[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Next Article in Journal
Analyzing the Role of Polycentric Governance in Institutional Innovations: Insights from Urban Climate Governance in India
Previous Article in Journal
Assessing Particulate Matter Deposition and Resuspension by Living Wall Systems in a Wind Tunnel Setup
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Bibliometric and Scientometric Network Analysis of Occupational Safety and Health in the Electric Power Industry: Future Implication of Digital Pathways
You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 23
10.3390/su162310732
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Unpacking the Relationship Between Empowerment Leadership and Electricity Worker’s Unsafe Behavior: A Multi-Moderated Mediation Approach

by
Ali Arhim
,
Ahmad Alzubi
*,
Kolawole Iyiola
and
Faith Umene Banje
Department of Business Administration, Institute of Graduate Research and Studies, University of Mediterranean Karpasia, TRNC, 33010 Mersin, Turkey
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(23), 10732; https://doi.org/10.3390/su162310732
Submission received: 25 October 2024 / Revised: 2 December 2024 / Accepted: 3 December 2024 / Published: 6 December 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Achieving Sustainability in the Workplace: Presenteeism and Occupational Health and Safety)
Browse Figures
Figure 1
<p>Research model.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Measurement model (CFA results).</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Interaction of empowerment leadership and error management climate on safety knowledge.</p> "> Figure 4
<p>Interaction of empowerment leadership and error management climate on work engagement.</p> ">
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Ensuring workplace safety in high-risk sectors is critical to achieving sustainable productivity and occupational health, particularly in industries prone to unsafe practices. Drawing on social exchange theory (SET), this study examines the impact of empowerment leadership (EL) on electricity workers’ unsafe behaviors (EWUBs) in Jordan, focusing on the mediating roles of safety motivation (SM) and work engagement (WE), as well as the moderating role of the error management climate (EMC). A quantitative approach was employed, collecting data from 409 electricity workers across various regions of Jordan. The data were analyzed using structural equation modeling (SEM) employing SmartPLS 4 to assess the relationships of these variables and AMOS 24.0 to compute the study measurement model’s internal consistency and construct validity. The results demonstrate that empowerment leadership significantly reduces electricity workers’ unsafe behaviors through increased safety motivation and work engagement. Furthermore, the error management climate moderates the relationship between empowerment leadership and work engagement (Estimate = 0.238, t = 7.783, <0.001) is stronger when the error management climate is high and weaker but also insignificant when the error management climate is low (Estimate = 0.045, t = 1.015, >0.05). The research highlights the crucial role of empowerment leadership in promoting safety motivation and work engagement, which (Estimate = 0.238, t = 7.783, <0.001) is stronger and essential for minimizing unsafe behavior in high-risk industries like electricity. The findings highlight the pivotal role of shaping employees’ unsafe behavior and offers practical implications for policymakers and institutions aiming to promote employees’ safety behavior. Future studies also emphasize fostering an error management climate to reinforce these effects and organizations should focus on leadership development and creating a supportive error management climate to maximize safety outcomes.

1. Introduction

In the modern workplace, safety remains a critical concern, mainly in dangerous industries such as electricity generation and distribution [1]. In Jordan, the electricity sector is a vital component of the national infrastructure, providing essential services to millions of residents and businesses [2]. Despite advancements in technology and safety protocols, incidents of unsafe behavior among electricity workers continue to pose significant challenges. Unsafe behaviors not only expose risks to the health and safety of workers but also impact operational efficiency and organizational productivity [3]. Addressing these disputes requires a deeper perception of the factors influencing unsafe behavior and the growth of effective leadership plans to mitigate these risks.
Empowerment leadership, characterized by its focus on enhancing employees’ autonomy and fostering a supportive work environment, has emerged as a key approach to managing workplace behavior [4]. This leadership style emphasizes employee involvement, confidence-building, and the delegation of decision-making authority. Theoretically grounded in social exchange theory (SET), empowerment leadership posits that by providing employees with greater autonomy and support, organizations can enhance job satisfaction, motivation, and overall performance [5,6]. In the context of the electricity sector, where employees face high-stress conditions and accidents [7], the impact of empowerment leadership on unsafe behavior is particularly relevant.
Unsafe behavior among electricity workers can have severe consequences, including accidents, injuries, and fatalities. Understanding the factors that contribute to such behavior is crucial for developing effective interventions [3]. Empowering leadership serves as a crucial organizational resource that significantly influences employee safety behavior [8]. This includes various behavioral dimensions such as intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, and inspirational motivation. Safety motivation encompasses both intrinsic and extrinsic drives that encourage employees to adhere to safety protocols and practices. Additionally, several positive leadership styles show strong correlations with work engagement, suggesting a potential link to safety behavior [5]. Effective safety leadership involves optimizing safety benefits by efficiently managing organizational resources, which in turn has a substantial positive impact on employee safety behavior and overall workplace safety [8].
The major purpose of this research is to explore the relationship between empowerment leadership and electricity workers’ unsafe behavior in Jordanian electricity companies. This study contributes to the understanding of how electricity workers’ unsafe behavior would typically focus on identifying key factors that lead to such behaviors, like inadequate safety training, poor work practices, pressure to meet deadlines, lacks of awareness about electrical hazards, or organizational safety culture issues, and then we propose safety motivation and work engagement as mediators and the error management climate as a moderator to mitigate these risks through improved training programs, better safety procedures, and a stronger emphasis on safety culture within the workplace, potentially using methods like surveys and observational studies to collect data and analyze patterns of unsafe behavior among electricity workers. From a theoretical perspective, this study extends the application of social exchange theory to workplace safety, demonstrating how leadership styles can impact employee behavior through various mediating and moderating factors. By addressing these aspects, this study seeks to contribute to the development of effective leadership strategies that enhance safety outcomes and foster a positive work environment in the electricity sector.
This study seeks to answer the following research questions:
RQ1: How does empowerment leadership directly influence electricity workers’ unsafe behavior?
RQ2: What is the mediating role of safety motivation in the link between empowerment leadership and workers’ unsafe behavior?
RQ3: How does work engagement media affect empowerment leadership and unsafe behavior among electricity workers?
RQ4: Does the error management climate moderate the effect of empowerment leadership on safety motivation and work engagement?
RQ5: How does the interaction between empowerment leadership, safety motivation, work engagement, and error management climate influence the unsafe behavior of electricity workers?
These research questions will be addressed through a quantitative analysis using structural equation modeling (SEM) via SmartPLS4. The study will test the hypotheses developed based on social exchange theory, providing a robust framework for understanding of how empowerment leadership can influence unsafe behavior among electricity workers. We formulate several hypotheses, illustrated in the proposed research model (Figure 1). These hypotheses examine both direct and indirect effects, among empowerment leadership and unsafe behavior among electricity workers, incorporating the roles of safety motivation, work engagement, and the error management climate. Section 3 details the research methodology, outlining the methodological processes adopted. Section 4 presents the results, while Section 5 discusses the findings, drawing conclusions and addressing implications, limitations, and future research directions.

