Behavior Scale
The safety behavior scale, developed by Neal et al. (14) and revised by Ye et al. (115), measures two dimensions including “safety compliance behavior” and “safety participation behavior.” Sample items include “I strictly abide by the safety rules and regulations in my work,” “I actively make suggestions that are conducive to working safely.” The 11-item questionnaire is rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree), with higher scales indicating a higher level of safety behavior. In this study, the Cronbach's alpha coefficient of the safety behavior scale was 0.96, among which the Cronbach's alpha coefficient of the safety compliance behavior subscale was 0.96 and the Cronbach's alpha coefficient of the safety participation behavior subscale was 0.955.
Authoritarian Leadership Scale
Authoritarian leadership was assessed using a 5-item questionnaire developed by Zheng et al. (19, 116), and revised by Fu et al. (117). One simple item was “My leader decides everything in the company alone.” Employees rated items on a 5-point liket scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree), with higher scores indicating a higher degree of authoritarian leadership. In this study, the Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the authoritarian leadership scale was 0.822.
Trust in Leadership Scale
The trust in leadership scale was developed by Nyhann and Marlow (118) and revised by He (119). One simple item was “My supervisor has a good understanding and grasp of his job tasks.” The 6-item questionnaire is rated on a 6-point scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 6 (totally agree), with higher scales indicating employees' higher level of trust in leadership. In this study, the Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the trust in leadership scale was 0.894.
Locus of Control Scale
The locus of control scale was developed by Spector (120) and revised by Jiang et al. (121). The scale has 16 items, 8 of which are internals type, with simple item such as “Generally speaking, people who work hard get paid what they deserve,” eight of which are externals type, such as “Making money mainly depends on fortune.” Employees rated items on a 6-point liket scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 6 (totally agree), with higher scales indicating employees' higher locus of control after reverse scoring. In this study, the Cronbach's alpha coefficient of the locus of control scale was 0.824.
Control Variables
Based on previous related research, this paper used employees' gender, age, education, and years of working as control variables to examine the extent of their influence on employees' safety behavior (122, 123).
Results
Common Method Bias
In this study, authoritarian leadership, trust in leadership, safety behavior, and locus of control scales were used as employee self-reported methods, and therefore common method bias may exist. Therefore, we conducted another test for common method bias by Harmam one-way test method based on the two-stage data collection. The results of exploratory factor analyses (EFAs) showed that a total of seven factors with characteristic roots >1 were extracted, and the maximum factor variance explained was 27.37% (<40%). Therefore, there was no serious common method bias in this study (77, 123).
Confirmatory Factor Analyses
We used Mplus 8.0 to test the discriminant validity of the variables by performing confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) on the observed data. The measurement model fitted the data acceptably (χ2/df = 1.559, RMSEA = 0.042, SRMR = 0.040, CFI = 0.973, TFI = 0.968). We further investigated several substitute measurement models and compared them with the five-factor model. As shown in Table 1, the five-factor model fits our data better than other models, suggesting that our respondents are able to distinguish the main constructs clearly.
Table 1. Results of confirmatory factor analysis of the measurement models.
Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Analysis
The results of the descriptive and correlational analyses showed (see Table 2) that authoritarian leadership is significantly and negatively related to safety compliance behavior and safety participation behavior (r = –0.186, p < 0.01; r = –0.158, p < 0.01). And it is also significantly and negatively related to trust in leadership (r = –0.138, p < 0.01). Besides, there is a significant and positive correlation between trust in leadership and safety compliance behavior and safety participation behavior (r = 0.354, p < 0.01; r = 0.306, p < 0.01). This analysis thus supports hypothesis 1a and hypothesis 1b.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics and correlations among study variables.
The Mediating Effect of Trust in Leadership
According to Hayes (124, 125), we used the PROCESS program of SPSS 21.0 and selected Model 4 to test the mediating effect, with authoritarian leadership as the independent variable, safety compliance behavior and safety participation behavior as the dependent variables, and trust in leadership as the mediating variable, while incorporating gender, age, education, and working years as control variables. As shown in Table 3, authoritarian leadership has a significant and negative influence on safety compliance behavior (β = –0.149, p < 0.001), safety participation behavior (β = –0.139, p < 0.001); and it also has a significant and negative influence on trust in leadership (β = –0.126, p < 0.001); trust in leadership significantly and positively affects safety compliance behavior (β = 0.345, p < 0.001), and safety participation behavior (β = 0.341, p < 0.001). That is, trust in leaders partially mediated the effect of authoritarian leadership on safety compliance behavior and safety participation behavior. Besides, the bias-corrected percentile Bootstrap method test showed (see Table 4) that the mediating effect of trust in leadership between authoritarian leadership and safety compliance behavior is significant (β = –0.044, 95% CI = [–0.077, –0.015]); the mediating effect of trust in leadership between authoritarian leadership and safety participation behavior is also significant (β = –0.043, 95% CI = [–0.076, –0.014]). This analysis thus supports hypotheses 2a and 2b.
Table 3. Mediated model test for trust in leadership.
Table 4. Decomposition of indirect, direct and total effects.
Moderated Mediating Effect
Based on the above results, the moderating variable locus of control was introduced to construct the final integrated model. Controlling for gender, age, education, and working years, we used authoritarian leadership as the independent variable, locus of control as the moderating variable, trust in leadership as the mediating variable, and safety compliance behavior and safety participation behavior as the dependent variables, and used model 7 in PROCESS to test the moderated mediating effects of the first half of the model path.
