Reconciling general transformational leadership and safety-specific transformational leadership: A paradox perspective.

INTRODUCTION: Research exploring the relationship between transformational leadership and safety has used transformational leadership in context-free (e.g., "general transformational leadership," or GTL) and context-specific forms (e.g., "safety-specific transformational leadership," or SSTL), assuming these constructs are theoretically and empirically equivalent. In this paper, a paradox theory is drawn on (Schad, Lewis, Raisch, & Smith, 2016; Smith & Lewis, 2011) to reconcile the relationship between these two forms of transformational leadership and safety. METHOD: This is done by: (a) investigating whether GTL and SSTL are empirically distinguishable; (b) testing the relative importance of GTL and SSTL in explaining variance in context-free work outcomes (i.e., in-role performance, organizational citizenship behaviors) and context-specific (i.e., safety compliance, safety participation); and (c) examining the extent to which perceived safety concern in the work environment renders GTL and SSTL distinguishable. RESULTS: Two studies (one cross-sectional, one short-term longitudinal) show that GTL and SSTL are psychometrically distinct albeit highly correlated. Furthermore, SSTL explained statistically more variance than GTL in both safety participation and organizational citizenship behaviors, whereas GTL explained more variance in in-role performance than did SSTL. However, GTL and SSTL were only distinguishable in low-concern contexts but not high-concern contexts. CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: These findings challenge the "either-or" (vs "both-and") approach to considering safety and performance, cautioning researchers to consider nuanced differences in context-free and context-specific forms of leadership and to avoid further proliferation of often redundant context-specific operationalizations of leadership.

A meta-analytic investigation of the antecedents, theoretical correlates, and consequences of moral disengagement at work.

Moral disengagement refers to a set of cognitive tactics people employ to sidestep moral self-regulatory processes that normally prevent wrongdoing. In this study, we present a comprehensive meta-analytic review of the nomological network of moral disengagement at work. First, we test its dispositional and contextual antecedents, theoretical correlates, and consequences, including ethics (workplace misconduct and organizational citizenship behaviors [OCBs]) and non-ethics outcomes (turnover intentions and task performance). Second, we examine Bandura's postulation that moral disengagement fosters misconduct by diminishing moral cognitions (moral awareness and moral judgment) and anticipatory moral self-condemning emotions (guilt). We also test a contrarian view that moral disengagement is limited in its capacity to effectively curtail moral emotions after wrongdoing. The results show that Honesty-Humility, guilt proneness, moral identity, trait empathy, conscientiousness, idealism, and relativism are key individual antecedents. Further, abusive supervision and perceived organizational politics are strong contextual enablers of moral disengagement, while ethical leadership and organizational justice are relatively weak deterrents. We also found that narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and psychological entitlement are key theoretical correlates, although moral disengagement shows incremental validity over these "dark" traits. Next, moral disengagement was positively associated with workplace misconduct and turnover intentions, and negatively related to OCBs and task performance. Its positive impact on misconduct was mediated by lower moral awareness, moral judgment, and anticipated guilt. Interestingly, however, moral disengagement was positively related to guilt and shame post-misconduct. In sum, we find strong cumulative evidence for the pertinence of moral disengagement in the workplace. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).