2. Theoretical Background and Hypothesis Development

2.1. Social Exchange Theory

Social exchange theory (SET) [9] serves as the foundation for this study. According to [10], social exchange theory is crucial when studying employee behavior because it helps explain how employees perceive their relationship with their employer as a reciprocal exchange, where they contribute their work in expectation of receiving fair rewards like recognition, support, and career development opportunities, ultimately impacting their commitment, motivation, and job satisfaction within the organization. The underlying premise of social exchange theory suggests that employees are more likely to perform well when they feel their contributions are valued and reciprocated by their organization, leading to advantages like increased motivation, loyalty, and productivity, but potential downsides include the risk of employees feeling exploited if the perceived exchange is unbalanced and if there is a lack of clarity regarding the specific “costs” and “rewards” involved in the workplace dynamic. By fostering a sense of reciprocity, where employees feel their efforts are valued and rewarded, SET can lead to increased job satisfaction and improved morale.
In the literature on empowerment, leadership, and unsafe behavior, Ref. [11] applies social exchange theory (SET) to elucidate the obligation of employees to respond and reciprocate in a manner that exceeds expectations in a quality social exchange with their managers. The leader–member exchange perspective, which describes the exchange relationships between leaders and their subordinates, has largely explored safety behavior. However, while the leader–member exchange view of leadership suggests that it influences safety behavior, its fundamental assumption is primarily transactional, requiring employees to “payback” by adhering to safety protocols. According to [12], we can primarily view leadership influence from a social–relational perspective rather than a transactional and economical one. Because leadership has always been a social phenomenon, it relies on social processes and interactions as bases for influencing employees to align with safety practices and principles. Ref. [10] suggested that perceived management commitments to safety and the provision of job resources can promote employee engagement and constitute anticipatory rewards for acting safely. Therefore, placing a significant emphasis on commercial and transactional obligations may not result in employees adopting long-lasting safety behaviors. Ref. [13] has contended that social interactions between leaders and employees have the potential to enhance long-term advantages and decrease long-term expenses. Employees are likely to exceed expectations if their leaders have a strong relationship and engage in better social interactions with them. Several studies have established that social exchange theory (SET) can highlight how socially oriented exchanges between different leaders and employees influence safety behavior [14].

2.2. Empowerment Leadership and Workers’ Unsafe Behavior

Empowering leadership can promote a culture of safety by encouraging employees to speak up about hazards, actively participate in safety decision-making, and take ownership of their actions, leading to a reduction in unsafe behavior. Ref. [15] generally indicates that empowering leadership can have a negative correlation with workers’ unsafe behavior, meaning that when leaders empower their employees by giving them autonomy and decision-making power, it can lead to a decrease in unsafe workplace practices; however, it is important to consider the context and ensure that proper safety guidelines are in place to prevent potential issues with overconfidence or misinterpretations of responsibility [15].
Integrating SET asserts that fair rewards and recognition motivate employees to perform at their best. Moreover, scholars have differing opinions on the primary factors affecting unsafe behavior. Specifically, when employees perceive that empowering leadership prioritizes their safety, they tend to adopt safer behaviors with a more positive attitude. This highlights the importance of supervision and guidance in promoting workers’ safety behavior. However, some studies [16] suggest that control policies and management systems may be ineffective, and fatigue significantly correlates with accidents in the electricity sector, necessitating special attention [17]. Empowering leadership can also have drawbacks, such as unethical behavior, performance delays, and increased stress levels. Meanwhile [18], safety motivation is considered to be the most critical factor determining workers’ safety behavior. In conclusion, there is no unified viewpoint on the inter-relationships between empowering leadership and unsafe behavior, indicating the complexity of this issue [19]. Accordingly, the following hypotheses are formulated:
H1: 
Empowerment leadership has a negative influence on electricity workers’ unsafe behavior.

2.3. Empowerment Leadership and Safety Motivation

Safety behavior research originates from the accident causation research of Tang et al. [20] introduced a two-factor model of safety behavior, encompassing safety compliance and safety participation. However, industries face diverse and complex safety challenges due to various external and internal risks. Consequently, safety adaptation has emerged as a crucial addition, describing employee actions such as proposing new empowering leadership, enhancing motivation, learning new safety techniques, and creatively solving safety issues [21]. Organizational leadership plays a pivotal role in influencing employee safety behavior.
According to social exchange theory, when individuals receive support, resources, and benefits, they feel obligated to reciprocate, leading to mutual benefit. Supportive actions by leaders can motivate employees to engage in positive work behaviors [22]. Safety leadership, characterized by coaching, caring, motivating, and controlling, fosters a positive emotional and psychological commitment to leaders. This, in turn, encourages employees to adopt safe practices and maintain workplace safety. Empowered leaders serve as role models within organizations, with followers who are eager to learn and emulate their behaviors. Safety leaders prioritize safety issues at work and enhance corporate safety performance through instruction, caring, controlling, and supporting. Their safety-oriented management strategies and practices inspire employees to engage in safe behaviors, ultimately improving overall workplace safety [8]. Based on the above arguments, this study posits the following hypothesis:
H2: 
Empowerment leadership has a positive influence on safety motivation.

2.4. Empowerment Leadership and Work Engagement

Empowerment leadership significantly influences work engagement among millennial workers [23]. Work engagement is described as a satisfying mental state related to work, distinguished by high energy. Engaged employees are confident and connected to their tasks [24] and persistent despite challenges. Leaders actively empower their employees by giving them autonomy, decision-making power, and ownership over their work; this significantly increases the likelihood of employees feeling engaged and motivated in their jobs. This approach helps employees feel more competent, autonomous, and confident in their ability to contribute to their work and the organization, fostering a meaningful connection with it.
According to social exchange theory (SET), reciprocal exchanges with the goal of maximizing benefits and minimizing costs drive social behavior [22]. In the workplace, this theory suggests that the relationship between leaders and employees is based on mutual exchanges. When leaders empower their employees, they create a sense of obligation in them to respond with positive behaviors, such as increased work engagement. Empowering leadership fosters trust and mutual respect, making employees feel valued and trusted, which motivates them to reciprocate with higher levels of engagement. Additionally, empowering leadership enhances employees’ psychological empowerment, including their feelings of competence, autonomy, and their impact, all of which contribute to higher work engagement [25]. Thus, a hypothesis is presented as follows:
H3: 
Empowerment leadership has a positive influence on work engagement.

2.5. Safety Motivation and Workers’ Unsafe Behavior

Unsafe behavior among electricity workers can lead to severe consequences, including accidents, injuries, and fatalities. Unintentional errors like slips, lapses, or mistakes often trigger accidents, despite their rarity. Pre-existing hazards or vulnerabilities within the system, frequently resulting from unsafe behaviors, typically enable these incidents [26]. Safety motivation, which encompasses employees’ intrinsic and extrinsic drives to adhere to safety protocols, plays a crucial role in promoting safe work behaviors. High amounts of safety motivation positively influence workers’ attitudes toward safety and their commitment to following established procedures, leading to safer behaviors. Conversely, low amounts of safety motivation can result in increased numbers of unsafe behaviors [27].
According to social exchange theory (SET), trust in the organization and its safety measures can motivate workers to follow safety guidelines. When workers believe that the organization genuinely cares about their safety, they are more likely to respond with safe behaviors [22]. On the other hand, low amounts of safety motivation can lead workers to perceive that the organization does not prioritize their safety, resulting in reduced compliance with safety protocols. This can increase the likelihood of unsafe behaviors, as workers might take shortcuts or engage in risky actions to save time or effort [26]. By leveraging social exchange theory (SET), organizations can better understand and address the factors that influence safety motivation, thereby reducing unsafe behaviors among electricity workers. In light of the preceding discussion, a hypothesis is stated as follows:
H4: 
Safety motivation has a negative influence on electricity workers’ unsafe behavior.

2.6. Work Engagement and Workers’ Unsafe Behavior

Effective leadership and employee engagement are essential for nurturing a competitive work environment and boosting organizational performance [24]. A positive and supportive leader executes a critical role in engaging and inspiring employees, leading to higher productivity and enthusiasm [28]. To create a competitive work environment that enhances organizational performance [24], employee engagement is crucial. Defined as “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” [29], employee engagement is a multidimensional concept that is essential for overall organizational success. Engaged employees are more focused and productive compared to those with low engagement levels. Leadership behavior significantly influences employee engagement. Positive and supportive leaders motivate employees, making them more productive, engaged, and enthusiastic about their work [28].
Conversely, toxic leadership negatively impacts employee engagement [30]. Social exchange theory, when applied to work engagement, suggests that employees are more likely to be engaged in their work when they perceive there being a fair exchange with their employer, meaning that they feel valued and supported by the organization [31]. For high levels of employee engagement, a mutual relationship between leaders and employees is necessary. Toxic leaders fail to establish this mutually beneficial relationship, resulting in disengaged employees. Without a supportive environment, employees feel less committed and are more likely to leave [29]. Supportive leaders who recognize employee contributions enhance engagement, while toxic leaders create psychological distress, leading to negative feelings and decreased work engagement [32]. Consequently, employees facing psychological distress are less likely to remain dedicated and engaged, increasing their intention to leave the organization [33]. Consequently, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H5: 
Work engagement has a negative influence on electricity workers’ unsafe behavior.