The results are shown in Table 5, authoritarian leadership has a significant and negative effect on safety compliance behavior (β = –0.142, p < 0.001) and safety participation behavior (β = –0.132, p < 0.01), and it also has a significant and negative influence on trust in leadership (β = –0.106, p < 0.01). Besides, trust in leadership influences safety compliance behavior (β = 0.343, p < 0.001) and safety participation behavior (β = 0.340, p < 0.01) significantly and positively, and the interaction term between authoritarian leadership and locus of control influences trust in leadership (β = 0.229, p < 0.001) significantly and positively. The locus of control also has a significant and positive effect on trust in leadership (β = 0.123, p < 0.05). The above analysis suggests that the locus of control does moderates the first half of the mediating effect.
Table 5. Moderated mediating effect.
To further test whether the moderated mediating effects of this study were valid, we conducted a conditional mediating effects analysis. The results are shown in Table 6, where the mean of locus of control plus or minus one standard deviation represents the “high level of locus of control (i.e., representing internals)” and the “low level of locus of control (i.e., representing externals),” respectively. The results indicated that the indirect effects of authoritarian leadership on safety compliance behavior (β = −0.088, SE = 0.025, 95% CI = [–0.141, –0.044]) and safety participation behavior (β = –0.087, SE = 0.025, 95% CI = [–0.141, –0.417]) through trust in leadership are significant for externals. However, the indirect effects of authoritarian leadership affecting safety compliance behavior (β = 0.015, SE = 0.020, 95% CI = [–0.025, 0.056]) and safety participation behavior (β = 0.015, SE = 0.020, 95% CI = [–0.025, 0.054]) through trust in the leadership are not significant for internals. Besides, the difference between the indirect effects of the high and low groups was equally significant (β = 0.103, SE = 0.030, 95% CI = [0.048, 0.166]; β = 0.102, SE = 0.031, 95% CI = [0.046, 0.165]). This analysis thus verifies hypothesis 3.
Table 6. Mediating effects at different levels of locus of control.
To further describe the specific pattern of the moderating effect of locus of control, we also conducted a simple effects analysis. As shown in Figure 2, the results of the simple slope test indicated that for externals, the negative predictive effect of authoritarian leadership on trust in leadership is significant, and they are less likely to build trust with their leaders under authoritarian leadership; for internals, the positive predictive effect of authoritarian leadership on trust in leadership is significant, and they are more likely to build trust with their leaders in the same situation.
Figure 2. Moderating effects of locus of control on the relationship between authoritarian leadership and trust in leadership.
Discussion
Chairman Xi Jinping pointed out in the report of the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China that it is necessary to establish the concept of safe development, promote the idea of life first and safety first, improve the public safety system, refine the responsibility system for safe production, and resolutely curb serious safety accidents. Production safety management is an important part of the public safety system, which aims to fully protect the occupational health of employees and avoid the threat to their lives and health and socio-economic loss of enterprises due to work-related injuries, occupational diseases and other potential hazardous factors. In the case of high-risk enterprises such as oil, mining, and chemical industries, we should focus on the safety behavior of employees because of their special, complex and dangerous working environment. This article explores the influence and mechanism of authoritative leadership style on the safety behavior of petroleum employees at the enterprise and individual levels, with the aim of further expanding theoretical research in the field of employee safety behavior and, more importantly, providing relevant policy recommendations for the occupational health of employees in high-risk enterprises and the safety management of such enterprises.
First, this study has empirically examined that authoritarian leadership is significantly and negatively related to employees' safety compliance behavior and safety participation behavior, which supports hypothesis 1a and 1b.We explain this result in terms of the social exchange theory proposed by Homans (48). According to social exchange theory, people will analyze the costs and benefits of a certain relationship in the process of social interaction, and a satisfactory social relationship should ensure the balance between “costs” and “benefits.” However, authoritarian leaders, tend to exercise strict domination and control over their employees and rarely interact with them in a positive way. They do not listen to employees' demands, do not pay attention to employees' expectations and needs, and even ignore their personal development (45), which makes it difficult to balance the social exchange between employees and leaders. Faced with low “benefits” from authoritarian leaders, employees will reduce their work engagement (57, 58), increase their counterproductive work behavior, and thus decrease their attention to safety norms, showing negligence and disregard for safety compliance regulations etc. behavior. That is, authoritarian leadership will eventually have a negative impact on employees' safety compliance behavior. In addition, employees will also cut down on their voice behavior and organizational citizenship behavior (64, 126), which is manifested in the field of safety production, i.e., employees will not pose meaningful opinions on the improvement of corporate safety production or take the initiative to supervise and help colleagues to operate production machines safely. In other words, authoritarian leadership will also eventually have a negative impact on employees' safety participation behavior. Previous studies have mainly focused on the role of transformational leadership, etc. in employees' safety behavior based on the Western cultural context (17). While the present study focuses on the relationship between one of the dimensions of paternalistic leadership- authoritarian leadership formed based on traditional Chinese cultural values and employee safety behavior. In addition, this study further explores the role of authoritarian leadership on both two dimensions of safety behavior. This study fills a gap in relevant field and also expands the relevant elaboration of social exchange theory in safety production, providing support for its application in future research and practical contexts. As for the policy recommendations, we believe that as far as individuals are concerned, leaders should be aware of their behaviors and actions in the work and change their authoritarian leadership style. As far as companies are concerned, corporate training for leaders can effectively improve their leadership effectiveness (127). Therefore, companies should pay attention to developing leaders' empowerment and service mindset and encourage them to create a highly empowered and service-oriented organizational climate and organizational culture in the organization. Appropriate empowerment by leaders can increase employees' autonomy and intrinsic motivation to work, thereby facilitating their safety participation behavior (128). In addition, the leaders' emphasis on emotional communication with employees and caring for their needs will also help to increase employees' job satisfaction and engagement, so that they can better participate in safety compliance behavior. Finally, as far as society is concerned, the state should deepen the concept of “service-oriented government” transformation, so as to positively influence the change of leadership in high-risk enterprises and promote the transformation of high-risk enterprise leaders to a “service, efficient, and safety-oriented” leadership style. In addition, social departments such as the Health and Welfare Commission and the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security should strengthen the publicity and construction of production safety culture and production safety atmosphere in order to improve the intrinsic safety awareness of enterprises and employees from soft culture and reduce the occurrence of safety accidents.