2.7. The Mediation Role of Safety Motivation

Empowerment leadership is a distinct leadership style that contrasts with traditional approaches. It focuses on the power-sharing process between leaders and subordinates [34]. This leadership style engages in nominating employees, thereby enhancing their autonomy, stimulating intrinsic motivation, and fostering both personal and organizational development. Empowerment leadership, at its core, encompasses a range of management behaviors that aim to share information and rights with employees [25]. This approach promotes psychological empowerment by providing employees with increased opportunities to participate in decision-making, thereby improving their self-efficacy and work performance.
Social exchange theory (SET) asserts that reciprocal exchanges form the foundation of relationships. In the context of workplace safety, when leaders empower their employees, it fosters a sense of obligation and trust. Employees, in turn, reciprocate by engaging in safe behaviors, thereby reducing unsafe actions. Research [35] has identified four dimensions of leadership-empowering behavior: the delegation of authority, participative decision-making, trust in subordinates, and strengthening the meaning of work.
Additionally, ref. [36] identified two core dimensions of empowerment leadership: independent support and development support. These dimensions help develop employees’ abilities, promote autonomy, encourage proactive opportunity-seeking, emphasize teamwork, set reasonable goals, and ultimately enhance safety motivation. According to social exchange theory (SET), the link between leadership and unsafe behavior is based on mutual trust and duty, and this increased safety motivation plays a key role in that relationship [37]. Building on the conceptual framework discussed, the following hypothesis is as presented:
H6: 
Safety motivation mediates the relationship between empowerment leadership and unsafe behavior.

2.8. The Mediation Role of Work Engagement

Empowering leadership is a participative style that involves beneficial actions and the delegation of authority to employees, distinguishing it from other leadership styles [36]. While transformational and charismatic leadership focus on leading and inspiring employees, laissez-faire leadership is characterized by a neglect of obligations and responsibilities. Empowerment and empowering leadership theories suggest that sharing and transferring power from leaders to employees reduces bureaucratic obstacles and feelings of powerlessness, delegates authority and responsibility, recognizes contributions, and fosters motivation. This context conceptualizes motivation as work engagement, a positive and satisfying mental state characterized by absorption, dedication, and vigor at work [24]. Dedication involves experiencing importance, challenges, pride, inspiration, and intense involvement in one’s work, while vigor is characterized by having the willingness to devote effort, being energetic and mentally resilient, and persevering in the face of problems [24]. Empirical studies demonstrate a correlation between work engagement and favorable results in terms of empowering leadership and preventing unsafe behavior. Better psychological health, enhanced work performance, and reduced turnover intention are just a few examples [38]. Therefore, enhancing work engagement through empowering leadership can mediate the relationship between unsafe behavior, leading to a range of positive outcomes. Therefore, this study puts forth the following hypothesis:
H7: 
Work engagement mediates the relationship between empowerment leadership and unsafe behavior.

2.9. The Moderation Role of the Error Management Climate

Researchers have indicated that the organizational climate shapes how individuals assess workplace safety [39,40]. Contextual factors can also affect the success of empowerment leadership. This paper proposes that the error management climate moderates the link between safety motivation and work engagement. Strong error management climate teams view errors as part of the learning process, promoting open communication and learning from mistakes. This encourages employees to express their views and discuss errors openly [41]. Empowering leaders support this developmental process by normalizing mistakes as a beneficial part of learning [40].
Thus, an error management climate can strengthen the influence of empowering leaders by enhancing employees’ safety behavior. SET suggests that empowering actions made by leaders can help employees improve their ability to obtain resources. This can lead employees to reciprocate by investing more resources into their work, positively impacting their work engagement. Conversely, in a weak error management climate that views errors negatively and emphasizes punishment and blame [42], employees tend to express themselves less freely, even when team leaders take responsibility for errors. A negative error management climate may hinder the impact of empowerment leadership and exacerbate unsafe behavior. As a result, this study hypothesizes the following hypotheses:
H8: 
A strong error management climate strengthens the positive relationship between sustainable empowerment leadership and safety motivation.
H9: 
A strong error management climate strengthens the positive relationship between sustainable empowerment leadership and work engagement.
H10: 
A weak error management climate weakens the negative relationship between sustainable empowerment leadership and work engagement.
The conceptual framework of the research, based on the above literature review, is illustrated in Figure 1.

3. Methods

3.1. Research Context

Job-related injuries and fatalities are a global issue that affects workers all over the world. However, mortality tends to be greater in developing countries and the Middle East [43]. Specifically, according to the Jordanian Labor Rights Centre, there is a concerning frequency of occupational injuries in the Jordanian labor market, with one occurring every 25 min [44]. Tragically, work injury-related deaths also occur at an alarming rate, with approximately one every two days [44]. However, some occupations carry a higher level of risk compared to others. While the majority of studies on employees’ unsafe behavior have focused on high-risk industries such as construction and mining [45], the literature has been silent regarding the electricity sector. Specifically, the electricity sector in Jordan is among the top three sectors with the most severe occupational injuries and fatalities [46]. This makes the Jordanian electricity sector an interesting research context for our study. Moreover, it is also important to comprehend the antecedents, the underlying mechanisms of unsafe work behavior, and the situational factors (such as the error management climate) aimed at reducing on-site accidents and fatalities.

3.2. Sampling Procedure and Data Collection

Data were collected from employees of electricity companies in the northern districts (Irbid and Mafraq), middle districts (Amman, Balqa, and Madaba), and southern districts (Aqaba and Tafilah) of the Kingdom of Jordan. The reason for selecting these districts is that most of the power companies are concentrated in Jordan. This research used Google Forms to distribute an online survey to the employees of electricity companies in Jordan. The Google Form platform enables the recruitment of respondents from across the Kingdom, which improves the results’ external validity. Additionally, due to the nature of our study which focused on sensitive management topics such as unsafe behavior, respondents recruited electronically were more inclined to provide honest and open responses. Before administering the formal survey, members of the research group took the necessary steps to ensure the reliability of the questionnaire data by reaching out to the human resource managers of the surveyed electricity companies. Voluntary participation was sought and it was stated that data collected from the survey will be used for academic purposes only. To minimize issues of common method bias, we administered surveys at three different time intervals, with a two-week gap between each administration [47]. Overall, data collection took place between February 2024 and April 2024.
First, we administered the questionnaires (at time T1) to obtain respondents’ demographic characteristics, error management climate, and also their experiences of empowerment leadership from their managers. Second, questionnaires were administered (at time T2) focusing on safety motivation and employee engagement. Third, questionnaires were administered regarding unsafe behavior (at time T3). Recent studies [45,47] have shown that a self-report measure is most likely to encourage honest responses from respondents engaging in counterproductive and unsafe work behaviors. More importantly, leaders might not be completely aware of the counterproductive behaviors their employees are engaging in [45] because such behaviors can be intentionally hidden from the leaders [48]. Based on this, we used self-report measures to assess unsafe behavior.
A total of 627 questionnaires were administered through the simple random sampling method and 409 valid responses were retained, yielding a response rate of 65.23%., congruent with the recommendation of [49] that the minimum suitable sample size should be five times the number of the measurement items. This study has 27 measurement items; thus, a minimum of 135 respondents is needed for suitable analysis. Accordingly, this study’s sample size is considered to be suitable. The demographic characteristics of the respondents are illustrated in Table 1. Moreover, a total of 21 electricity offices were randomly selected, which collectively employed 1405 individuals. We then employed the Slovin formula (a well-known formula for determining sample size) to determine the suitable size of 403. A recent study [50] used this formula to establish a suitable sample for their study.
n = N 1 + N ( e ) 2
n = 1405 1 + 1405 × { 0.05 } 2
N = 311
Over 98% (403) of the respondents were males, 1.47% (6) were females. Based on educational qualification, 67.97% (278) of the respondents had at least a master’s degree. Based on age, those who were less than 25 years old account for 4.40% of respondents (18), those who were 25–34 years old account for 30.81% (126), those who were 35–44 years old account for 54.03% (221), those who were 45–54 years old account for 7.82%, and those who were 55 years old or older account for 2.94% (12). Regarding respondents’ marital statuses, those who were single account for 41.81% of respondents (171), those who were married account for 46.21% (189), and those who were divorced account for 11.98% (49). According to the work experience of the respondents, most of the respondents, 91.69% (375), had at least 5 years of working experience.

3.3. Survey Items

Empowerment leadership was measured with 7 items adopted from references [34,35]. A survey item was “My leader makes many decisions together with me”. Safety motivation was measured with 3 items adopted from reference [20]. A survey item was “I feel that it is worthwhile to put effort to keep and improve personal safety”. Work engagement was measured with 5 items adopted from reference [29]. A survey item was “At my work, I feel bursting with energy”. The error management climate was measured with 7 items adopted from Van Dyck et al. [42]. An item was “Our errors point us at what we can improve”. Unsafe behavior was measured with 5 items adopted from Chen et al. [15]. One item was “I ignore safety regulations to get the job done”.

4. Results

4.1. Common Method Bias and Non-Response Bias

Due to the cross-sectional nature of this study’s research design, it is important to check for normal distribution, non-response bias, common method bias, and multicollinearity. We checked the data collected for a normal distribution. The assessment of normality was conducted by evaluating the skewness and kurtosis values. Skewness values should range from ±2, and kurtosis values should range from ±3. Skewness values were between (−0.016 and −0.967) and kurtosis values were between (−0.009 and −1.552), indicating that the data follows a normal distribution [51].
The non-response test that was conducted revealed no significant differences between early and late responses. Congruent with this result, no potential issues of non-response bias were found in the data collected.
This research employed procedural and statistical analysis techniques to prevent common method bias issues. For a procedural remedy, all the measurement items representing the construct under observation were well-established scales in the literature. Furthermore, the constructs and the measurement items were organized in a manner that would make it difficult for the respondent to engage in theoretical speculation. We employed Harman’s single-factor test and the marker variable procedure for statistical analyses. Harman’s single-factor test revealed that the first factor accounted for 27.81% of the total variation, which falls below the threshold of 50%. This suggests that common method bias is not a major concern in our study. A theoretically unrelated variable was included in the survey for the marker variable procedure. The unrelated marker variable had correlation coefficients of less than 0.05 with the main constructs of this study. This procedure was recently employed by reference [52,53]. The result suggests that common method bias is not an issue in our study [54].
Furthermore, to assess the presence of multicollinearity, we computed the variance inflation factor (VIF), and it was discovered that the VIF values were less than 5. This result suggests that multicollinearity is not a concern in our dataset [51].

4.2. Measurement Model

Using AMOS 24.0, we computed the study measurement of the model’s internal consistency and construct validity. Specifically, AMOS was used to examine the reliability of the scales and their factor structure, the covariance relationships between the variables, the discriminant validity, and the convergent validity of each dimension. Table 2 depicts the measurement model assessment results. The composite reliability (CR) values for each construct were greater than 0.7 (from 0.788 to 0.943), and the square multiple correlation was greater than 0.2. Thus, the measurement items are reliable. In addition, Cronbach’s alpha values were higher than 0.7 (from 0.786 to 0.942). Thus, all constructs in this study show sufficient reliability [55].
Convergent validity measures the extent to which the items measuring a variable are correlated to each other. Following reference [49]’s recommendation, measurement items with t-values higher than 1.96 and factor loadings higher than 0.6 should be retained. Table 2 and Figure 2 depicts that all items are significantly loaded on the underlying variables with t-values greater than (1.96, p < 0.001) and standardized factor loadings higher than 0.6 (from 0.601 to 0.920). Further, following reference [56]’s recommendation that average variance extracted (AVE) values should be at least 0.5, the AVE values were between 0.554 and 0.706. Given the results obtained by this study, the internal consistency of all the variables in the research framework was ensured.
The test of discriminant validity was conducted based on the criterion that requires a minimum of seventy-five percent (75%) of the comparison to be explained by the construct in each dimension. Specifically, we compared the square root of AVE values to nearby correlation coefficients [57]. In this research article, as depicted in Table 3, the values of the square root of AVE values were between 0.777 and 0.840 and the values were higher than the nearby correlation coefficient. Taken together, the variables in the research framework demonstrated strong validity and high reliability.
Furthermore, the overall fit of the research model was assessed using the CFA. Following reference [56]’s recommendation, (X/df = <3, CFI, TLI and NFI > 0.9, RMSEA < 0.08 and GFI > 0.8). The results of the model fit obtained (CFI = 0.962, TLI = 0.958, NFI = 0.966, RMSEA = 0.058, and 0.902) signify a fit between the integrated theoretical model and the sample data collected.

4.3. Hypotheses Testing: Direct Paths and Indirect Paths

This research article adopts the PROCESS macro to test the direct and indirect paths as demonstrated in Figure 1. Specifically, we adopt Model 4 of the Hayes PROCESS macro to examine the parallel mediation relationships. Hypothesis 1 proposes that empowerment leadership negatively influences electricity workers’ unsafe behavior. Table 3 demonstrates a negative relationship between empowerment leadership and electricity workers’ unsafe behavior (Estimate = −0.143, t = −3.465, p < 0.001). Empowerment positively influences safety motivation (Estimate = 0.414, t = 12.834, p < 0.001). Safety motivation negatively influences electricity workers’ unsafe behavior (Estimate = −0.392, t = −6.971, p < 0.001). Empowerment leadership positively influences employee engagement (Estimate = 0.503, t = 11.169, p < 0.001). Employee engagement negatively influences electricity workers’ unsafe behavior (Estimate = −0.119, t = −2.965, p < 0.01). Thus, we found support for H1–H5.
After testing the direct paths hypotheses, we moved on to examining the parallel mediation. H4 and H5 proposed that safety motivation and work engagement mediate the relationship between empowerment leadership and employee engagement. To this end, we adopted a four-step procedure to examine the mediating role of safety motivation and employee engagement. In step one, we examined the influence of empowerment leadership on electricity workers’ unsafe behavior (H1); thus, the first condition is satisfied. Second, we examined the influence of empowerment leadership on safety motivation (H2), indicating that the second condition is satisfied. Third, we examined the influence of safety motivation on electricity workers’ unsafe behavior (H3), implying that the third condition is satisfied. With the inclusion of safety motivation as a mediator in the fourth step, the direct influence of empowerment leadership on electricity workers’ unsafe behavior remained significant. Hence, a partial mediation is observed. Following the same mediation procedures, empowerment leadership influences employee engagement (H4). Employee engagement influences electricity workers’ unsafe behavior (H5). With the inclusion of employee engagement as a mediator, the direct influence of empowerment leadership on electricity workers’ unsafe behavior also remained significant. Considering these results, we found support for H6 and H7.
Taken together, we further employed the bootstrapping procedure using 5000 resamples with a 95% confidence interval to obtain robust results for the mediation analyses. The results confirm the mediating roles of safety motivation (Estimate = −0.112, CI [−0.218, −0.041]) and employee engagement (Estimate = −0.022, CI [−0.104, −0.022]). The significance of the indirect effect was determined based on whether zero lies between the confidence intervals. Thus, we found further support for H6 and H7. It is worth noting that the effect sizes (as demonstrated in Table 4) reduce in the presence of the mediators.