Second, this study has examined the mediating role of trust in leadership between authoritarian leadership and safety compliance behavior as well as safety participation behavior. In other words, this study concluded that authoritarian leadership leads to a decrease in trust in leadership, thereby having a negative impact on safety compliance behavior and safety participation behavior, which supports hypothesis 2a and 2b. Based on the idea that leader traits influence the process of forming trust in leadership, authoritarian leaders traits such as harshness, high power distance, and impersonality would reduce employees' cognitive trust in leaders (74); In addition, based on the idea that leader-employee relationship influence the process of forming trust in leadership, authoritarian leaders' autocratic behavior and unwillingness to empower employees etc. can seriously hinder the establishment of high-quality relationship between leaders and employees, thereby impeding the affective trust between leaders and employees (27). That is, authoritarian leadership would reduce employees' trust in leadership. Low level of trust between authoritarian leaders and employees is not beneficial to the establishment of high-quality social exchange relationship between them, in which case employees will decrease their work engagement (74) and the degree of effort and seriousness to the tasks assigned by the leader (85); In addition, employees' supportive behavior and proactive service to the organization can be also negatively affected, all of which can reduce their own safety compliance behavior and safety participation behavior. This result not only reveals the internal mechanism between authoritarian leadership and safety behavior, but also verifies that trust in leadership affects employees' behavior in the workplace, which provides new ideas for future research that more attention could be paid to the relationship between employees and leaders. As for the policy recommendations, we believe that as far as individuals are concerned, leaders are expected to improve their leadership skills in the management by demonstrating to their subordinates traits such as fairness, reliability, kindness, and competence. Leaders should also actively communicate with employees, care about their needs, and provide them with material help and emotional support as much as possible, so as to enhance the cognitive trust and affective trust with employees (27, 74). According to the social learning theory proposed by Bandura (129), leaders leading by example in safety is the key to increasing the level of trust employees have in their leaders. Through field research we learned that in oil companies, if a safety accident occurs, leaders will promptly lead their staff to conduct an analysis of the cause of the accident, with the aim of making the staff learn from it and reducing and avoiding such accidents in their future work. Therefore, as far as companies are concerned, they should establish similar work rules and regulations such as safety accident responsibility system, safety accident analysis workflow, safety accident warning and prevention propaganda, which can strengthen the collaboration and cooperation between leaders and employees and improve mutual trust with the ultimate goal of reducing safety accidents.
Finally, this study also examined the moderating role of locus of control between authoritarian leadership and trust in leadership. That is, the work style of authoritarian leadership is more likely to reduce employees' trust in leadership when they are externals, which supports hypothesis 3. Looking back on previous studies, researchers have found that individual differences in locus of control influence their responses to authoritarian leadership (40). We explored this further and found that it has a moderating effect between authoritarian leadership and employees' trust in leadership. According to the locus of control theory (130), internals and externals have different understandings of locus of control, and thus their attitudes and behaviors toward things are varied. Internals tend to blame themselves for their own factors, such as their poor performance, that cause leaders to exert authoritarian behavior on them, and to create a sense of shame that the image of dedicated employees is damaged under the reprimand of authoritarian leaders, all of which force internals to be more proactive in their work and earn the trust of their leaders (103, 105, 112). In contrast, externals, due to self-serving bias, blame the leader's authoritarian behavior on their own personal factors, and therefore do not experience the sense of self-blame and shame experienced by the internals. Besides, externals tend to choose passive avoidance in this low-quality relationship with the authoritarian leader rather than proactively demonstrating better work behavior and enhancing trust with the authoritarian leader (99, 104, 106, 113). Our study expands the application of the locus of control theory in safety production. Moreover, we further clarifies the mechanism of authoritarian leadership on safety behavior, i.e., the locus of control may be an important moderating factor that moderates the path of authoritarian leadership on employees' trust in leadership. As for the policy recommendations, we believe that as far as companies are concerned, they should focus on screening people who possess the traits of high LOC during the written test and interview process of recruitment and selection. In addition, enterprises should also attach importance to the training of internals, such as: appropriate authorization, carry out some group activities to improve the self-efficacy of employees, improve the non-material incentive mechanism, arrange training courses on the locus of control to employees, and put more emphasis on human intrinsic factors in the analysis of safety accidents.
Limitations and Future Research
First, the data in this paper comes from a state-owned petroleum enterprise in China. Since the state attaches great importance to the safety production of petroleum enterprises, this enterprise has a very strict grip on safety production, so the safety awareness of employees in this enterprise may be higher than that of employees in other enterprises or industries. Therefore, future studies should extend the sample to other enterprises or industries to expand the scope of application of the findings.
Second, in order to avoid common method bias, the study divided the data collection process into two time points for collection, but still the results of employee self-assessment. Although we have emphasized the authenticity and anonymity of the questionnaire responses, the influence of biases such as social approvability on the results cannot be excluded. Therefore, future studies can collect data from multiple perspectives, such as adding leaders' evaluations or colleagues' mutual evaluations. Besides, the current study is essentially just a cross sectional study, meaning that causality cannot be inferred. Future researchers can use longitudinal research such as cross-lagged method to test for more precise causality among all variables.