4.4. Hypotheses Testing: Conditional Direct Effects (Moderating Effects)

For the moderation hypotheses (H7–H10), we adopt Model 8 of the Hayes PROCESS macro. In doing so, we investigated the conditional direct effect of the error management climate on the relationships between empowerment leadership and safety motivation, empowerment leadership and work engagement, and empowerment leadership and electricity workers’ unsafe behavior. In the model, age, marital status, and education were included as covariates. Following recent studies [58], before examining the moderation hypotheses, the variables were mean-centered to minimize issues of multicollinearity. The findings of the moderation analysis are demonstrated in Table 5.
Table 5 (Model 1) demonstrates that empowerment leadership positively influences safety motivation (Estimate = 0.703, t = 8.202, CI [0.535, 0.872]), and the error management climate moderates this relationship (Estimate = 0.141, t = 4.930, CI [0.084, 0.196]). As proposed in H8, the relationship between empowerment leadership and safety motivation was further strengthened at higher levels of a stronger error management climate. To completely comprehend the form of the interaction effect (empowerment leadership x error management climate on safety motivation), a simple slope test of the moderating effect of error management climate was plotted. Figure 3 illustrates the levels of error management climates (i.e., +1 SD above the mean, at the mean, and −1 SD below the mean). Specifically, the relationship between empowerment leadership and safety motivation (Estimate = 0.443, t = 10.565, <0.001) is stronger when the error management climate is strong and weaker but also insignificant when the error management climate is weak (Estimate = 0.061, t = 1.017, >0.05), showing validation for H8.
Table 5 (Model 2) demonstrates that empowerment leadership positively influences work enjoyment (Estimate = 0.431, t = 6.892, CI [0.308, 0.553]), and the error management climate moderates this relationship (Estimate = 0.104, t = 5.008, CI [0.063, 0.145]). As stated in H9, the relationship between empowerment leadership and employee engagement was further strengthened at higher levels of a stronger error management climate. A simple slope test was plotted for the moderating effect of the error management climate. Figure 4 illustrates the levels of error management climates (i.e., +1 SD above the mean, at the mean, and −1 SD below the mean). Specifically, the relationship between empowerment leadership and work engagement (Estimate = 0.238, t = 7.783, <0.001) is stronger when the error management climate is strong and weaker but also insignificant when the error management climate is weak (Estimate = 0.045, t = 1.015, >0.05), offering support for H9.
Finally, Table 5 (Model 3) demonstrates that empowerment leadership negatively influences electricity workers’ unsafe behavior (Estimate = −0.546, t = −5.147, CI [−0.396, −0.099]), and the error management climate did not moderate this relationship (Estimate = −0.032, t = 0.059, CI [−0.069, 0.011]). Thus, we found no support for H10.

5. Discussion

The findings of this study provide new insights into how leadership behaviors, particularly empowerment leadership, can influence safety outcomes in high-risk industries such as that of electricity. By exploring the moderating role of the error management climate and the mediating roles of safety motivation and work engagement, this research contributes to the growing literature on leadership and workplace safety.
The results indicate that empowerment leadership has a direct influence on unsafe behavior without strong leadership, which aligns with previous studies that have emphasized the importance of leadership in promoting safety compliance and participation. Recent research by reference [59] in the mining industry found that safety leadership not only influences compliance with safety regulations but also fosters voluntary safety participation, further enhancing safety performance. This finding reinforces the role of empowerment leadership in fostering a sense of ownership and responsibility among employees, encouraging them to adhere to safety protocols and avoid unsafe behaviors.
Moreover, this study supports the notion that empowerment leadership motivates employees by providing autonomy and fostering a supportive environment, as previously suggested by [60]. This empowerment leads to higher organizational commitment and a proactive approach to safety, reducing the occurrence of unsafe behaviors in high-risk environments.
Safety motivation emerged as a key mediator in the relationship between empowerment leadership and unsafe behavior. This finding is consistent with the work of reference [61], who demonstrated that leadership behaviors influence employee safety behaviors by fostering a safety-oriented mindset. The current study confirms that when leaders empower their employees, they are more likely to engage in safety practices and avoid risky behaviors due to increased safety motivation.
In addition, work engagement plays a significant mediating role. Engaged employees, as found in this study, are more likely to adopt safe behaviors and remain committed to workplace safety. This finding aligns with research by reference [62], which highlights that work engagement fosters a sense of dedication and absorption in tasks, leading to safer work practices. The present study adds to the literature by demonstrating that empowerment leadership enhances work engagement, which in turn reduces unsafe behaviors.
One of the novel contributions of this study is the exploration of the error management climate as a moderating variable. The results show that a positive error management climate enhances the effects of empowerment leadership on both safety motivation and work engagement. This is consistent with findings from reference [59], who emphasized that psychological safety and an open climate for discussing errors amplify the positive impact of leadership on safety outcomes.
However, the lack of significant moderation in the direct relationship between empowerment leadership and unsafe behavior suggests that while the error management climate is important, it may not be sufficient to directly influence unsafe behavior without strong leadership. This highlights the importance of both leadership behaviors and the organizational climate in fostering a culture of safety. Ref. [63] similarly emphasized the need for effective leadership to drive safety behaviors, regardless of the surrounding climate.

6. Conclusions

6.1. Theoretical Contributions

This study aims to enrich the literature by providing theoretical insights into empowerment leadership, safety motivation, and workplace behavior, particularly in high-risk environments like the electricity sector. The primary contribution of this research lies in connecting empowerment leadership theory to safety motivation frameworks, filling critical gaps in understanding, and offering a more nuanced perspective on how leadership behaviors influence safety outcomes. Grounded in social exchange theory (SET), this research proposes that workplace relationships are built on reciprocal exchanges, fostering trust and commitment [9]. This study extends SET by exploring how empowerment leadership affects safety behavior in high-risk settings [36]. It suggests that when employees feel empowered to make decisions, their sense of responsibility increases, leading to safer behavior.
While previous studies have examined how leadership impacts engagement and commitment, this research goes further by exploring how the combination of empowerment leadership and safety motivation reduces unsafe behaviors in the electricity sector [5]. Additionally, it includes the error management climate as a contextual factor, demonstrating how it moderates the impact of leadership on safety outcomes. The study addresses a significant gap in research, as the role of empowerment leadership in the electricity sector—a high-risk industry—has been understudied compared to sectors like construction and mining [3]. This research specifically investigates the effect of empowerment leadership on safety motivation and behavior in Jordanian electricity companies. It also highlights the moderating role of the error management climate, a factor that has received little attention in previous studies [8].
This research is novel in its use of a multi-moderated mediation model that integrates empowerment leadership, safety motivation, work engagement, and the error management climate. This model offers a more complex understanding of how leadership influences safety behavior in high-risk environments. Although leadership styles and workplace safety have been widely studied, few studies have examined both mediation and moderation effects simultaneously. The inclusion of the error management climate as a moderating variable is particularly innovative, showing that an environment where mistakes are viewed as learning opportunities enhances the positive effects of empowerment leadership [41].
This study advances the conceptual framework of empowerment leadership by demonstrating that leadership alone is insufficient to promote safe behaviors. Safety motivation and engagement act as mediators in the relationship between leadership and safety outcomes. The research shows that in environments with a positive error management climate, empowerment leadership is more effective in fostering safety motivation and reducing unsafe behaviors [4]. By integrating these factors into a single model, this study offers a more comprehensive view of how leadership can improve workplace safety in high-risk industries.

6.2. Practical and Managerial Implications

The findings of this study have significant practical and managerial implications for electricity companies, safety managers, and industry regulators, especially in high-risk industries like those of electric power. This study underlines the importance of empowerment leadership, safety motivation, and the error management climate in reducing unsafe behavior and provides insights for leadership practices and organizational efforts to enhance workplace safety.
Companies should focus on leadership development programs targeting the empowerment of leadership. The findings show that empowerment leadership influences safety behavior both directly and indirectly by influencing respect for people, a factor that is also influenced by employees’ roles within organizations. To help leaders develop their empowerment skills, training should focus on delegating decision rights to balance the load and capability among employees with a structured process that enhances safe work behavior. Practical workshops should also be part of leadership training, ensuring that empowerment strategies maintain a focus on workplace safety.
Safety motivation plays a critical role as it links the influence of leadership with safe behavior. Therefore, safety managers should implement initiatives that involve intrinsic or extrinsic reinforcement around safe practices. By integrating empowerment leadership with safety motivation interventions, organizations can facilitate high levels of employee compliance with safe work practices as well as voluntary involvement in safety behaviors. Safety recognition programs, which acknowledge employees for their commitment and adherence to safety guidelines over time, can achieve this, further supporting positive safety behaviors.
According to the authors, a supportive error management climate would enhance the effectiveness of empowerment leadership. This study finds evidence that a positive error management climate strengthens the effects of empowerment leadership on safety motivation [41]. To establish such a culture, organizations should promote open communication about mistakes and errors without punishment. Organizations can implement this change by creating and utilizing error-reporting systems that prioritize learning over blame. Training programs should also help leaders become comfortable with acknowledging their mistakes and treating them as learning opportunities, which can build an environment of trust where people are no longer afraid or embarrassed to speak up.
Although this study is specific to the electricity sector in Jordan, it has considerable implications for other high-risk industries like construction, manufacturing, and mining. Worker autonomy and engagement are keys to productivity, quality practices, and safety outcomes in such sectors, where leadership styles that are appropriate for these effects can significantly prevail [3]. Industry regulators, in collaboration with companies, should encourage policies or programs for empowerment leadership to enhance the safety performance of industries. This can ultimately lead to fewer accidents, injuries, and fatalities at work, benefiting employee well-being as well as organizational efficiency.
Finally, businesses need to assess the effectiveness of their leadership and safety programs. Regularly monitoring employee safety behavior performance, leadership function, and workplace climate can accomplish this. According to reference [5], tracking metrics such as accident rates, near-miss reports, and employee safety engagement is imperative in determining whether the strategies have been successful. Organizations that use real-time data to continually assess and adapt their safety programs as well as leadership training and development initiatives will have a better chance of remaining effective in keeping workers safe.

6.3. Limitations and Future Studies

Although this study offers several valuable findings regarding the relationship between empowerment leadership, safety motivation, work engagement, and unsafe behaviors in the electricity sector, there are some limitations. First, the cross-sectional study design does not allow for inferring causality. While the results show significant correlations, the absence of longitudinal data limits the ability to fully understand how these relationships evolve over time. To better capture the dynamic relationship between leadership behaviors and safety outcomes, future studies should use a longitudinal approach. Another limitation is the reliance on the self-assessment of variables such as safety motivation and unsafe behavior, which may lead to reporting bias, as people may under-report unsafe behaviors or over-report positive traits. Despite procedural safeguards like time-lagged data collection and statistical checks for common method bias, there is still a possibility of social desirability bias. Future research should incorporate more objective validation measures, such as third-party observations or company safety records, alongside self-reports.
Additionally, this study did not account for other organizational factors beyond the error management climate, such as organizational culture or leadership styles like transformational and transactional leadership, which could act as moderators. Future research should investigate how these factors interact with empowerment leadership and safety motivation to provide a more comprehensive understanding of leadership’s role in promoting safe behaviors. Lastly, while this study offers practical implications for leadership development, it does not assess the long-term impact of implementing empowerment leadership on safety performance. Future research should evaluate the long-term outcomes of leadership interventions and whether the benefits of empowerment leadership in promoting safety behaviors persist over time.

Author Contributions

Writing—original draft, A.A. (Ali Arhim); supervision, A.A. (Ahmad Alzubi); project administration K.I. and F.U.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the University of Mediterranean Karpasia.

Informed Consent Statement

All participants in this study provided their informed consent.