Third, authoritarian leadership in the Chinese context may differ from authoritarian leadership in other countries with its unique traditional Chinese cultural characteristics. Therefore, future research should take cross-cultural factors into account and examine safety behavior across countries or across ethnic groups.
Conclusion
• Authoritarian leadership is significantly and negatively correlated with safety compliance behavior and safety participation behavior;
• Employees' trust in leadership mediates the relationship between authoritarian leadership and safety compliance behavior, as well as safety participation behavior;
• Locus of control moderates the first half of the pathway through which authoritarian leadership affects employees' safety behavior through trust in leadership. For externals, authoritarian leadership has a stronger negative impact on their trust in leadership, which in turn can reduce their safety compliance behavior and safety participation behavior.
Data Availability Statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.
Ethics Statement
The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of Shandong Normal University. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
Author Contributions
DW: model building, writing, revisions, data collection and analysis. LW: writing, revisions and data analysis. SW: writing, data analysis. PY: model building. HS: writing, data collection and analysis. XJ: data collection. YH: model building, revisions, supervision. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Funding
This study was supported by General Project of Education of the National Social Science Fund: The development, influencing factors, and intervention system of middle school students' moral shading: Based on decision-making process (Grant No. BEA210108).
Conflict of Interest
XJ was employed by Shengli Petroleum Engineering Yellow River Drilling Corporation.
The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher's Note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Acknowledgments
We would like to express our gratitude to the participants who participated in this study for their dedication.
References
1. Katz-Navon T, Naveh E, Stern Z. Active learning: when is more better? The case of resident physicians' medical errors. J Appl Psychol. (2009) 94:1200–9. doi: 10.1037/a0015979
2. Christian MS, Bradley JC, Wallace JC, Burke MJ. Workplace safety: A meta-analysis of the roles of person and situation factors. J Appl Psychol. (2009) 94:1103–27. doi: 10.1037/a0016172
3. Seo DC. An explicative model of unsafe work behavior. Saf Sci. (2005) 43:187–211. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2005.05.001
4. Kim H, Kim J, Rie D. A study on the application of the safety practice index to reduce safety accidents in the manufacturing industry. Sustainability. (2021) 13:10990. doi: 10.3390/su131910990
5. Xu X, Shi J. Research on the factors affecting safety behavior based on interpretative structural modeling. Cluster Comput. (2019) 22:5315–22. doi: 10.1007/s10586-017-1228-2
6. Helmreich Robert L. Managing human error in aviation. Sci Am. (1997) 276:62–7. doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican0597-62
7. Mearns K, Flin R, Gordon R, Fleming M. Measuring safety climate on offshore installations. Work Stress. (1998) 12:238–54. doi: 10.1080/02678379808256864
8. Cheung CM, Zhang RP. How organizational support can cultivate a multilevel safety climate in the construction industry. J Manage Eng. (2020) 36:04020014. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000758
9. Cheung CM, Zhang RP, Wang R, Hsu SC, Manu P. Group-level safety climate in the construction industry: Influence of organizational, group, and individual factors. J Manage Eng. (2022) 38:04021080. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000978
10. Wang D, Zong Z, Mao W, Wang L, Maguire P, Hu Y. Investigating the relationship between person-environment fit and safety behaviour: a social cognition perspective. J Safety Res. (2021) 79:100–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jsr.2021.08.010
11. Cavazotte F, Mansur J, Moreno V. Authentic leadership and sustainable operations: how leader morality and selflessness can foster frontline safety performance. J Clean Prod. (2021) 313:127819. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127819
12. Khan N, Ahmad I, Ilyas M. Impact of ethical leadership on organizational safety performance: the mediating role of safety culture and safety consciousness. Ethics Behav. (2018) 28:628–43. doi: 10.1080/10508422.2018.1427097
13. Martínez-Córcoles M, Gracia FJ, Tomás I, Peiró JM, Schöbel M. Empowering team leadership and safety performance in nuclear power plants: a multilevel approach. Saf Sci. (2013) 51:293–301. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2012.08.001
14. Nahrgang JD, Morgeson FP, Hofmann DA. Safety at work: a meta-analytic investigation of the link between job demands, job resources, burnout, engagement, and safety outcomes. J Appl Psychol. (2011) 96:71–94. doi: 10.1037/a0021484
15. Smith TD, Eldridge F, Dejoy DM. Safety-specific transformational and passive leadership influences on firefighter safety climate perceptions and safety behavior outcomes. Saf Sci. (2016) 86:92–7. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2016.02.019
16. Clarke S. Safety leadership: a meta-analytic review of transformational and transactional leadership styles as antecedents of safety behaviours. J Occup Organ Psychol. (2013) 86:22–49. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8325.2012.02064.x
17. Walumbwa FO, Hartnell CA. Understanding transformational leadership-employee performance links: the role of relational identification and self-efficacy. J Occup Organ Psychol. (2011) 84:153–72. doi: 10.1348/096317910X485818
18. Tian Q, Sanchez JI. Does paternalistic leadership promote innovative behavior? The interaction between authoritarianism and benevolence. J Appl Soc Psychol. (2017) 47:235–46. doi: 10.1111/jasp.12431
19. Zheng BX, Zhou LF, Fan JL. Parental leadership: constructing and measuring the triadic model. Local Psychol Res. (2000) 14:63–4.
20. Liu YS, Ye L, Guo M. Study on influence of paternalistic leadership on safety behavior of high-speed railway drivers. J Saf Sci Technol. (2018) 14:151–6. doi: 10.11731/j.issn.1673-193x.2018.03.022
21. Chen SC. How authoritarian leadership affects pilots' safety behavior? an exploratory study on self-efficacy's moderating effects. J Aeronaut Astronaut Aviat. (2015) 47:377–83. doi: 10.6125/15-0731-856
22. Jiang H, Chen Y, Sun P, Li C. Authoritarian leadership and employees' unsafe behaviors: the mediating roles of organizational cynicism and work alienation. Curr Psychol. 38:1668–78. doi: 10.1007/s12144-017-9726-1
23. Wang D, Qin YY. Influence of paternalistic leadership on safety behaviors of employees: mediating effect of psychological capital and moderating effect of cynicism. China Saf Sci J. (2020) 30:25–30. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2020.08.004
24. Tetrick LE, Peiró JM. Occupational safety and health. In: Kozlowski SWJ, editor. The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Psychology, Vol.2. New York, NY: Oxford University Press (2012). p. 1228–44.
25. Schonfeld IS, Chu-Hsiang C. Occupational safety. In: Nancy SH, editor. Occupational Health Psychology. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company (2016). p. 255–72.
26. Asim M, Zhiying L, Nadeem MA, Ghani U, Arshad M, Yi X. How authoritarian leadership affects employee's helping behavior? The mediating role of rumination and moderating role of psychological ownership. Front Psychol. (2021) 12:667348. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.667348
27. Cho YJ, Park H. Exploring the relationships among trust, employee satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Publ Manage Rev. (2011) 13:551–73. doi: 10.1080/14719037.2010.525033
28. Sarros JC, Tanewski GA, Winter RP, Santora JC, Densten I. Work alienation and organizational leadership. Br J Manage. (2002) 13:285–304. doi: 10.1111/1467-8551.00247
29. Ye XF, Cai SH, Wang ZN. The effect of abusive supervision on safety behaviour of Chinese underground miners: a multi-level moderated mediation analysis. Cinese Manage Stud. (2021). doi: 10.1108/CMS-08-2020-0342. [Epub ahead of print].
30. Lazarus RS, Folkman S. Coping and adaptation. In: Gentry WD, editor. The Handbook of Behavioral Medicine. (1984) Guilford: The Guilford Press. 282–325.
31. Neal AF, Griffin MA, Hart PD. The impact of organizational climate on safety climate and individual behaviour. Saf Sci. (2000) 34:99–109. doi: 10.1016/S0925-7535(00)00008-4
32. Neal AF, Griffin MA. A study of the lagged relationships among safety climate, safety motivation, safety behavior, and accidents at the individual and group levels. J Appl Psychol. (2006) 91:946–53. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.946
33. Flin R, Yule S. Leadership for safety: industrial experience. Qual Saf Health Care. (2004) 13:45–51. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2003.009555
34. Kim BJ, Jung SY. The mediating role of job strain in the transformational leadership - safety behavior link: the buffering effect of self-efficacy on safety. Int J Environ Res Publ Health. (2019) 16:1425. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16081425
35. Ugwu FO, Idike AN, Ibiam OE, Akwara FA, Okorie CO. Transformational leadership and management safety practices: their role in the relationship between work pressure and compliance with safety work behaviour in a health-care sector industry. J Psychol Afr. (2020) 30:1–8. doi: 10.1080/14330237.2020.1716551
36. Bian X, Sun Y, Zuo Z, Xi J, Xiao Y, Wang D, et al. Transactional leadership and employee safety behavior: impact of safety climate and psychological empowerment. Soc Behav Pers. (2019) 47:7295. doi: 10.2224/sbp.7295
37. Walumbwa FO, Schaubroeck J. Leader personality traits and employee voice behavior: Mediating roles of ethical leadership and work group psychological safety. J Appl Psychol. (2009) 94:1275–86. doi: 10.1037/a0015848
38. Martínez-Córcoles M, Schöbel M, Gracia FJ, Tomás I, Peiró JM. Linking empowering leadership to safety participation in nuclear power plants: a structural equation model. J Saf Res. (2012) 43:215–21. doi: 10.1016/j.jsr.2012.07.002
39. Farh JL, Cheng BS. A cultural analysis of paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations. Manage Organ Chinese Context. (2000) 12:95–197. doi: 10.1057/9780230511590_5
40. Pellegrini EK, Scandura TA. Paternalistic leadership: a review and agenda for future research. J Manage. (2008) 37:1–6. doi: 10.1177/0149206308316063
41. Zhang Y, Xie YH. Authoritarian leadership and extra-role behaviors: a role-perception perspective. Manage Organ Rev. (2017) 13:147–66. doi: 10.1017/mor.2016.36
42. Rui J, Qi LX. The trickle-down effect of authoritarian leadership on unethical employee behavior: a cross-level moderated mediation model. Front Psychol. (2021) 11:550082. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.550082
43. Zheng BX. Ten Essential Lessons for Chinese Leaders. Shanghai: Shanghai Renmin Chubanshe (2018).
44. Chen CC, Farh JL. Developments in understanding chinese leadership: paternalism and its elaborations, moderations, and alternatives. Oxford Handb Chinese Psychol. (2012) 2010:599–622. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199541850.013.0036
45. Fan JL, Zheng BX. Paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations: a cultural perspective analysis. Local Psychol Res. (2011) 246246:172950. http://ntur.lib.ntu.edu.tw/handle/246246/172950.
46. Egan R, Zigarmi D, Richardson A. Leadership behavior: a partial test of the employee work passion model. Hum Resour Dev Q. (2019) 30:311–41. doi: 10.1002/hrdq.21346
47. Wang D, Li X, Zhou M, Maguire P, Zong Z, Hu Y. Effects of abusive supervision on employees' innovative behavior: the role of job insecurity and locus of control. Scand J Psychol. (2018) 60:152–9. doi: 10.1111/sjop.12510
49. Lin L, Tang HY, Ma HY. The psychological mechanism of counterproductive work behavior in the workplace. Adv Psychol Sci. (2010) 18:151–61. CNKI:SUN:XLXD.0.2010-01-019.
50. Ma L, Zhu S. The effect of relative leader-member exchange relationships on employees' work attitudes. Sci Technol Prog Policy. (2015) 32:149–53. CNKI:SUN:KJJB.0.2015-24-029.
51. Wang D, Zhao C, Chen Y, Maguire P, Hu Y. The impact of abusive supervision on job insecurity: a moderated mediation model. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2020) 17:7773. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17217773
52. Zhang ZG. The influence of paternalistic leadership and psychological empowerment on the enterprises' management innovation. Sci Technol Manage Res. (2015) 35:203–8. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-7695.2015.03.041
53. Zhou JT, Liao JQ. Why chinese employees like to keep silent? The negative impact of authoritarian leadership on the employee voice. J Bus Econ. (2012) 2012:71–81. doi: 10.14134/j.cnki.cn33-1336/f.2012.11.005
54. Morrow PC, Crum MR. The effects of perceived and objective safety risk on employee outcomes. J Vocat Behav. (1998) 53:300–13. doi: 10.1006/jvbe.1997.1620
55. Aiken M, Hage J. Organization alienation: a comparative analysis. Am Sociol Rev. (1966) 31:497–507. doi: 10.2307/2090773
56. Gaziel HH, Weiss I. School bureaucratic structure, locus of control and alienation among primary schoolteachers. Res Educ. (1990) 44:55–66. doi: 10.1177/003452379004400105
57. Moch MK. Job involvement, internal motivation, and employees' integration into networks of work relationships. Organ Behav Hum Perform. (1980) 25:15–31. doi: 10.1016/0030-5073(80)90023-9
58. Zhang X, Zhao C, Niu Z, Xu S, Wang D. Job insecurity and safety behaviour: the mediating role of insomnia and work engagement. Int J Environ Res Publ Health. (2021) 18:581. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18020581
59. Shao KH, Liao HY. A study of the effects of paternalistic leadership on employees' unethical pro-organizational behavior. Leadersh Sci. (2019) 2019:111–5. doi: 10.19572/j.cnki.ldkx.2019.06.032
60. Baillien E, Camps J, Broeck A, Stouten J, Godderis L, Sercu M, et al. An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind: conflict escalation into workplace bullying and the role of distributive conflict behavior. J Bus Ethics. (2016) 137:415–29. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2563-y
61. Li Y, Wu SM. Impact of error management climate on employees innovation: the moderating effect of paternalistic leadership. Sci Technol Manage Res. (2019) 3:149–58.
62. Wang SL, Zhou HH. The mechanism research paternalistic leadership impact on individual innovation behavior. Soft Sci. (2013) 27:53–7.
63. Zhang Y, Huai MY. Study on the relationship between authoritarian leadership behavior and subordinates'organizational citizenship behavior - The moderating role of subordinates'power distance. Manage Rev. (2012) 24:97–105. CNKI:SUN:ZWGD.0.2012-11-013.
64. Qiu GY, Long LR. The relationship between authori-tarian leadership and subordinates' voice: a cross-level analysis. Sci Res Manage. (2014) 35:86–93. doi: 10.14134/CNKI:SUN:KYGL.0.2014-10-011
65. Yan L, Jian MS. Traditional Chinese leadership and employee voice behavior: a cross-level examination. Leadersh Q. (2015) 26:172–89. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.08.001
66. Lewicki R, Wiethoff C. Trust, trust development, and trust repair. In: Deutsch M, Coleman P, editors. The Handbook of Conflict Resolution:Theory and Practice.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass (2000). p. 86–107.
67. Fulmer A, Gelfand MJ. At what level (and in whom) we trust: trust across multiple organizational levels. Soc Sci Electron Publ. (2012) 38:1167–230. doi: 10.1177/0149206312439327
68. Xin ZQ. Marketization and interpersonal trust change. Adv Psychol Sci. (2019) 27:1951–66. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2019.01951
69. Wang MQ. Trust: the cornerstone of leadership. Leadersh Sci. (2013) 2013:48–9. doi: 10.3969/CNKI:SUN:LDKI.0.2013-14-017
70. Rousseau DM, Sitkin SB, Burt RS, Camerer C. Not so different after all: a cross-discipline view of trust. Acad Manage Rev. (1998) 23:393–404. doi: 10.5465/amr.1998.926617
71. McAllister DJ. Affect and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Acad Manage J. (1995) 38:24–59. doi: 10.5465/256727
72. Wang S, Tomlinson EC, Noe RA. The role of mentor trust and protégé internal locus of control in formal mentoring relationships. J Appl Psychol. (2010) 95:358–67. doi: 10.1037/a0017663
73. Schaubroeck J, Lam S, Peng AC. Cognition-based and affect-based trust as mediators of leader behavior influences on team performance. J Appl Psychol. (2011) 96:863–71. doi: 10.1037/a0022625
74. Mayer RC, Davis JH, Schoorman FD. An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad Manage Rev. (1995) 20:709–34. doi: 10.2307/258792
75. Uhl-Bien M. Relational leadership theory: exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing. Leadersh Q. (2006) 17:654–76. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.007
76. Zhong LF, Zhou NC, Dong X, Song GW. Dual mechanism of the effects of leader-member exchange on both leaders and subordinates' work-related outcomes. Adv. Psychol. Sci. (2009) 17:1041–50.
77. Zhou H, Long L. Statistical remedies for common method biases. Adv Psychol Sci. (2004) 12:942–50. doi: 10.1007/BF02911031
78. Yan J, Fu C, Zheng M. Research on trustworthy behavior in chinese organizations. Manage Rev. (2011) 23:99–106. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-3710.2004.06.018
79. Zhang XR, Wang ZS, Shi K, Zhao H. The mediating effect of trust in leader and the moderatinge effect of frequency of leader-follower interaction on the relationship between implicit leadership prototype and leadership effectiveness. Manage Rev. (2017) 75–86. doi: 10.14120/j.cnki.cn11-5057/f.2011.02.001
80. Brashear TG, Manolis C, Brooks CM. The effects of control, trust, and justice on salesperson turnover. J Bus Res. (2005) 58:241–9. doi: 10.1016/S0148-2963(03)00134-6
81. Mcknight DH, Cummings LL, Chervany NL. Initial trust formation in new organizational relationships. Acad Manage Rev. (1998) 23:473–90. doi: 10.5465/amr.1998.926622
83. Gu J, Wang G, Liu H, Song D, He C. Linking authoritarian leadership to employee creativity: the influences of leader-member exchange, team identification and power distance. Chinese Manage Stud. (2018) 12:384–406. doi: 10.1108/CMS-10-2017-0294
84. Liu SX, Zhou Y, Cheng Y, Zhu YQ. Multiple mediating effects in the relationship between employees' trust in organizational safety and safety participation behavior. Saf Sci. (2020) 125:104611. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104611
85. Wang Z, Liu Y, Liu S. Authoritarian leadership and task performance: the effects of leader-member exchange and dependence on leader. Front Bus Res China. (2019) 13:19. doi: 10.1186/s11782-019-0066-x
86. Mayer RC, Gavin MB. Trust in management and performance: who minds the shop while the employees watch the boss? Acad Manage J. (2005) 48:874–88. doi: 10.5465/amj.2005.18803928
87. Dirks KT, Ferrin DL. Trust in leadership: meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. J Appl Psychol. (2002) 87:611–28. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.611
88. Choi JN, Sung YS, Lee K, Cho DS. Balancing cognition and emotion: Innovation implementation as a function of cognitive appraisal and emotional reactions toward innovation. J Organ Behav. (2011) 32:107–24. doi: 10.1002/job.684
89. Burke CS, Sims DE, Lazzara EH, Salas E. Trust in leadership: a multi-level review and integration. Leadersh Q. (2007) 18:606–32. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.09.006
90. Pappas JM, Flaherty KE. The effect of trust on customer contact personnel strategic behavior and sales performance in a service environment. J Bus Res. (2008) 61:894–902. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.09.017
92. Lazarus RS. Relational meaning and discrete emotions. In: Scherer KR, Schorr A, Johnstone TE, editors. Appraisal Processes in Emotion. Oxford: Oxford University Press (2001). p. 37–67.
93. Meng ZL. Contemporary developments in emotion theory. Acta Psychol Asin. (1985) 17:209–15. doi: 10.14120/CNKI:SUN:XLXB.0.1985-02-012
94. Siemer M, Mauss I, Gross JJ. Same situation-different emotions: how appraisals shape our emotions. Emotion. (2007) 7:592–600. doi: 10.1037/1528-3542.7.3.592
95. Duan J, Bao C, Huang C, Brinsfield CT. Authoritarian leadership and employee silence in china. J Manage Organ. (2017) 24:62–80. doi: 10.1017/jmo.2016.61
96. Pan ST, Yu P. Study on the mechanism of influence of authoritative leadership on employees' silent behavior-mediating effect of psychological empowerment. Manage Administr. (2014) 130–3. doi: 10.1017/CNKI:SUN:JYGU.0.2014-10-048
97. Zhou WR, Zhou LF, Zheng BX, Ren JG. The difference between dictatorship and Strictness: Exploring the meaning of authoritarian leadership and the effect of combining grace and power. Local Psychol Res. (2010) 223–84.
98. Rotter JB. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychol Monogr. (1966) 80:1–28. doi: 10.1037/h0092976
99. Parkes KR. Locus of control, cognitive appraisal, and coping in stressful episodes. J Pers Soc Psychol. (1984) 46:655–68. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.46.3.655
100. Folkman S. Personal control and stress and coping processes: a theoretical analysis. J Pers Soc Psychol. (1984) 46:839–52. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.46.4.839
101. Twenge JM, Zhang L, Im C. It's beyond my control: a cross-temporal meta-analysis of increasing externality in locus of control, 1960-2002. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. (2004) 8:308–19. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0803_5
102. Fong LHN, Lam LW, Law R. How locus of control shapes intention to reuse mobile apps for making hotel reservations: evidence from Chinese consumers. Tour Manage. (2017) 61:331–42. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2017.03.002
103. Levenson H. Differentiating among internality, powerful others, and chance. In: Lefcourt HM, editor. Research With the Locus of Control Construct. Ontario: Academic Press (1981). p. 15–63. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-443201-7.50006-3
104. Wei F, Si S. Tit for tat? Abusive supervision and counterproductive work behaviors: the moderating effects of locus of control and perceived mobility. Asia Pac J Manage. (2013) 30:281–96. doi: 10.1007/s10490-011-9251-y
105. Anderson CR. Locus of control, coping behaviors, and performance in a stress setting: a longitudinal study. J Appl Psychol. (1977) 62:446–51. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.62.4.446
106. Kim JK, Holtz BC, Hu B. Rising above: investigating employee exemplification as a response to the experience of shame induced by abusive supervision. J Occup Organ Psychol. (2020) 93:861–86. doi: 10.1111/joop.12327
107. Alias M, Akasah ZA, Kesot MJ. Self-efficacy, locus of control and attitude among engineering students: appreciating the role of affects in learning efforts. Proc Soc Behav Sci. (2012) 56:183–90. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.645
108. Phillips Jean M, Gully Stanley M. Role of goal orientation, ability, need for achievement, and locus of control in the self-efficacy and goal-setting process. J Appl Psychol. (1997) 82:792–802. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.82.5.792
109. Spector PE. Behavior in organizations as a function of employee's locus of control. Psychol Bull. (1982) 91:482–97. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.91.3.482
110. Takaki J, Yano E. Possible gender differences in the relationships of self-efficacy and the internal locus of control with compliance in hemodialysis patients. Behav Med. (2006) 32:5–11. doi: 10.3200/BMED.32.1.5-11
111. Vaughan-Johnston TI, Jacobson JA. Self-effificacy Theory. 1st ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley (2020). p. 375–9. doi: 10.1002/9781118970843.ch62
112. Ng TWH, Sorensen KL, Eby LT. Locus of control at work: a meta-analysis. J Organ Behav. (2006) 27:1057–87. doi: 10.1002/job.416
113. Tepper BJ, Moss SE, Lockhart DE, Carr JC. Abusive supervision, upward maintenance communication, and subordinates' psychological distress. Acad Manage J. (2007) 50:1169–80. doi: 10.5465/amj.2007.20159918
114. Campbell WK, Sedikides C. Self-threat magnifies the self-serving bias: a meta-analytic integration. Rev Gen Psychol. (1999) 3:23–43. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.3.1.23
115. Reknes I, Visockaite G, Liefooghe A, Lovakov A, Einarsen SV. Locus of control moderates the relationship between exposure to bullying behaviors and psychological strain. Front Psychol. (2019) 10:1323. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01323
116. Ye XF, Li XC, Wang ZN. Safety climate and safety behavior - The mediating role of psychological capital. Soft Sci. (2014) 28:86–90. doi: 10.13956/j.ss.2014.01.002
117. Fu X, Li Y, Si YH. The impact of paternalistic leadership on innovation: An integrated model. Nankai Manag Rev. (2012) 15:121–7. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1008-3448.2012.02.013
118. Zheng BX, Zhou LF, Huang MP. The triadic model of paternalistic leadership: evidence from corporate organizations in mainland China. Local Psychol Res. (2003) 20:209–52.
119. Nyhan Ronald C, Marlowe Herbert AJR. Development and psychometric properties of the organizational trust inventory. Eval Rev. (1997) 5:614–35. doi: 10.1177/0193841X9702100505
120. He X. Why Employee known but do not say: an indigenous empiricalanalysis base of employee silence. Nankai Bus Rev. (2010) 2010:45–52. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1008-3448.2010.03.007
121. Spector PE. The development of the work locus of control scale (WLCS). J Occup Psychol. (1988) 61:335–40. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8325.1988.tb00470.x
122. Jiang J, Yang LQ, Xu Y, Che HS. Reliability and validity of work locus of control scale. Chinese Ment Health J. (2004) 18:628–30. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-6729.2004.09.009
123. Vinodkumar MN, Bhasi M. Safety management practices and safety behaviour: Assessing the mediating role of safety knowledge and motivation. Accid Anal Prevent. (2010) 42:2082–93. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2010.06.021
124. Hayes AF. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. Guilford, NC: Guilford Press (2013).
125. Wen ZL, Ye BJ. Mediating effect analysis: Methodology and model development. Adv Psychol Sci. (2014) 22:15. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2014.00731
126. Podsakoff PM, Mackenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol. (2003) 88:879–903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
127. Chan SCH, Huang XU, Snape ED, Lam CK. The janus face of paternalistic leaders: authoritarianism, benevolence, subordinates' organization-based self-esteem, and performance. J Organ Behav. (2013) 34:108–28. doi: 10.1002/job.1797
128. Zhang XA, Li N, Ullrich J, Van Dick R. Getting everyone on board: The effect of differentiated transformational leadership by ceos on top management team effectiveness and leader-rated firm performance. J Manage. (2015) 41:1898–933. doi: 10.1177/0149206312471387
130. Farh JL, Cheng BS, Chou LF, Chu XP. Authority and benevolence: Employees' responses to paternalistic leadership in China. In: China' Domestic Private Firms: Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Management and Performance. (2006). p. 230–60. Available online at: http://respository.ust.hk/ir/Record/1783.1-12929
Keywords: authoritarian leadership, safety behavior, trust in leadership, locus of control, moderated mediation model
Citation: Wang D, Wang L, Wei S, Yu P, Sun H, Jiang X and Hu Y (2022) Effects of Authoritarian Leadership on Employees' Safety Behavior: A Moderated Mediation Model. Front. Public Health 10:846842. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.846842
Received: 31 December 2021; Accepted: 14 April 2022;
Published: 12 May 2022.
Edited by:
Hung-Yi Chuang, Kaohsiung Medical University, TaiwanReviewed by:
Sheng-Hsuan Lin, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, TaiwanZuzana Birknerova, University of Prešov, Slovakia
Lucia Zbihlejova, University of Prešov, Slovakia
Copyright © 2022 Wang, Wang, Wei, Yu, Sun, Jiang and Hu. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Peng Yu, eXVwZW5namluYW5AMTYzLmNvbQ==; Haichao Sun, NjM1NjgyMjQzQHFxLmNvbQ==; Yixin Hu, aHV5aXhpbjIwMDVAMTYzLmNvbQ==