Data Availability Statement

The data from this study can be requested from the conservation of resources theory corresponding author, Ahmad Alzubi.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Baby, T.; Madhu, G.; Renjith, V.R. Occupational electrical accidents: Assessing the role of personal and safety climate factors. Saf. Sci. 2021, 139, 105229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Sandri, S.; Hussein, H.; Alshyab, N. Sustainability of the energy sector in Jordan: Challenges and opportunities. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Meng, Q.; Liu, W.; Li, Z.; Hu, X. Influencing factors, mechanism and prevention of construction workers’ unsafe behaviors: A systematic literature review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Amundsen, S.; Martinsen, Ø.L. Empowering leadership: Construct clarification, conceptualization, and validation of a new scale. Leadersh. Q. 2014, 25, 487–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Decuypere, A.; Schaufeli, W. Leadership and work engagement: Exploring explanatory mechanisms. Ger. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2020, 34, 69–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Liu, Y. The review of empowerment leadership. Open J. Bus. Manag. 2015, 3, 476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Derdowski, L.A.; Mathisen, G.E. Psychosocial factors and safety in high-risk industries: A systematic literature review. Saf. Sci. 2023, 157, 105948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Zhang, J.; Xie, C.; Wang, J.; Morrison, A.M.; Coca-Stefaniak, J.A. Responding to a major global crisis: The effects of hotel safety leadership on employee safety behavior during COVID-19. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 32, 3365–3389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Gouldner, A.W. The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1960, 25, 161–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Laurent, J.; Chmiel, N.; Hansez, I. Returning the favor? Feeling obliged and reported participation in discretionary safety activities. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 674110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Amonodin, M.R.; Rahim, N.S.A.; Wahab, S.R.A. Relationship Between Transformational Leadership and Safety Citizenship Behaviour in Manufacturing Industry. Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2018, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Wu, L.Z.; Sun, Z.; Ye, Y.; Kwan, H.K.; Yang, M. The impact of exploitative leadership on frontline hospitality employees’ service performance: A social exchange perspective. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 96, 102954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Lyubykh, Z.; Gulseren, D.; Turner, N.; Barling, J.; Seifert, M. Shared transformational leadership and safety behaviours of employees, leaders, and teams: A multilevel investigation. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2022, 95, 431–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Mak, C.K.; Li, R.Y.M. How Does Social Exchange Theory, Perceived Organizational Support and Leader-Member Exchange Affect Construction Practitioners’ Perception on Construction Safety? An Asymmetric Information Approach. In Construction Safety: Economics and Informatics Perspectives; Springer Nature: Singapore, 2022; pp. 1–26. [Google Scholar]
  15. Chen, T.; Hu, W.; Li, H. The effect of empowering leadership on miners’ unsafe behavior: A cross-level chain mediation model. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2023, 29, 1345–1357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Glendon, A.I.; Litherland, D.K. Safety climate factors, group differences and safety behaviour in road construction. Saf. Sci. 2001, 39, 157–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Tang, B.; Guo, S.; Li, J.; Lu, W. Exploring the risk transmission characteristics among unsafe behaviors within urban railway construction accidents. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2022, 28, 443–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Xia, N.; Xie, Q.; Griffin, M.A.; Ye, G.; Yuan, J. Antecedents of safety behavior in construction: A literature review and an integrated conceptual framework. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2020, 148, 105834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Wang, C.; Wang, J.; Wang, X.; Yu, H.; Bai, L.; Sun, Q. Exploring the impacts of factors contributing to unsafe behavior of coal miners. Saf. Sci. 2019, 115, 339–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Neal, A.F.; Griffin, M.A.; Hart, P.D. The impact of organizational climate on safety climate and individual behaviour. Saf. Sci. 2000, 34, 99–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Chen, C.F.; Chen, S.C. Investigating the effects of job demands and job resources on cabin crew safety behaviors. Tour. Manag. 2014, 41, 45–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hobfoll, S.E. Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. Am. Psychol. 1989, 44, 513–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Wen, J.; Huang, S.S.; Teo, S. Effect of empowering leadership on work engagement via psychological empowerment: Moderation of cultural orientation. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2023, 54, 88–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Bakker, A.B. The social psychology of work engagement: State of the field. Career Dev. Int. 2022, 27, 36–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Alif, M.I.; Nastiti, T. Empowering leadership in creativity and work-effort: An elucidation through the psychological empowerment and self-leadership of the millennials generation. Gadjah Mada Int. J. Bus. 2022, 24, 269–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Al-Bayati, A.J. Impact of construction safety culture and construction safety climate on safety behavior and safety motivation. Safety 2021, 7, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Khan, S.B.; Proverbs, D.G.; Xiao, H. The motivation of operatives in small construction firms towards health and safety–A conceptual framework. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2022, 29, 245–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Serrano, S.A.; Reichard, R.J. Leadership strategies for an engaged workforce. Consult. Psychol. J. Pract. Res. 2011, 63, 176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Schaufeli, W.B.; Bakker, A.B. Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial. Occup. Organ. Psychol. Behav. 2004, 25, 293–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Moss, A.D.; Generation, Y. An Exploratory Study of Worker Experiences, Values and Attitudes in the Federal Government. 2011. Available online: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/etdarchive/210/ (accessed on 14 May 2024).
  31. Nagpal, P. Organizational commitment as an outcome of employee engagement: A social exchange perceptive using a SEM model. Int. J. Biol. Pharm. Allied Sci. 2022, 11, 72–86. [Google Scholar]
  32. Naeem, F.; Khurram, S. Influence of toxic leadership on turnover intention: The mediating role of psychological wellbeing and employee engagement. Pak. J. Commer. Soc. Sci. 2020, 14, 682–713. [Google Scholar]
  33. Hobfoll, S.E. The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Appl. Psychol. 2001, 50, 337–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Vecchio, R.P.; Justin, J.E.; Pearce, C.L. Empowering leadership: An examination of mediating mechanisms within a hierarchical structure. Leadersh. Q. 2010, 21, 530–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ahearne, M.; Mathieu, J.; Rapp, A. To empower or not to empoweryour sales force? An empirical examination of the influence of leadership empowerment behavior on customer satisfaction and performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 2005, 90, 945–955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Amundsen, S.; Martinsen, Ø.L. Linking empowering leadership to job satisfaction, work effort, and creativity: The role of self-leadership and psychological empowerment. J. Leadersh. Organ. Stud. 2015, 22, 304–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ye, P.; Liu, L.; Tan, J. Influence of leadership empowering behavior on employee innovation behavior: The moderating effect of personal development support. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 1022377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Christensen, C.M.; McDonald, R.; Altman, E.J.; Palmer, J.E. Disruptive innovation: An intellectual history and directions for future research. J. Manag. Stud. 2018, 55, 1043–1078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Mearns, K.J.; Flin, R. Assessing the state of organizational safety—Culture or climate? Curr. Psychol. 1999, 18, 5–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Owens, B.P.; Hekman, D.R. Modeling how to grow: An inductive examination of humble leader behaviors, contingencies, and outcomes. Acad. Manag. J. 2012, 55, 787–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Rupert, J.; Homan, A.C.; Jehn, K.A.; Blomme, R.J. Diversity composition and team learning: The moderating role of error culture. Group Decis. Negot. 2019, 28, 695–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Van Dyck, C.; Frese, M.; Baer, M.; Sonnentag, S. Organizational error management culture and its impact on performance: A two-study replication. J. Appl. Psychol. 2005, 90, 1228–1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. International Labour Organization. ILO Introductory Report: Global Trends and Challenges on Occupational Safety and Health; International Labour Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  44. Jordan Times. Workplace Injuries Occur Once Every 25 Minutes in Jordan, Report Reveals. 2023. Available online: https://www.jordantimes.com (accessed on 12 June 2024).
  45. Xin, Z.; Hai, S.; Ni, Y.; Zhou, B.; Guo, T. Work drains them, family heals them: How and when interpersonal conflicts at work drive unsafe behavior in the high-risk industry? Saf. Sci. 2024, 178, 106629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Al-Abdallat, E.M.; Oqailan, A.M.A.; Al Ali, R.; Hudaib, A.A.; Salameh, G.A. Occupational fatalities in Jordan. J. Forensic Leg. Med. 2015, 29, 25–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Guo, T.; Shang, S.; Wang, M.; Sun, P. Job insecurity and unsafe behavior: Exploring curvilinear and moderated relationships. Int. J. Stress Manag. 2023, 30, 84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Ju, D.; Qin, X.; Xu, M.; DiRenzo, M.S. Boundary conditions of the emotional exhaustion-unsafe behavior link: The dark side of group norms and personal control. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 2016, 33, 113–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Bentler, P.M.; Wu, E.J. EQS/Windows User’s Guide (BMDP Statistical Software); BMDP Statistical Software: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  50. Aboalhool, T.; Alzubi, A.; Iyiola, K. Humane Entrepreneurship in the Circular Economy: The Role of Green Market Orientation and Green Technology Turbulence for Sustainable Corporate Performance. Sustainability 2024, 16, 2517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Hair, J.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.; Prentice-Hall Publication: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  52. Abuzawida, S.S.; Alzubi, A.B.; Iyiola, K. Sustainable supply chain practices: An empirical investigation from the manufacturing industry. Sustainability 2023, 15, 14395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ramadhan, A.; Iyiola, K.; Alzubi, A.B. Linking absorptive capacity to project success via mediating role of customer knowledge management capability: The role of environmental complexity. Bus. Process Manag. J. 2024, 30, 939–962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Lindell, M.K.; Whitney, D.J. Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. J. Appl. Psychol. 2001, 86, 114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Jöreskog, K.G.; Sörbom, D. LISREL 7: A Guide to the Program and Applications. (No Title). 1989. Available online: https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1130282272454199680 (accessed on 12 June 2024).
  56. Bagozzi, R.P.; Yi, Y. On the evaluation of structural equation models. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1988, 16, 74–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Hair Jr, J.F.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L.; Black, W.C. Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed.; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  58. Al Tera, A.; Alzubi, A.; Iyiola, K. Supply chain digitalization and performance: A moderated mediation of supply chain visibility and supply chain survivability. Heliyon 2024, 10, e25584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Quansah, P.E.; Zhu, Y.; Guo, M. Assessing the effects of safety leadership, employee engagement, and psychological safety on safety performance. J. Saf. Res. 2023, 86, 226–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Alidrisi, H.M.; Mohamed, S. Developing a personal leadership competency model for safety managers: A systems thinking approach. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 2197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Samuelsson, A.U.; Larsman, P.; Grill, M. For the sake of safety: A time-lagged study investigating the relationships between perceived leadership behaviors and employee safety behaviors. Saf. Sci. 2023, 166, 106245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Sauri, S.; Setiadi, P.B.; Rahayu, S. Application of Safety Performance based on Job Involvement, Personality, and Learning Organization on the child of PT. ASDP Indonesia Ferry Surabaya. Dinasti Int. J. Educ. Manag. Soc. Sci. 2022, 3, 803–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Bernabé, M.; Revert, I.F.; Prieto, Á.R. The Contribution of Leadership to Safety. Dyna 2023, 98, 222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 10732 g001
Figure 1. Research model.
Figure 1. Research model.
Sustainability 16 10732 g001
Sustainability 16 10732 g002
Figure 2. Measurement model (CFA results).
Figure 2. Measurement model (CFA results).
Sustainability 16 10732 g002
Sustainability 16 10732 g003
Figure 3. Interaction of empowerment leadership and error management climate on safety knowledge.
Figure 3. Interaction of empowerment leadership and error management climate on safety knowledge.
Sustainability 16 10732 g003
Sustainability 16 10732 g004
Figure 4. Interaction of empowerment leadership and error management climate on work engagement.
Figure 4. Interaction of empowerment leadership and error management climate on work engagement.
Sustainability 16 10732 g004
Table 1. Survey participant information.
Table 1. Survey participant information.
GenderItemsNumberPercentage (%)
Male40398.53
Female61.47
Education
High school/Technical school13132.03
Masters27767.73
PhD10.24
Age (years)
Less than 25184.40
25–3412630.81
35–4422154.03
45–54327.82
55 or higher122.94
Marital status
Single17141.81
Married18946.21
Divorced4911.98
Experience (years)
Less than 5348.31
5–109924.21
11–1510525.67
16–2014936.43
Above 20225.38
Table 2. Measurement model.
Table 2. Measurement model.
VariablesItem IDStandardized Estimate (Factor Loadings)t-ValuesαCRAVESkewnessKurtosis
Empowerment leadership 0.9420.9430.706
EL10.68315.555 *** −0.653−0.491
EL20.90822.907 *** −0.630−0.926
EL30.86322.143 *** −0.318−1.248
EL40.91224.286 *** −0.617−0.930
EL50.79223.631 *** −0.481−1.099
EL60.85631.685 *** −0.556−1.040
EL70.844- −0.555−1.061
Safety motivation 0.7860.7880.554
SM10.750- −0.705−0.009
SM20.76713.984 *** −0.514−0.759
SM30.71513.188 *** −0.692−0.134
Work engagement 0.9120.9110.675
WE10.73816.251 *** −0.279−1.552
WE20.71416.666 *** −0.309−1.176
WE30.88823.421 *** −0.248−1.459
WE40.91524.717 *** −0.161−1.487
WE50.833- −0.125−1.247
Error management climate 0.9290.9120.603
EMC10.90916.372 *** −0.139−1.499
EMC20.92016.524 *** −0.016−1.526
EMC30.85915.620 *** −0.026−1.252
EMC40.75716.032 *** −0.129−1.400
EMC50.60114.338 *** −0.539−0.448
EMC60.65921.280 *** −0.100−1.428
EMC70.667- −0.127−1.407
Electricity workers’ unsafe behavior 0.9160.9160.687
EWUB10.807- −0.967−0.235
EWUB20.86519.967 *** −0.933−0.293
EWUB30.86419.927 *** −0.864−0.063
EWUB40.83117.442 *** −0.7890.030
EWUB50.77417.139 *** −0.7960.204
Note: α = Cronbach’s alpha; EL = empowerment leadership; SM = safety motivation; WE = work engagement; EMC = error management climate; EWUB = electricity workers’ unsafe behavior; *** = p < 0.001; CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation, and discriminant validity.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation, and discriminant validity.
ConstructMeanStd.ELSMWEEMCEWUBAgeMarital StatusEdu
EL4.1290.7110.840
SM3.8670.9230.536 **0.744
WE3.7710.8860.483 **0.553 **0.822
EMC3.1991.1350.416 **0.487 **0.595 **0.777
EWUB3.7780.9960.440 **0.540 **0.434 **0.431 **0.829
Age2.4601.652−0.0510.0600.0240.0900.011-
Marital status1.8271.2270.0690.0710.0590.0300.0360.055-
Edu1.9011.3050.0870.0620.0670.0990.0380.0070.063-
Note: The diagonal elements (in bold) represent the square root of the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) for each construct. Values below the diagonal are the inter-construct correlations. Values marked with ** indicate significance at the p < 0.01 level.
Table 4. Direct and mediation analyses.
Table 4. Direct and mediation analyses.
Direct PathsEstimateS. Et-Value95% CI
LLUL		Type of Mediation
H1: Empowerment leadership on electricity workers’ unsafe behavior−0.1430.041−3.465 ***−0.224−0.062-
H2: Empowerment leadership on safety motivation0.4140.03212.834 ***0.3510.478-
H3: Safety motivation on electricity workers’ unsafe behavior−0.3920.035−6.971 ***−0.386−0.088-
H4: Empowerment leadership on work engagement0.5030.04511.169 ***0.4150.592-
H5: Work engagement on electricity workers’ unsafe behavior−0.1190.040−2.965 **−0.198−0.043-
Indirect paths (mediation analysis of safety motivation and work engagement on the relationship between empowerment leadership and electricity workers’ unsafe behavior)
Bootstrapping test
(5000 samples)		Boot
Estimate		Boot
S.E		 Boot
LL		Boot
UL
H6: Empowerment leadership on electricity workers’ unsafe behavior through safety motivation−0.1120.028 −0.218−0.041Partial
H7: Empowerment leadership on electricity workers’ unsafe behavior through work engagement−0.0220.021 −0.104−0.022Partial
LL = lower level; UL = upper level; S. E = standard error; confidence interval = confidence interval; *** = p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01.
Table 5. Moderation analysis.
Table 5. Moderation analysis.
M1: Mediator Variable; Safety MotivationEstimatesS.Et-Value95% CI
LLUL
Constant0.3260.2981.092 (ns)−0.2610.912
Empowerment leadership0.7030.0868.202 ***0.5350.872
Error management climate0.7630.1087.063 ***0.5510.975
H8: Empowerment leadership x error management climate0.1410.0294.930 ***0.0840.196
R20.407 ***
Conditional direct effect of empowerment leadership on safety motivation at different degrees of error management climate
−1 SD below the mean (Low)0.0610.0601.017 (ns)−0.0570.180
Mean0.2220.0375.954 ***0.1490.295
+1 SD above the mean (High)0.4430.04210.565 ***0.3600.525
M2: Mediator; work engagement
Constant−1.2150.217−5.587 ***−1.642−0.788
Empowerment leadership0.4310.0636.892 ***0.3080.553
Error management climate1.2850.07916.325 ***1.1301.440
H9: Empowerment leadership x error management climate0.1040.0215.008 ***0.0630.145
R20.826 ***
Conditional direct effect of empowerment leadership on safety motivation at different degrees of error management climate
−1 SD below the mean (Low)−0.0450.0311.015 (ns)−0.1310.042
Mean0.0740.0272.733 **0.0210.128
+1 SD above the mean (High)0.2380.0317.783 ***0.1780.298
M3: Response variable; electricity workers’ unsafe behavior
Constant0.1480.3450.429 (ns)−0.5290.826
Empowerment leadership−0.5460.106−5.147 ***−0.396−0.099
Safety Motivation0.3480.0566.241 ***0.2390.458
Work engagement−0.1200.077−1.567 (ns)0.2710.036
Error management climate0.7650.1564.895 ***0.4580.999
H10: Empowerment leadership x error management climate−0.0320.0120.059 (ns)−0.0690.011
R20.374 ***
Conditional direct effect of empowerment leadership on electricity workers’ unsafe behavior at different degrees of error management climate
−1 SD below the mean (Low)−0.0700.067−1.048 (ns)−0.2020.062
Mean0.0840.0431.935 (ns)−0.0010.169
+1 SD above the mean (High)0.2950.0545.440 ***0.1880.402
Note: CI = confidence interval; LL = lower level; UL = upper level; S.E = standard error; ns = not-significant; ***: p < 0.001 (Highly significant); **: p < 0.01 (Significant).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Arhim, A.; Alzubi, A.; Iyiola, K.; Banje, F.U. Unpacking the Relationship Between Empowerment Leadership and Electricity Worker’s Unsafe Behavior: A Multi-Moderated Mediation Approach. Sustainability 2024, 16, 10732. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162310732

AMA Style

Arhim A, Alzubi A, Iyiola K, Banje FU. Unpacking the Relationship Between Empowerment Leadership and Electricity Worker’s Unsafe Behavior: A Multi-Moderated Mediation Approach. Sustainability. 2024; 16(23):10732. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162310732

Chicago/Turabian Style

Arhim, Ali, Ahmad Alzubi, Kolawole Iyiola, and Faith Umene Banje. 2024. "Unpacking the Relationship Between Empowerment Leadership and Electricity Worker’s Unsafe Behavior: A Multi-Moderated Mediation Approach" Sustainability 16, no. 23: 10732. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162310732

APA Style

Arhim, A., Alzubi, A., Iyiola, K., & Banje, F. U. (2024). Unpacking the Relationship Between Empowerment Leadership and Electricity Worker’s Unsafe Behavior: A Multi-Moderated Mediation Approach. Sustainability, 16(23), 10732. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162310732

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop