SFTY 320 Embry Riddle Leadership followership and Motivation Discussion

User Generated

whcn1285

Humanities

SFTY 320

Embry Riddle Aeronautical University

SFTY

Description

In regards to Aviation and the Airline industry discuss leadership and motivation.

  • Determine what makes a good leader and what makes a good follower.
  • Describe leadership styles and whether or not these styles influence subordinates positively or negatively.
  • Why must a leader motivate his/her subordinates?
  • Finally, identify the three “aspects of credibility” a good leader must have to motivate and maintain a successful organization.

The assignment is supposed to be the majority construct of the learner, so do not reference the text too much. Please reference the material attached to this question.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

January-June 2014 • Volume 5 • Number 1 • p. 38-43 R eview A rticle Open Access http://revistaseletronicas.pucrs.br/ojs/index.php/aviation : http://dx.doi.org/10.15448/2179-703X.2014.1.17131 Leadership approaches in multi-cultural aviation environments Abordagem de liderança em ambientes multiculturais da indústria da aviação Jose Felix de Brito Neto1 1 Professor do Colégio de Aeronáutica e Diretor de Design e Produção de Cursos do Departamento de Design e Desenvolvimento de Instrução na Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University – Worldwide Campus, Daytona Beach, FL, Estados Unidos. Trabalho realizado na Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach, FL, Estados Unidos. ABSTRACT In the last few decades, the world has witnessed a phenomenon called globalization, which has shortened distances and transformed cultural contexts. The aviation industry has been part of this phenomenon as it has helped create truly global and multi-cultural workforces. Multi-cultural work environments such as the aviation industry require specific leadership approaches in order to accommodate the needs of their culturally diverse workforce. This paper is aimed at the thorough analysis of leadership approaches in multi-cultural aviation environments. Through a literature review, this paper discusses key concepts of culture and leadership as well as the ideas supporting the transformational leadership theory and the positive leadership theory, which have significant and everlasting impact in workforces. It proposes different approaches to successfully and effectively lead multi-cultural aviation workforces. Keywords: Leadership; culture; aviation RESUMO Nas últimas décadas, o mundo tem testemunhado um fenômeno chamado globalização, que tem encurtado distâncias e transformado contextos culturais. A indústria da aviação tem sido parte desse fenômeno por ter ajudado a criar mãos de obra verdadeiramente globais e multiculturais. Ambientes de trabalho multiculturais como o da indústria da aviação requer específicas abordagens de liderança para poder acomodar as necessidades das suas mãos de obra multiculturais. Este artigo tem como objetivo a análise minuciosa de abordagens de liderança em ambientes de trabalho multiculturais dentro da indústria de aviação. Através da revisão da literatura, este artigo discute conceitos-chave a respeito de cultura e liderança como também de ideias que apoiam a teoria da liderança transformacional e a teoria da liderança positiva. O artigo propõe diferentes abordagens para a liderança bem-sucedida e efetiva de mãos de obra multiculturais na indústria da aviação. Palavras-chave: Liderança; cultura; aviação Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil Editor Thaís Russomano Corresponding Author: Jose Felix de Brito Neto debritoj@erau.edu Microgravity Center PUCRS, Brazil Received: August 26, 2013 Accepted: November 13, 2014 Executive Editor Rafael Reimann Baptista © 2014 EDIPUCRS Faculdade de Educação Física e Ciências do Desporto, PUCRS, Brazil e-ISSN: 2179-703X This work is licensed under a Creative Commons-Attribution 4.0 International. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ R eview A rticle Introduction The world is not the same. It is a work in progress, an organism in constant evolution, although some might wonder whether the word ‘evolution’ is really appropriate in this case. Throughout the years, distances have been shortened, frontiers have been reached, lands have been explored, and cultural contexts have been affected. All these milestones have culminated in a phenomenon called globalization, through which people from different countries and backgrounds attempt to coexist by sharing values, beliefs, and preferences. Globalization has also changed organizations and the ways workforces are led and managed. Leadership approaches have mutated and adapted according to new realities in a wide array of industries. That is the case of the aviation and aerospace industry, which is formed by a culturally diverse workforce. Due to geographical and demographic limitations, some international airlines have selected and hired individuals from all corners of the planet, forming a truly global work environment. This global environment requires leaders who are equipped with the adequate knowledge, skills and attitude to effectively manage such a diverse workforce. A number of leadership theories have been developed to assist leaders in their attempt to effectively perform in multi-cultural environments. The transformational leadership theory and the positive leadership theory are two examples of leadership theories supporting this evolution in human resource management. Both theories are focused on the fostering of highly supportive and motivational work environments, where leaders are a constant source of inspiration and the followers are given the chance to actively perform in the decision making process regardless of their cultural background. This paper is aimed at analyzing leadership practices in multi-cultural work environments with focus on the aviation and aerospace industry. It proposes a review of the aforementioned leadership theories and the influence of their application in culturally diverse work environments. Leadership: Definition A wide array of studies has been conducted to analyze and conceptualize what has been universally understood as leadership. Whetten and Cameron (2011) provided a basic definition of this term by stating that leadership is formed by the actions individuals take under conditions of change. Whetten Brito Neto JF – Leadership approaches in multi-cultural aviation environments and Cameron’s study about the intricacies of human resource development attempted to draw a comparison between leadership and management (2011). While management was usually associated with the status quo and steadiness, the foundation of leadership was characterized by changes happening in the environment and setting new directions in order to cope with these changes. Throughout the years, systematic definitions of leadership came to the fore. The term leadership was coined as “the ability of an individual to influence, motivate, and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the organizations of which they are members” (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, Gupta, and Globe Associates as cited in Dickson, Castaño, Magomaeva, and Den Hartog, 2012, p. 486). Dickson et al. (2012) also considered the idea of leadership being a process by which an individual enlisted the aid and support of other individuals in order to accomplish a certain task. Definitions of the term leadership abound. Nevertheless, the sole existence of this ability or process is dependent on how leaders are perceived by other individuals (Ensari and MURPHY, 2003). Therefore, the relevance of leadership resides in the presence of leaders and followers alike. According to Ensari and Murphy (2003), the extent to which an individual is perceived as a leader by his or her reports in work environments has direct influence on the reports’ acceptance of organizational decisions and policies as well as their organizational commitment. Moreover, apart from the relationship between leader and follower, leadership is also defined by the styles and types of behaviors adopted by leaders. According to Wendt, Euwema, and Hetty van Emmerik (2009), there are two main types of leadership behaviors: directive leadership and supportive leadership. Directive leadership is in essence a taskoriented behavior; directive leaders tend to control discussions, dominate interaction and give directions toward task completion in a truly micromanagement style. This type of behavior results in followers being given a dependent and secondary role, which gives center stage for leaders to perform (Wendt et al., 2009). Conversely, supportive leadership is intrinsically centered on the satisfaction of subordinates’ needs and preferences, harmonic working relations, and positive feedback. All these factors culminate on a friendly and supportive climate in work environments. Through this leadership style, followers have active roles in the decision-making process and adopt cohesive behavior regarding task completion and personal communication (Wendt et al., 2009). Aviation in Focus 2014; 5(1): 38-43 39 R eview A rticle Brito Neto JF – Leadership approaches in multi-cultural aviation environments Culture: Definition most popular of the cultural dimensions as it has been studied extensively in organizational research. The fourth dimension is centered on the dichotomy between masculinity and femininity. According to Ergeneli et al. (2007), the masculinity dimension presents the assumption that dominant values such as assertiveness, heroism and achievement are fundamentally masculine, while the feminine dimension revolves around values such as high quality of life, long lasting relationships, and care towards individuals. Long-term and short-term orientations are the last of the culture value dimensions developed by Hofstede (Ergeneli et al., 2007). Individuals that have a longterm orientation tend to accept deferred gratification of needs; their relationships are ordered by status, and people (instead of law) constitute their government. Conversely, individuals that drift toward short-term orientation expect quick results and rewards, pursue personal steadiness and stability, and treasure leisure time. These dimensions are instrumental in the general understanding about the intricacies of cultural contexts, which are expressed by values and beliefs individuals have in common. These dimensions offer a canvas on which human relations, especially within organizations, are drawn. The analysis of leadership is, therefore, greatly enhanced by the clear description of these dimensions. The conceptualization of the word culture is a multi-faceted process that results in a myriad of meanings. According to Dickson et al. (2012), the word culture usually refers to groups of individuals within a society or groups of things that differentiate one society from another. Herskovits (as cited in Dickson et al, 2012, p. 483) described culture as “an agreement that members of the society come to and something that new members can learn; culture specifies individuals’ natural and societal settings such as thought patterns, government structure and values of possessions.” In their study about culture value dimensions, Ergeneli, Gohar, and Temirbekova (2007, p. 707) defined culture “as shared motives, values, beliefs, identities and interpretations or meanings of significant events that result from the common experiences of the members of a society.” They went on to add that the word culture is generally applied to societies that constitute a social system presenting the highest level of self-sufficiency in regards to its surrounding environment. A variety of studies have cited Hofstede’s culture value dimensions (Dickson et al., 2012; Engeneli et al., 2007; Ensari and Murphy, 2003; Wang et al., 2012; Wendt et al., 2008). According to Engerneli et al. (2007), Hofstede developed five culture value dimensions within societies that have substantial face validity and that are directly related to certain aspects of management. The five culture value dimensions are: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualismcollectivism, masculinity and femininity, and, lastly, long-term and short-term orientations. Power distance refers to the inequality (represented by distance) of power among institutions, organizations and individuals. This value is related to the attempts of the more powerful to maintain or extend distance and the attempts of the less powerful to reduce it. Uncertainty avoidance is directly related to the level of tolerance presented by individuals towards ambiguity and unstructured situations. According to Ergeneli et al. (2007), clear procedures, well-defined and wellcommunicated strategies, and effectively understood rules are powerful tools against uncertainty avoidance. Individualism-collectivism refers primarily to the tendency of individuals to cluster into primary groups. It is also linked to the degree to which individuals are expected to take care of themselves or maintain a certain level of integration in groups (Ergeneli et al., 2007). Individualism and collectivism are the opposite ends of human integration. According to Wendt et al. (2009), the individualism-collectivism dimension is the Leadership in Multi-cultural Aviation Environments Despite the financial upheavals that have shaken the world to the core, globalization continues to reach further and implode more barriers between systems, extinguish borders between countries, and require leaders to operate in truly global environments (Youssef and Luthans, 2012). Being a truly global system, the aviation and aerospace industry requires the input of a culturally diverse workforce to effectively operate within its numerous supporting subsystems. Due to geographical and demographic limitations, some organizations within the aviation industry, mainly airlines, have launched worldwide recruitment strategies to fill their job positions in a wide array of departments, mainly in service delivery. Emirates Airline, Qatar Airways, and Singapore Airlines are examples of organizations that employ individuals from all corners of the world given the limited human resources in these airlines’ home countries (United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Singapore, respectively) (Emirates Group Careers, 2014; Qatar Airways, 2014; Singapore Airlines, 2014). Their headquarters are now Aviation in Focus 2014; 5(1): 38-43 40 R eview A rticle multi-cultural environments carrying many flags and accommodating a variety of citizenships and cultural backgrounds. In light of these circumstances, cultural factors within global environments have exercised direct influence on the basic process supporting leadership relations. Organizations within the aviation and aerospace industry have become examples of work environments that demand the guidance and support of leaders who are able to effectively adapt the management theories that have been developed in the Western context (Wang et al., 2012) and efficiently perform across different cultures (Ergeneli et al., 2007). Having said that, a thorough analysis of the ideas behind leadership now requires an understanding on how leaders perform and how followers process information in distinguished cultural contexts (Ensari and Murphy, 2003). Many studies about leadership practices have mentioned the results of the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) project (Dickson et al., 2012; Ensari and Murphy, 2003; Ergeneli et al., 2007; Wang et al., 2012; Wendt et at. 2009; Youssef and Luthans, 2012). According to Wang et al. (2012, p. 571), GLOBE is “an influential effort that explores the impact of cultural values on leadership effectiveness in 62 countries” with the purpose of developing an empirically based study about cross-cultural leadership. The studies developed by GLOBE were based on nine different cultural dimensions: performance orientation, future orientation, assertiveness, power distance, human orientation, institutional collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, and gender egalitarianism. GLOBE and many other studies have attempted to understand how leadership is exercised across different cultures. According to Dickson et al. (2012), these studies have fundamentally attempted to identify leadership characteristics that are universally applicable and those that pertain to specific countries. In his cross-cultural studies, Lonner (as cited in Dickson et al., 2012) separated universal values into three categories: simple universals, variform universals, and functional universals. Simple universals are those values and types of behavior that are applicable to all countries and cultures. An example of the simple universal values is the human need to belong and communicate. Variform universals are those values that refer to human need to belong and communicate in a different way. Lastly, functional universals are those values that are linked to the stability of the intricacies of relationships that are valid across all cultures. According to the results of the GLOBE studies, universal characteristics that exercise positive Brito Neto JF – Leadership approaches in multi-cultural aviation environments influence on job satisfaction and effective leadership are charisma, communication of vision, and desire to change the status quo. Additionally, universally effective and accepted leaders are inspirational, visionary, motivational, dynamic, good communicators, decisive, intelligent, and win-win problem solvers. They are confidencebuilding, team-building, and excellenceoriented individuals (Dickson et al., 2012). Conversely, leaders that tend to become loners, ruthless, irritable and dictatorial are universally rejected by followers (Dickson et al., 2012). Universally rejected leadership characteristics tend to be negatively evaluated by followers, which results in damaging effects on group dynamics and increasing group resistance to work further (Wendt et al., 2009). In the opposite side of this cross-cultural spectrum, there is a host of characteristics that are known for being culturally contingent and for pertaining to specific countries. According to Dickson et al. (2012), leaders that are risk taking, ambitious, self-sacrificial, sincere, sensitive, compassionate, willful, and enthusiastic tend to be accepted in some countries, but not in others. Nonetheless, the acceptance and effectiveness of leadership performances is directly contingent to the alignment and congruence of leadership behavior with the norms of the culture in which the leaders perform. Whether charismatic or a loner, ruthless or supportive, leaders must accomplish cohesiveness in management in order to reach effectiveness in their performance. Given these circumstances, a number of leadership theories have been instrumental in supporting and guiding individuals in multi-cultural environments, such as transformational leadership theory and positive leadership theory. These theories, which Ergeneli et al. (2007, p. 704) called “neocharismatic theories”, are built around leader behavior and facilitate the understanding of truly global leadership. Transformational Leadership Theory The transformational leadership theory, which is fairly new within the array of leadership theories, has the primary function of expanding the role of charismatic leaders who exercise a high level of emotional appeal and power over their followers. This leadership theory acknowledges the relevance of symbolic, emotional and distinctly motivating behaviors and attitude that inherently exercise allure to followers’ minds and leads to exceptional results in the work environment (Ergeneli et al., 2007). Unlike the transactional leadership theory, which attempts to fulfill the needs of the followers by emphasizing the exercise of exchange, the Aviation in Focus 2014; 5(1): 38-43 41 R eview A rticle transformational leadership theory motivates others to accomplish more than they are expected to accomplish. Transformational leaders adopt intellectual stimulation, which leads followers to question their own beliefs, values and expectations and to rethink ideas that have never been questioned before (Ergeneli et al., 2007). Moreover, the transformational leadership theory applies individualized consideration, through which leaders exercise significant individual attention to each of their followers. By applying individualized consideration, leaders delegate authority to their followers while coaching them and treating them equally (Ergeneli et al., 2007). In work environments where the transformational leadership theory is extensively applied, the workforce is composed by highly knowledgeable employees who make use of the envisioning and empowering techniques provided by their leaders. This sharing of vision and power leads to common technical imperatives, industrial logic, and knowledge on global technologies, which greatly facilitate management practices in multicultural and global work environments (Ergeneli et al., 2007). Studies developed by Kouzes and Posner (as cited in Ergeneli et al., 2007) have focused on transformational leadership cases and led to a compilation of best practices adopted by transformational leaders. Transformational leaders usually challenge the existing process by developing strategies to change the status quo; inspiring a shared vision by envisioning the future and creating an ideal image of what the organization may become; enabling others to act by encouraging collaboration and assembling spirited teams; modelling the way by establishing principles that guide individual behavior; and encouraging good behavior by celebrating accomplishments with rewards (Ergeneli et al., 2007). In spite of being heralded as universally adopted, the transformational leadership theory has undergone substantial analysis. Some studies revealed that this theory may not be equally and effectively applicable to all cultures, which leads to believe that this leadership theory lacks a truly global perspective (Youssef and Luthans, 2012). Positive Leadership Theory Similarly to the transformational leadership theory, the positive leadership theory was created to provide guidance in times of globalization and financial upheavals that have distressed the world in the past few years. Effective leadership under these circumstances has demanded comprehensive theoretical frameworks emphasizing cultural differences that global leaders Brito Neto JF – Leadership approaches in multi-cultural aviation environments lack. Positive leadership theory goes beyond the transformation leadership theory as it establishes common ground by leveraging diversity both locally and globally (Youssef and Luthans, 2012). In their study about leadership in global environments, Youssef and Luthans (2012) listed the advantages of positivity. In fact, the term has been studied extensively as it elevates process and outcomes. It also precludes negativity, neutrality, complacency, resistance to change, and prolongation of the status quo. Moreover, positivity is closely related to human flourishing, which enables individuals to perform an optimal range. The positive leadership theory is closely connected to the study of the Positive Organizational Behavior (POB), which is focused on positively oriented human resource strengths and psychological abilities that can be measured and managed for performance improvement. POB is based on four psychological resources: (a) hope, which is a positive motivational condition; (b) efficacy, which is the individual ability to execute specific actions within given contexts and criteria; (c) resilience, which is the individual ability to recover from adversity, conflict and failure; and, lastly, (d) optimism, which is an overall positive expectancy (Youssef and Luthans, 2012). The conceptualization of the positive leadership theory includes the systematic manifestation of leadership traits and processes that reinforces the strengths and capabilities of leaders and followers alike. It extinguishes cultural borders and offers a broad and positive perspective (Youssef and Luthans, 2012). The positive leadership theory is closely connected to emerging leadership theories such as ethical leadership, spiritual leadership, and authentic leadership. Ethical leadership aims to elevate processes, behaviors and performance outcomes. Supported across cultures, ethical leadership focuses on integrity, altruism, collective motivation and encouragement. Spiritual leadership places emphasis on motivation through a sense of membership or community between leaders and followers. It is based on kindness, forgiveness, empathy, honesty and humility. Authentic leadership fosters a highly supportive organizational climate; this climate is reached when leaders share their own personal experiences, thoughts, beliefs and preferences. It is centered on self-awareness, transparency and internalized moral perspective (Youssef and Luthans, 2012). Positive leaders tend to mitigate challengers of any kind in work environments, especially when it comes to physical and psychological distance and cultural differences. They adopt a systematic and Aviation in Focus 2014; 5(1): 38-43 42 R eview A rticle integrated approach considering their own strengths and capabilities as well as those of their followers and of their organizations. Moreover, they facilitate the development of a global mindset and intercultural sensitivity among their followers. Given the multi-cultural environments that have been developed within the workforce of a number of international airlines, the adoption of transformational or positive leadership theories has become paramount. In order to effectively guide and lead followers in the highly competitive environment that airlines operate, leaders must follow the principles established by these theories. The adoption of these theories will result in nothing but empowered, highly motivated, cohesive and efficient multi-cultural workforces. Final Considerations The aviation and aerospace industry is a large system formed by highly active, functional and integrated subsystems. The industry is deemed as one of the few truly global environments, given the scope and range of operatives it encompasses. It is deeply contingent to the financial swings the world has experienced along the years. It is also a facilitator and a fruit of globalization, as it transports passengers to the most remote spots in the planet and attracts and employs individuals from a variety of cultural backgrounds. Given these circumstances, in order to manage and lead workforces with a wide array of cultural backgrounds, the aviation and aerospace industry demands leaders that are able to effectively navigate across cultures by inspiring, motivating and bringing the best of their employees regardless of the country they come from. A thorough understanding of the intricacies surrounding the relationship between culture and leadership facilitates the effectiveness of leadership approaches in multi-cultural environments. Both words, culture and leadership, aggregate many concepts and are based on numerous principles. Their true meanings are just as diverse as the number of countries in the world. Understanding how leaders and followers operate based on their cultural backgrounds is instrumental in the enhancement of leadership performance. Cultural value dimensions and leadership theories are valuable tools to reach effectiveness in leadership. In regards to the aviation and aerospace industry, which is quite a regimented, multi-faceted and extremely diverse Brito Neto JF – Leadership approaches in multi-cultural aviation environments system, the adoption of either the transformational leadership theory or the positive leadership theory immensely facilitate the operatives of organizations that constitute such a competitive and fragile environment. References DICKSON, W. M.; CASTAÑO, N.; MAGOMAEVA, A.; DEN HARTOG, D. N. Conceptualizing leadership across cultures. In: Journal of World Business, v. 47, n. 4, p. 483-492, out. 2012. Disponivel em: . Acesso em: 20 jan. 2014. EMIRATES GROUP CAREERS. Explore our careers: Cabin crew. Emirates Group Careers. Disponivel em: . Acesso em: 05 mar. 2014. ENGENELI, A.; GOHAR, R.; TEMIRBEKOVA, Z. Transformational leadership: Its relationship to culture value dimensions. In: International Journal of Intercultural Relations, v. 31, n. 6, p. 703-724, nov. 2007. Disponivel em: . Acesso em: 21 jan. 2014. ENSARI, N.; MURPHY, S. E. Cross-cultural variations in leadership perceptions and attribution of charisma to the leader. In: Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, v. 92, n. 1-2, set.-nov. 2003. Disponivel em: . Acesso em: 08 jan. 2014. QATAR AIRWAYS. News and events. Qatar Airways. Disponivel em: . Acesso em: 05 mar. 2014. SINGAPORE AIRLINES. Careers: Cabin crew appointments Singapore Airlines. Disponivel em: . Acesso em: 05 mar. 2014. WANG, H.; WALDMAN, D. A.; ZHANG, H. Strategic leadership across cultures: Current findings and future research directions. In: Journal of World Business, v. 47, n. 5, p. 571-580, out. 2012. Disponivel em: . Acesso em: 10 jan. 2014. WENDT, H.; EUWEMA, M.; HETTY VAN EMMERIK, I. J. Leadership and team cohesiveness across cultures. In: The Leadership Quarterly, v. 20, n. 3, p. 358-370, june 2009. Disponivel em: . Acesso em: 09 jan. 2014. WHETTEN, D. A.; CAMERON, K. S. Developing management skills. 8. ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2011. 774p. YOUSSEF, C. M.; LUTHANS, F. Positive global leadership. In: Journal of World Business, v. 47, n. 4, p. 539-547, out. 2012. Disponivel em: . Acesso em: 15 jan. 2014. Corresponding Author: Jose Felix de Brito Neto Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University – Worldwide 600 South Clyde Morris Boulevard Daytona Beach, FL 32801 Tel.: (+1 407) 247- 3983 Aviation in Focus 2014; 5(1): 38-43 43 Safety Science 62 (2014) 376–385 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Safety Science journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ssci Measuring the effects of Safety Management System practices, morality leadership and self-efficacy on pilots’ safety behaviors: Safety motivation as a mediator Ching-Fu Chen a,1, Shu-Chuan Chen a,b,⇑ a b Dept. of Transportation & Communication Management Science, National Cheng Kung University, No. 1, University Road, Tainan 701, Taiwan, ROC Dept. of Air Transportation Management, Aletheia University, 70-11 Pei-Shi-Liao, Matou, Tainan 721, Taiwan, ROC a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Received 31 March 2013 Received in revised form 8 August 2013 Accepted 28 September 2013 Available online 18 October 2013 Keywords: Pilot safety behavior Safety motivation Safety Management System Morality leadership Self-efficacy a b s t r a c t Pilot safety behavior is viewed as a critical determinant of airline safety performance, and thus it is crucial to identify the factors which may enhance such behaviors. This study adopts an integrated perspective and considers three antecedents of this behavior, including organizational, group and individual factors. Specifically, this research simultaneously examines the effects of pilots’ perceptions of Safety Management System (SMS) practices, fleet managers’ morality leadership and pilots’ self-efficacy on flight crews’ safety behaviors through the mediation of safety motivation. Using a sample of 239 commercial pilot participants, and the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) technique, the results indicate that both perceptions of SMS practices and self-efficacy have direct, positive effects on pilots’ safety behaviors, while the effect of fleet managers’ morality leadership on such behavior is fully mediated by pilots’ safety motivation. The managerial implications for both human resource management and enhanced airline safety are also discussed. Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Safety has always been a critical consideration in air transport, and within the airline industry pilots’ safety behaviors are regarded as important determinants of safety performance. Flight crews have been deemed to be responsible for 55% of worldwide hull loss accidents that occurred from 1996 through 2005 (Boeing Airplane Company, 2006). In Taiwan, for instance, the Aviation Safety Council (ASC) reported that personnel were cited as a major cause or factor in 71.9% of accidents between 2001 and 2010, among which pilots accounted for 46.9% of the related causes/factors (Aviation Safety Council, 2011). Since a number of specific pilot behaviors have been implicated as possible causes of many air accidents (Wells, 1997), it is critical to identify the factors that may enhance the performance of these individuals with regard to safety behaviors. From the perspective of organizational behavior, the antecedents lead to employee behaviors can be categorized into three groups, i.e., organizational, group and individual (Robbins, 2001). ⇑ Corresponding author at: Department of Air Transportation Management, Aletheia University, 70-11 Pei-Shi-Liao, Matou, Tainan 721, Taiwan, ROC. Tel.: +886 6 5703100x7435; fax: +886 6 5703834. E-mail addresses: cfchen99@mail.ncku.edu.tw (C.-F. Chen), geniechen2006@gmail.com (S.-C. Chen). 1 Tel.: +886 6 2757575x53230; fax: +886 6 2753882. 0925-7535/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2013.09.013 However, previous research on factors affecting safety behaviors has by and large focused separately on either organizational, group or individual factors. For example, organizational safety climate has been suggested as having a fundamental effect on individual safety behaviors (Cooper and Phillips, 2004; Fogarty and Shaw, 2010). The leadership styles adopted by group leaders, on the other hand, also have significant influences on subordinates. For instance, Barling et al. (2002) indicated that safety specific transformational leadership significantly affects occupational safety. As for individual-related factors, personality and attitude have often been related to the unsafe behaviors of pilots (Hunter, 2005; Musson et al., 2004). However, despite the extensive research linking the various antecedents of safety behaviors, few studies have examined organizational, group and individual factors simultaneously, although it is known that people’s behaviors stem from a base of personal knowledge and values, as well as from group norms and the prevailing organizational culture (Bill, 2003). Furthermore, the majority of past studies of safety related behaviors examined general aviation pilots rather than commercial airlines’ flight crews (e.g., O’Hare and Smitheram, 1995; Pauley et al., 2008; Wiegmann and Taneja, 2003). To restate the key role played by pilots in the airline industry, it is commonly acknowledged that commercial airlines pilots are directly responsible for the safety of passengers, crew members and airplane operations as a whole. To a high degree, pilots’ individual safety behaviors 377 C.-F. Chen, S.-C. Chen / Safety Science 62 (2014) 376–385 thus not only indicate their professional performance, but also directly affect their airlines’ safety records. Consequently, the present study attempts to develop an integrated model with three factors (i.e., organization, group, individual), which may directly or indirectly influence commercial pilots’ safety behaviors, with a particular focus on pilots who work for Taiwanese international airlines. With regard to the organizational aspect, the current study used pilots’ perceptions of their airlines’ Safety Management System (SMS) practices as the main indicator of interest. An SMS is regarded as an explicit element of corporate managerial responsibility, which sets out a company’s safety policy and defines how it intends to manage safety as an integral part of its overall business (United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority, 2002). In recent years, airlines have relied on the use of an SMS to integrate safety policies and augment safety performance at both organizational and individual levels (Chen and Chen, 2011). Pilots’ perceptions of their airlines SMS practices can thus be used as an organizational factor to investigate their relationship with pilots’ safety behaviors. As for the group indicator, among the various factors that affect employee attitudes and behaviors, a number of studies have proposed that leadership has a powerful effect on employee work behaviors (e.g., Yukl, 2002). Corresponding to the cultural background and specific job characteristics of the targeted research population, the morality leadership performed by fleet managers is used to examine its predictive power with regard to pilots’ safety behaviors. Moral leaders are highly respected and admired by employees with Chinese cultural backgrounds, for their demonstrations of integrity and concern with collective interests rather than their own personal benefits (Chen et al., 2011; Niu et al., 2009). Since the present paper examines the flight crew members working for five Taiwanese international airlines, which can be seen as international organizations embedded in Chinese culture, it is believed that this study’s examination of whether morality leadership increases pilots’ safety behaviors can add to the literature by extending current understandings of this and related topics. Meanwhile, personal attributes have also been identified as having predictive power with regard to pilots’ safety behaviors in previous work (Ji et al., 2011). The current paper adopts pilots’ perceptions of selfefficacy as the indicator to explore how it affects their own safety behaviors. According to Bandura (1995, p. 2), self-efficacy is ‘‘the belief in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to manage prospective situations’’. Research reveals that people with low self-efficacy tend to become unreliable and unpredictable when engaging in a task (Bandura, 1997a,b). Due to the tremendous responsibilities taken on by flight crews, it is expected that pilots with a high sense of self-efficacy may be better able to confront the challenges they meet at work and exert more efforts to improve their abilities. It is thus anticipated that the examination of the causality between pilots’ perceived selfefficacy and their safety behaviors that is carried out in this work will improve understanding of the related causal relationships at the individual level. In addition, pilots’ safety motivation is used as the mediating variable between the selected factors and pilots’ safety behaviors to further extend the understanding of the related psychological paths. Probst and Brubaker (2001) proposed that safety motivation has a lagged effect on safety behaviors, while Griffin and Neal (2000) argued that safety performance is determined by how motivated individuals are to perform the related behavior. In the current paper, the direct effect that safety motivation has on pilots’ safety behaviors, and its mediating effect between the other indicators and these behaviors are analyzed concurrently. The conceptual model shown in Fig. 1 illustrates the mechanisms underlying the interrelationships among these variables, which are discussed in detail in the following sections. Perceived SMS Practices Safety Compliance Morality Leadership Safety Motivation Safety Participation Safety Behavior Selfefficacy Fig. 1. Conceptual model. 2. Conceptual background and hypotheses 2.1. Safety motivation and safety behavior Although there is no universal agreement on the definition of motivation, most psychologists describe it as any internal condition that appears by inference to initiate, activate, or maintain goal-directed behavior (Lefton and Brannon, 2002). Safety motivation thus refers to an individual’s willingness to exert efforts to perform safety behaviors and the valence associated with those behaviors (Neal and Griffin, 2006). It can also be perceived as attitudes and perceptions relating to the influences motivating safe or unsafe behaviors (Williamson et al., 1997). As it is documented that motivation will influence behavior in a positive way (Miller, 1988), individuals who are motivated to engage in safety behaviors should be more likely to carry out these behaviors. Since they are expected to work as flight managers, pilots not only have to practices, monitor and facilitate safety duties on board (Molesworth et al., 2006), but take the initiative to participate in safety related activities and advocate safety concepts both in the air on the ground. A comprehensive definition of safety behaviors as being composed of employee compliance with behavioral safety routines and proactively contributing to safety related work is thus used with regard to pilots’ safety behaviors in the current study. This is consistent with the theoretical approach led by Griffin and Neal (2000), which differentiated safety behaviors into two types: safety compliance and safety participation. Safety compliance indicates the fundamental behaviors practiced by the employees to ensure personal and workplace safety, which involves ‘‘adhering to safety procedures and carrying out work in a safe manner’’ (Clarke and Cooper, 2004, p. 90). In contrast, safety participation refers to the behaviors which help develop a safety-supportive environment instead of guaranteeing personal safety. Helping co-workers, promoting safety programs and volunteering for safety activities are all considered as safety participation behaviors. Given the causality between motivation and behaviors, it is presumed that the stronger the safety motivation that pilots have, the more willing they are to practice safety behaviors. Furthermore, this study also hypothesizes that safety motivation mediates the causal relations between the targeted predictors and the two types of pilots’ safety behaviors. The hypothetical mediation effects will be illustrated in the subsequent sections. The first hypothesis is presented as follows: H1. Pilots’ safety motivation is positively associated with their safety compliance and safety participation. 2.2. Perceived SMS practices Pilots’ perceptions of their airlines SMS practices are used as the organizational factor in this work. SMS is developed on the 378 C.-F. Chen, S.-C. Chen / Safety Science 62 (2014) 376–385 basis of existing safety theories and models, and it acts as a coordinated, comprehensive set of processes designed to direct all accessible resources to manage safety in an optimal manner (Transport Canada, 2008). An SMS program consists of proactive data collection, information analysis, hazard identification, risk management, auditing, training, reactive incident and accident investigation and analysis (Chen and Chen, 2012). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) describes SMS as a quality management approach to controlling risk, and which also provides the organizational framework to support safety culture (FAA, 2006). SMS highlights the integration of the entire organization serving as one team, following principles that are laid down at the top to proactively manage safety. The primary objective of an SMS program for the airline industry is to establish an effective aviation safety culture, which can detect and correct safety related problems prior to an accident occurring (Lewis, 2008). One of the keys to achieving successful implementation of an SMS is to ensure that every employee participates in the system and fulfills their designated roles, as Galotti et al. (2006) noted that such a ‘‘system’’ represents the concept of an integrated set of processes which manage safety across intra-departmental boundaries. When promoting SMS, some of the critical issues are how airline policy-makers identify the key components of the system, how managers weigh the importance of its various dimensions and steps, and how employees are taught to evaluate the effects of these safety practices. Pilots’ evaluations of their airlines SMS practices may thus be interpreted as their perceptions of how greatly the airlines value safety, and the effects of adopting such a proactive safety model at an organizational level. The current study investigates the effects of airlines actual SMS practice on pilots’ safety behaviors for two reasons. The first is that SMS have been mandatory in the airline industry by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) since 1 January 2009, but to date there is still limited research examining SMS related issues. The second reason is that the practice of an SMS is a continuous action, and a better understanding of employees’ viewpoints regarding the particular system their airline adopts may help companies to improve their practices. Previous studies verify the relationship between the implementation of an SMS and the attitudes of employees towards safety behaviors in aviation (e.g., Remawi et al., 2011). Accordingly, this study predicts that the better pilots perceive the SMS practices within their airlines, the stronger motivation they have to perform the related safety behaviors. Since it is assumed that safety motivation mediates the relationship between the selected antecedents and pilots’ safety behaviors, the direct and indirect effects of SMS practices on these are both hypothesized, as follows. H2. Pilots’ perceptions of their airline SMS practices are positively associated with their safety motivation. H3. Pilots’ perceptions of their airline SMS practices are positively associated with their safety compliance and safety participation. H4. Pilots’ safety motivation mediates the relationship between their perceptions of their airlines’ SMS practices and safety behaviors (both compliance and participation). 2.3. Morality leadership Clarke and Ward (2006) indicated that leadership style has a particularly significant impact on employees with regard to their safety participation, and the causal link between leadership and employee safety behaviors has been supported by a number of related studies (e.g., Hofmann and Morgeson, 1999; Yang et al., 2009; Zohar, 2002; Zohar and Luria, 2003), among which transformational leadership is the most commonly identified predictive variable (Barling et al., 2002; Kelloway et al., 2006; Yang et al., 2009; Zohar, 2002). Although these earlier studies provide a solid framework to link transformational leadership style and employee safety behaviors, this study uses morality leadership as the group indicator to investigate its effects on pilots’ safety behaviors. In the airline industry, a company’s safety record is seen as its most important performance indicator by customers (Liou and Chuang, 2010). An airline’s safety record requires that its employees behave in a moral fashion, and thus it is expected that an airline’s various crews (e.g., cockpit and maintenance crews) should have very high level of morality in their work performance in order to enhance safety. It is thus important that leaders in this context to set a good moral example for their subordinates. Morality leadership refers to a leader who displays superior personal virtues through acting unselfishly (e.g., never promoting their private interests under the guise of serving the public, and not abusing authority for personal gain), thus gaining their subordinates’ respect and identification (Pellegrini and Scandura, 2008). It can also be depicted that a leader with a high level of morality and integrity that is expressed by acting unselfishly, and thus individuals who have the characteristic of morality leadership tend to serve as role models for employees and exert a significant influence on them (Chen et al., 2011). As moral leaders consistently demonstrate ethical behavior in both professional and private spheres, this has shown to have positive effects with regard to increasing the level of trust that subordinates’ have in them (Treviño et al., 2003). Conchie et al. (2006) referred to trust as the ‘‘missing piece of the safety puzzle’’, and this implies that the more followers trust their leaders, the more motive they are with regard to improving safety performance. Since pilots have an overwhelming obligation to ensure flight safety, it is thus of interest to explore the predictive power of morality leadership on pilots’ safety motivation and their actual safety behaviors. Pilots are qualified for particular cockpits (Clarke et al., 1996), and based on their specific licenses and aircraft type rating endorsement, commercial airlines pilots are grouped into designated fleets to carry out their flight duties. Fleet managers are selected from well-experienced captains, and they work to maintain a fleet’s operational standards and procedures, as well as to ensure pilot training standards and work related discipline. The leadership enacted by fleet managers is believed to have a significant influence on pilots’ behaviors, as there is considerable evidence to support the causal link between leadership and the performance of subordinates (Barling et al., 2002; Jong and Hartog, 2007). Therefore, examining whether fleet managers’ morality leadership style enhances pilots’ motivation to perform safety behaviors may provide crucial insights into the underlying factors linking leadership and employee behaviors. Accordingly, it is believed that a higher level of morality leadership will likely motivate subordinates to put more effort into their work and go above and beyond the call of duty for their leaders (Colquitt et al., 2007). Consistent with the suggestion of prior research that morality leadership is positively related to employees’ organizational behavior (Cheng et al., 2002), we hypothesize that airline fleet manager’s morality leadership may motivate pilots to carry out safety behaviors with greater diligence, stated as hypotheses 5 and 6. The mediating effect of safety motivation in this causality path will also be tested and addressed in hypothesis 7. H5. Fleet manager’s morality leadership is positively associated with their safety motivation. H6. Fleet manager’s morality leadership is positively associated with their safety compliance and safety participation. C.-F. Chen, S.-C. Chen / Safety Science 62 (2014) 376–385 379 H7. Pilots’ safety motivation mediates the relationship between morality leadership and their safety behaviors (both compliance and participation). H10. Pilots’ safety motivation mediates the relationship between perceived self-efficacy and their safety behaviors (both compliance and participation). 2.4. Self-efficacy 3. Method This study adopts self-efficacy as the individual-aspect predictor to examine how it affects pilots’ safety behaviors. Perceived self-efficacy reflects people’s beliefs in their capabilities to carry out certain tasks, and individuals with high self-efficacy often take a wider overview of a task in order to adopt the best method of action (Bandura, 1997a,b). Garland et al. (1988) proposed that an operator’s self-efficacy will enhance their motivation to persist and exert more effort to accomplish a task, and it is widely recognized that perceived self-efficacy can determine how people feel, think, motivate themselves and behave (Bandura, 1997a,b). While the job of a pilot position remains a highly competitive one, with a good image and benefits, it is also comes with tremendous burdens, both psychological and physical, due to the heavy responsibilities associated with the position (Nicholas et al., 2001). Working on a shifting schedule in a confined space, posing and answering numerous navigation and situation assessment questions at different phases in the flight timeline, and needing to be aware of any unexpected conditions and making the best decisions with limited time and resources, all serve to increase the work-load and stress that pilots have (Loukopoulos et al., 2003). Furthermore, with the expectation of being not only flight operators but mangers, pilots are required to monitor and facilitate the aircrew’s safety duties on board and expected to take the initiative to participate in safety related activities and advocate safety concepts, even when not to officially working. As people with high levels of self-efficacy have greater beliefs in their own capabilities to achieve certain goals, pilots with higher perceived self-efficacy are likely to better resist pressure and devote more efforts to improving their work-related and management performance. Individual self-efficacy has been applied as the observed predictor in the number of studies that investigate pilots’ work-related behaviors (e.g., Parasuraman et al., 1993; Prinzel, 2002). Prior research demonstrates that self-efficacy has effects on the level of motivation, learning and performance (e.g., Schunk and Pajares, 2001). Graham and Weiner (1995), for example, stated that self-efficacy is a consistent predictor of behavior and behavioral change. However, self-efficacy is a double-edged sword (e.g., Prinzel et al., 1999), which may lead to the concern that pilots with high self-efficacy may be more likely to take dangerous short-cuts because of overconfidence. In practice, however, Taiwanese airline companies have increasingly adopted flight analysis equipment (such as Aircraft Condition Monitoring Systems, ACMS, and Aircraft Communications Addressing & Reporting Systems, ACARS) to track aircraft operations, engine conditions and flight performance (Chen and Chen, 2011). Flight operations in the cockpit are thus under regular monitoring to prevent any improper behaviors. As self-efficacy has been confirmed to be an important determinant of how people think and act, this paper examines whether pilots’ perceived self-efficacy may lead to increased levels of safety motivation and better safety behaviors. The related hypotheses are thus proposed as follows: 3.1. Participants and procedures H8. Pilots’ perceived self-efficacy is positively associated with their safety motivation. H9. Pilots’ perceived self-efficacy is positively associated with their safety compliance and safety participation. The study population is the pilots who work for five major Taiwanese international airlines. Due to flight crews’ changing work schedules, the paper-based survey was initially distributed through each airline’s internal contact. Questionnaires with sealable stamped addressed envelopes were either deposited in pilot’s individual mailbox or distributed on board an aircraft. Data were collected during the five-month period from early August to the end of December, 2011. A total of 420 surveys were distributed in two time frames. At the first attempt, 300 surveys were mailed out and 163 usable samples returned within three months. To increase the sample size, 120 surveys were sent to two airlines with lower response rates in the first attempt. Ninety-two samples were returned, among which 76 ones were effective. A total of 239 usable samples were collected, representing an acceptable response rate of 57%. The samples are mostly male (95%), and their age was mostly from 30 to 39 (48.9%). Respondents’ years of tenure in their current company mainly fell into the range of 1–10 years (60.2%). 59% of the samples are ranked as first officers, 32.2% of the samples have a position as captain. 23.4% of the respondents have total flight hours between 10, 000 and 15,000 h, with 17.6% between 3,000 and 5,000 h. The training background is indicated as 23.8% of having self-paid Commercial Pilot License (CPL) training, 33% company-paid CPL training, 23% air-force training and 20.2% are foreign pilots. 3.2. Measures The scales used to obtain the measures of the variables are described below. All scales were measured using a seven-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree). To assess the reliability of scales, which refers to a variable or a set of indicators of a latent construct being internally consistent in their measurements (Hair et al., 2006), Cronbach’s a coefficient is applied. Cronbach’s a ranges from 0 to 1, with 0.7 being considered a satisfactory level in basic research (Iacobucci and Churchill, 2010). 3.2.1. Perceived SMS practices Perceived SMS practices are measured by 23 items of the SMS evaluation scale developed by Chen and Chen (2012). Note that Chen and Chen’ SMS scale is designed to identify the important aspects and items for airlines to develop an effective SMS. Rather than judging how important each item represents like the original scale does, pilots were asked to evaluate the practice of company’s SMS by the level of agreement with a number of statements in this study. Sample items include: ‘‘The company’s internal reporting channel is highly accessible,’’ ‘‘The top management participates in SMS related activities,’’ ‘‘Employees periodically take training programs related to emergency preparedness and response plans,’’ ‘‘Managers order clear commands for SMS operations,’’ and ‘‘The company holds SMS promotion activities regularly.’’ The reported reliability of the coefficient alpha is 0.95. 3.2.2. Morality leadership The subscale of Paternalistic Leadership Measure developed by Cheng et al. (2000) is used, with five items assessing the manager’s morality leadership. This scale has demonstrated consistent and 380 C.-F. Chen, S.-C. Chen / Safety Science 62 (2014) 376–385 good psychometric properties in several studies (e.g., Chen et al., 2011). Example items are: ‘‘My supervisor is a good role model to follow,’’ and ‘‘My supervisor treats his/her staff very fairly’’. The reliability coefficient in this study is 0.95. 3.2.3. Self-efficacy Self-efficacy is measured by the Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale developed by Schwarzer and Jerusalem (1995) to assess pilots’ self-beliefs with regard to coping with a variety of challenges. The full scale with ten items is used, and sample items are ‘‘I can solve most problems if I invest the necessary effort,’’ and ‘‘It is easy for me to stick to my aims and accomplish my goals.’’ The reported coefficient alpha is 0.86. 3.2.4. Safety motivation Safety motivation is assessed with three items from Neal and Griffin (2006), measuring the degree to which pilots regard safety as an important part of their career. Example items include: ‘‘I feel that it is important to maintain safety at all times,’’ and ‘‘I believe that it is important to reduce the risk of accidents and incidents in the workplace.’’ The coefficient a for this scale is 0.90. 3.2.5. Safety behavior Safety behavior consisting of two components (i.e., safety compliance and safety participation) is adopted from Neal and Griffin (2006). Safety compliance evaluates the core tasks that pilots have to accomplish to maintain flight safety. To precisely evaluate flight crew’s safety compliance behavior, one item was reworded to ‘‘I pay full attention to the pre-flight briefing to collect sufficient data for every flight.’’ Safety participation assesses the extent to which pilots help develop an environment that supports safety. Some slight adjustments were made to the items to better match the work characteristics of flight crew and the main focus of the present study. An example item is ‘‘I promote the safety program within the organization.’’ The coefficient alpha values for safety compliance and safety participation are 0.91 and 0.84, respectively. 3.3. Data analysis The data analysis is conducted in two stages. First, the exploratory factor analysis using principal component extraction with VARIMAX rotation technique is performed to examine the construct dimensionalities of the SMS evaluation scale. Eigenvalues indicate a special set of scalars connected to a linear system of equations, representing the amount of variance explained by a factor, and these are used to determine the initial number of factors (Hoffman and Kunze, 1971). Second, a two-step approach to Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) is carried out to evaluate the measurement and structural models by using the LISREL 8 computer program (Joreskog and Sorbom, 2001). All three types of goodness-of-fit indices recommended by Hair et al. (2006), namely absolute fit, incremental fit, and parsimony fit indices, are applied to assess overall model fit and the degree of model fit per estimated coefficient. The details include the ratio of the chi-square value to degrees of freedom (v2/df), of which the cutoff value suggested by Bagozzi and Yi (1988) is 5. The goodness-of-fit index (GFI), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), adjust goodness of fit index (AGFI), the comparative fit index (CFI), normed fit index (NFI), and root mean residual (RMR) were also examined. In general, a model with these fit indices with values of .90 or higher, a value of RMR lower than 0.05, and an RMSEA value lower than .08 are acceptable (Kline, 1998). 4. Results As suggested by Armstrong and Overton (1997), non-response bias was first tested by conducting an independent sample t test to analyze whether there were any significant differences between the two sample groups (163 collected in the first timeframe as group one and 76 in the second collection as group two). The results indicated that no significant differences existed between two groups in any of the constructs, verifying the representativeness of the collected samples. The detailed information regarding means and standard deviations (S.D.) of the observable items is presented in Table 1. Pilots perceive moderately high level of airlines SMS practices, fleet managers’ morality leadership and individual self-efficacy, since the mean scores of the above constructs are between 4.50 and 5.60. In average, pilots hold strong safety motivation and are willing to conduct safety compliance behavior. 4.1. Dimensionality of the SMS practices The results from the exploratory factor analysis identify two factors consisting of 17 SMS items. In this study, a factor is retained only if it had an eigenvalue greater than 1.0. Items are kept if they have factor loadings greater than 0.5 in a single factor only. Six items have thus been removed from the scale. Factor loadings represent the correlation between the original variables and the factors. The volume of the factor loading plays a key role with regard to understanding the nature of a particular factor (Hair et al., 2006). The two factors explain 71.86% of total variance for the SMS evaluation scale (see Table 2). According to the VARIMAX-rotated factor pattern, the first factor concerns ‘‘policy’’ (seven items, a = 0.95) while the second relates to ‘‘practice’’ (ten items, a = 0.95). The mean scores by averaging the associated items for each factor are calculated and used in subsequent analyses. 4.2. Measurement model Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to analyze the validity and reliability of the six constructs. CFA is a statistical technique used to validate the factor structure of a set of observed variables, and can enable researchers to test how well the measured variables represent the designated constructs. The main advantage of conducting CFA is that it makes it possible to analytically test a conceptually grounded theory explaining how different measured items represent important psychological, sociological, or business constructs. According to Hair et al. (2006), the convergent validity of CFA results has to be supported by item reliability, construct reliability and average variance extracted. These three indicators are employed to verify that the estimated constructs are valid, consist and applicable to survey the traits which they are intended to measure (Hair et al., 2006). The resulting data must be statistically significant, which is shown by t values being greater than 1.96 or smaller than 1.96 (Segars, 1997). The t value is a measure of the statistical significance of an independent variable in explaining the dependent variable. As presented in Table 3, all t values appear to be significant, with p-values being smaller than the threshold of 0.01 (i.e., p < 0.01). Since the p-value indicates the probability of measurement consistency between the observed sample and a test statistic, assuming that the null hypothesis is true (Goodman, 1999), the statistical result of p < 0.01 means that the probability of the hypothesis actually being true is greater than 99%. The construct reliability estimates (CR) range from 0.84 to 0.95, exceeding the critical value of 0.60 suggested by Fornell and Larcker (1981). The average variances extracted (AVE) of all constructs range between 0.64 and 0.80, also above the value of 381 C.-F. Chen, S.-C. Chen / Safety Science 62 (2014) 376–385 Table 1 Descriptive statistics results. Constructs Items Mean S.D. SMS practices Continuously improves the SMS practice Precise standard of the SMS practice Internal reporting channel is highly accessible Top management participates Following the principles of fairness and justice Clearly stated its determination to execute SMS Declares commitment in formal documents Employees are acquainted with plans Employees periodically take training programs Company periodically runs drills to practice plans Establishes emergency preparedness and response plans Managers order clear commands The contents of the SMS manual are readily understood Intranet system can precisely handle the information Intranet system used as the platform to share information Documents are preserved and continuously updated Establishes simple and unified standard Employees upgrade abilities through training programs Employees learn concepts through training Company continuously provides training programs Employees know way to execute SMS through training Company provides diverse training programs The company holds SMS promotion activities regularly 5.18 4.92 5.20 4.87 4.98 5.60 5.22 5.09 5.51 5.15 5.18 4.77 4.72 4.84 4.84 4.88 4.97 5.04 4.88 5.08 4.90 4.56 4.91 1.34 1.35 1.26 1.37 1.49 1.50 1.31 1.32 1.21 1.23 1.30 1.35 1.31 1.30 1.35 1.28 1.31 1.23 1.26 1.18 1.23 1.41 1.29 Morality leadership Supervisor Supervisor Supervisor Supervisor Supervisor 4.95 5.10 4.99 4.94 5.32 1.46 1.46 1.45 1.55 1.45 Self-efficacy I can solve difficult problems if try hard enough I can find the means and ways to get what I want It is easy to stick to my aims and accomplish goals I am confident to deal efficiently with unexpected events I know how to handle unforeseen situations I can solve most problems if I invest the necessary effort I can remain calm when facing difficulties I can find solutions when confronted with a problem If I am in trouble, I can usually think of a solution I can usually handle whatever comes my way 5.50 4.52 4.67 5.43 5.26 5.61 5.69 5.63 5.67 5.30 1.06 1.29 1.32 1.06 1.04 0.92 0.82 0.84 0.87 1.10 Safety motivation It’s worthwhile to maintain or improve personal safety It’s important to maintain safety at all times It’s important to reduce risk in workplace 6.14 6.25 6.34 0.84 0.82 0.79 Safety compliance Pay full attention to the pre-flight briefing Follow correct safety procedures for carrying out job Ensure the highest level of safety when carry out job 6.17 6.30 6.24 0.78 0.75 0.79 Safety participation I promote the safety program within the organization I put in extra effort to improve the flight safety I put in extra effort to improve the flight safety 5.36 5.76 5.29 1.33 1.10 1.27 is an upright and honest person treats staff very fairly does not obtain illicit personal gains is a good role model to follow always practices what he/she preaches 0.50 suggested by Fornell and Larcker (1981). These results show that the measurement items all meet the requirements for both reliability and validity. Descriptive statistics, Cronbach’s a values and the inter-factor correlations among the latent constructs are displayed in Table 4. Correlation measures the association between two variables. The current study employs the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient to indicate the correlation among the six focal factors, since its mathematical and statistical properties have been studied in much detail, and the tables and algorithms for testing the statistical significance are also readily available (Raju and Brand, 2003). All of the inter-factor correlations are significant and range between 0.21 and 0.74. All scales demonstrate good reliability, indicated by presenting the Cronbach’s a values above 0.80, thus satisfying the criterion of 0.70 (Nnunally, 1978). Discriminant validity was assessed by comparing the construct correlations with the square root of the average variance extracted (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The results shown in Table 5 indicate that the square root of the average variance extracted for each construct is greater than the levels of the correlations involving the construct, and thus discriminant validity is confirmed. 4.3. Structural model Fig. 2 shows the estimated model with standardized path coefficients. The fit indices of the structural model are summarized as follows: v2 = 250.08 (p = 0.00), df = 105, v2/df = 2.38, GFI = 0.90, AGFI = 0.85, RFI = 0.94, NFI = 0.96, and NNFI = 0.97. The alternative indices are CFI = 0.97, RMR = 0.04, and RMSEA = 0.07. A comparing of these results with the corresponding critical values suggests that the conceptual model fits the empirical data reasonably well (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The effect of safety motivation on safety behaviors is significantly positive (b = 0.70, t = 10.50), indicating that the stronger pilots’ safety motivation is, the more likely they will carry out safety behaviors. H1 is thus confirmed. Regarding the direct effect of three exogenous predictors on pilots’ safety motivation, all paths show a significantly direct influence, thus indicating H2, H5 and H8 are 382 C.-F. Chen, S.-C. Chen / Safety Science 62 (2014) 376–385 Table 2 Principle component analysis of perceived SMS practice. Factor loadings Factor 1: Policy (PO) (Mean = 4.99, S.D. = 1.37, a = 0.95) PO1: Company develops the precise standard to monitor and evaluate the SMS performance PO2: Company continuously improves the SMS performance PO3: Company’s internal reporting channel is highly accessible PO4: Top management participates in the SMS related activities PO5: Management handles safety issues following just culture PO6: Top management declares a determination to execute SMS, even when the company finance is in a down cycle PO7: Top management declares commitment in formal documents. Factor2: Practice (PR) (Mean = 5.02, S.D. = 1.14, a = 0.95) PR1: Employees are trained to execute the plan periodically PR2: Company simulates the plan periodically PR3: Company establishes the plan with clear procedures and individual responsibility PR4: The contents of the SMS manual are readily understood PR5:Employees upgrade their self-management abilities through training PR6:Employees learn comprehensive concepts of SMS through trainings PR7: Company provides continuous training PR8: Employees know how to execute SMS through training PR9: Company provides diverse training programs PR10: Company holds regular SMS promotion activities Eigen value Variance explained (%) Cumulated variance explained (%) 15.29 66.48 66.48 1.24 5.38 71.86 .745 .809 .684 .784 .781 .822 .764 .649 .763 .744 .677 .726 .775 .775 .788 .783 .764 Table 3 Convergent validity. Constructs Indicators Item reliability CR AVE Standardized factor loadings Standard errors t-Value SMS Practices POL PRA 0.87 0.92 0.24 0.15 15.32** 16.64** 0.89 0.80 Morality Leadership ML1 ML2 ML3 ML4 ML5 0.92 0.95 0.83 0.87 0.88 0.16 0.09 0.30 0.24 0.23 17.84** 19.17** 15.25** 16.33** 16.65** 0.95 0.80 Self-efficacy SE 1 0.00 21.17** Safety motivation – – MO1 MO2 MO3 0.78 0.92 0.91 0.40 0.16 0.18 13.53** 17.53** 17.23** 0.90 0.76 Safety Compliance SC1 SC2 SC3 0.87 0.89 0.89 0.25 0.20 0.20 16.02** 16.84** 16.82** 0.92 0.78 Safety Participation SP1 SP2 SP3 0.77 0.86 0.77 0.41 0.27 0.40 12.77** 14.85** 12.92** 0.84 0.64 SE, indicating the construct of self-efficacy. P P P P P P P AVE ¼ ð k2 Þ=½ k2 þ ðhÞ; CR ¼ ð kÞ2 =½ð kÞ2 þ ðhÞ, where = summation of the indicators of the latent variables, k = indicator loadings, h = indicator error variances. ** p < 0.01. supported. The statistical data also reveals the direct effect which the perceptions of SMS practices and self-efficacy have on pilots’ safety behaviors (e.g., b = 0.39, t = 4.19; b = 0.21, t = 3.12), supporting H3 and H9. Turning to the mediating effects of safety motivation, the insignificant coefficient found between morality leadership and safety behaviors (b = 0.01, t = 0.17) identified the complete mediating effect that safety motivation has on the causal link between morality leadership and safety behaviors. In addition, safety motivation partially mediates the relationships among pilots’ perceptions of their airlines SMS practices, individual self-efficacy and their safety behaviors. Therefore, hypothesis 6 is rejected while H4, H7 and H10 are confirmed. The three selected predictors, which represent organizational, group and individual aspects, are all proved to significantly influence pilots’ safety behaviors, via the full or partial mediating effect generated by safety motivation. Table 6 presents the effects (i.e., direct, indirect, and total) of the three determinants on pilots’ safety compliance and safety participation. A direct effect identifies relationship linking two constructs with a single arrow between dependent and independent variables. An indirect effect refers to sequence or relationships with at least one intervening construct involved. In other words, a sequence of two or more directs effects can be represented visually by multiple arrows between constructs (Hair et al., 2006). While morality leadership has only an indirect effect, the other two antecedents have both direct and indirect ones. 5. Discussion This study considers three factors (i.e., organizational, group, and individual) to observe their predictive powers with regard to 383 C.-F. Chen, S.-C. Chen / Safety Science 62 (2014) 376–385 Table 4 Descriptive statistics, Cronbach’s a values and inter-factor correlations among latent constructs. Constructs M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 SMS practices Morality leadership Self-efficacy Safety motivation Safety compliance Safety participation 4.99 4.65 5.33 6.24 6.24 5.47 1.07 1.35 0.77 0.75 0.72 1.08 (.95) 0.54** 0.43** 0.33** 0.41** 0.51** (.95) 0.21** 0.22** 0.27** 0.32** (.86) 0.36** 0.50** 0.39** (.90) 0.74** 0.40** (.91) 0.53** (.84) Figures shown in the parentheses indicate the Cronbach’s a values of constructs. p < 0.001. ** Table 5 Discriminant validity. Constructs SMS ML SE MO SC SP SMS ML SE MO SC SP 0.89 0.54** 0.43** 0.33** 0.41** 0.51** 0.89 0.20** 0.22** 0.27** 0.32** 0.36** 0.50** 0.39** 0.87 0.75** 0.40** 0.88 0.53** 0.80 SMS, Safety Management System; ML, Morality Leadership; SE, Self-efficacy; MO, Safety Motivation; SC, Safety Compliance; SP, Safety Participation. Square root of average variance extracted (AVE) is shown on the diagonal of the matrix. ** Denotes p < 0.01. 0.39** Perceived SMS Practice 0.13* 0.24 * Safety Compliance 0.01 0.70 ** Morality Leadership Safety Motivation 0.25 * 0.28** 0.04 0.25 * Selfefficacy Safety Participation 0.14 * 0.21* Fig. 2. Estimated model. Note: Path estimates are standardized coefficients.  p < .05. p < .01. pilots’ safety behaviors. The results demonstrated that these behaviors are influenced by organizational, group and individual aspects factors simultaneously. The mediating role of safety motivation is confirmed based on the empirical data. Pilots’ positive perceptions of their airlines’ SMS practices have significant and positive effects on their safety motivation, compliance and participation. This result implies that if airlines devote more efforts to executing an SMS program, pilots are more likely to acknowledge the advantages which an SMS may have with regard to enhancing the entire organization’s safety perceptions and operations, and thus work even harder to meet their job requirements, and have more initiatives with regard to participating in the related programs to promote safety. In fact, the organizational indicator (i.e., perceived SMS practices) has more predictive power with regard to pilots’ safety participation than the group and individual predictors examined in the current study, as it has the largest total effect. It may be assumed that the determination of airlines executives to improve safety needs to be embodied in the company’s operations, as this can then convey to all staff the importance that top managers place on this issue (Hsu et al., 2010). Since it is essential to develop proactive safety measures to identify safety issues in the airline industry, especially regarding to monitoring human-related safety factors (Chang and Yeh, 2004), an SMS should be adopted due to its significant effects on pilots’ safety behaviors. As for the group-aspect indicator, the results did not show that morality leadership has a significant direct effect on pilots’ safety behaviors, although the causal relationship was positive. This finding thus does not reconfirm the strong causality between leadership and employees’ safety behaviors, which previous research observed (e.g., Clarke and Ward, 2006; Yang et al., 2009). However, the conceptual model used in this work also proposed that safety motivation mediates the relationships among the selected predictors and pilots’ safety behaviors. The statistical data verifies that safety motivation completely mediates the hypothesized links from morality leadership to pilots’ safety compliance and safety participation. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the present study represents the first attempt to investigate how managers’ morality leadership may influence pilots’ safety behaviors. The results provide empirical evidence which indicates that fleet managers’ morality leadership will enhance pilots’ safety motivation, which has significant predictive power with regard to their safety behaviors. A number of reasons may explain these findings. Pilots are widely-recognized as highly professional crew members, and their behavior follows their training. With a high level of morality leadership carried out by the fleet manager, pilots may be motivated to Table 6 Direct, indirect, and total effects of safety compliance and safety participation. Path Direct effect Indirect effect Total effect SMS practices ? safety compliance SMS practices ? safety participation Morality leadership ? safety compliance Morality leadership ? safety participation Self-efficacy ? safety compliance Self-efficacy ? safety participation 0.13 0.39 – – 0.21 0.14 0.17 0.07 0.18 0.07 0.18 0.07 0.30 0.46 0.18 0.07 0.39 0.21 Note: The total effect of one construct on another is the sum of the direct effect and indirect relationships between them. The indirect effect is computed by multiplying the direct effects by each other. e.g. The indirect effect of morality leadership ? safety participation is computed as 0.25  0.28 = 0.07. 384 C.-F. Chen, S.-C. Chen / Safety Science 62 (2014) 376–385 exert greater efforts in their work, although this may not directly translate into actions. In addition, pilots work with other cockpit crew members in their regular duty hours, sharing information and learning from each other rather than following a single manager. The typical relationship between managers and subordinates may thus not entirely apply to a fleet manager and their pilots. Therefore the influence of leadership on pilots’ behaviors may need to be interpreted from different perspectives. In terms of the effects which self-efficacy has on pilots’ safety motivation and behaviors, all the path coefficients in this work were significant, as hypothesized. Pilots with higher self-efficacy were more motivated to perform safety behaviors, and similar results were found in prior research, which showed that self-efficacy positively influences organizational behaviors (e.g., Prinzel, 2002). As indicated by Bandura (1997a,b), a high level of self-efficacy is linked to superior performance, and thus it is essential for airlines to recognize the positive effects which self-efficacy may generate. Although self-efficacy is often seen as part of an individual’s inherent character, it can be fostered by appropriate training (Gist et al., 1989). Offering training programs constructed with the aid of psychology experts is thus one way to increase pilots’ self-efficacy. Earlier research revealed that when people accomplish a goal, their self-efficacy increases, which may lead to the setting of new, more challenging goals (Bandura and Cervone, 1983), and management techniques should be applied to exploit this. For example, breaking goals into manageable steps and establishing a reward system to encourage progressive improvements in performance are expected to have a positive effect on the perceived self-efficacy of pilots. by analyzing the quantitative data collected from self-administrated questionnaires filled out by pilots, and thus the common method bias may exist. Third, applying single antecedents to examine the organizational, group and individual predictors is used as the primary approach to building the integrated model, and the moderate values of the path coefficients obtained in this work suggest a limitation to the proposed model. In addition, the insignificant relationship found between morality leadership and pilots’ safety behaviors still requires further examination to obtain a more complete understanding of this phenomenon. These limitations also present some directions for future studies. Future research may apply the proposed conceptual model to examine the hypothesized relationships in other airline professional crews (e.g., maintenance crew) to expand its application. Furthermore, future research could work to develop a more comprehensive model with multiple factors representing various other predictive indicators. In addition, future empirical research of pilots’ safety behaviors may try to apply a longitudinal research design to observe how the predictive powers of the various antecedents change over time. Last but not least, a cross-level investigation may provide more thorough insights into how organizational, group and individual predictors may have an interacting influence on pilots’ safety behaviors. Acknowledgments The authors are grateful to the National Science Council, Taiwan, for financial support (NSC 101-2410-H-156-003), and to the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on this paper. 6. Conclusion References The current study examines the causal relationship between pilots’ safety motivation, safety behaviors and pilots’ perceptions of individual, group and organizational indicators. While pilots’ perceptions of their airlines SMS practices serve as the organizationaspect predictor, morality leadership and pilots’ perceived self-efficacy are used as the group and individual aspects antecedents, respectively. The results show that perceptions of airlines SMS practices play an essential role in motivating pilots to perform safety behaviors. In addition, the higher the perceived self-efficacy of pilots’ is, the stronger the safety motivation they have, and these perceptions directly lead to improved safety behaviors. Safety motivation is found to fully mediate the relationship between fleet managers’ morality leadership and pilots’ safety behaviors. The partial mediating effects that safety motivation has on the causal links among pilots’ perceptions of their airlines’ SMS practices, self-efficacy and pilots’ safety behaviors have also been confirmed. The conceptual model proposed in the current paper is regarded the primary attempt to explore the causality that exists among organizational, group and individual indicators and commercial airlines pilots’ safety behaviors simultaneously. The direct effects which safety motivation has on pilots’ safety compliance and safety participation have also not been reported in previous research. The findings of this work, that morality leadership only has an indirect effect on pilots’ safety behaviors, and that this relationship is completely mediated by pilots’ safety motivation, has a number of academic and practical implications, as noted above. Despite the strengths of this work, several limitations should be considered. First, although the collected samples’ representativeness has been confirmed by the results of the non- response bias test, a larger sample size with higher response rate would be preferable. Second, due to the limited access with regard to obtaining cross-level data and objective evaluation results of pilots’ safety behavior performance, the research results are mainly obtained Armstrong, J.S., Overton, T.S., 1997. Estimating non-response bias in mail survey. Journal of Marketing Research 14 (3), 396–402. Aviation Safety Council (ASC), Taiwan, 2011. Taiwan flight safety 200-2009. . Self-efficacy In Changing Societies. Cambridge University Press, NY. Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y., 1988. On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science 16 (1), 76–94. Bandura, A., 1997a. Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. Freeman, NY. Bandura, A., 1997b. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review 84 (2), 191–215. Bandura, A., Cervone, D., 1983. Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms governing the motivational effects of goal systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45, 1017–1028. Barling, J., Loughlin, C., Kelloway, E.K., 2002. Development and test of a model linking safety-specific transformational leadership and occupational safety. Journal of Applied Psychology 87 (3), 488–496. Bill, D.T., 2003. Contributing Influences on an Individual’s Attitude Towards a New Technology in the Workplace. Liquid Knowledge Group Ltd., . Boeing Airplane Company, 2006. Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Airplane Accident 1996–2005. Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, Seattle, WA. Chang, Y.H., Yeh, C.H., 2004. A new airline safety index. Transportation Research B 38, 369–383. Chen, C.F., Chen, S.C., 2011. Perception gaps in the execution of safety management system – a case study of the airline industry. In: Presented at the EASTS Conference, Jeju. Chen, C.F., Chen, S.C., 2012. Scale development of Safety Management System evaluation for the airline industry. Accident Analysis and Prevention 47, 177– 181. Chen, X.P., Eberly, M.B., Chiang, T.J., Farh, J.L., Cheng, B.S., 2011. Affective trust in Chinese leaders: linking paternalistic leadership to employee performance. Journal of Management, 10.1177/0149206311410604. Cheng, B.S., Chou, L.F., Farh, J.L., 2000. A triad model of paternalistic leadership: its constructs and measurement. Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies 14, 3–64. Cheng, B.S., Shieh, P.Y., Chou, L.F., 2002. The principal’s leadership, leader-member exchange quality, and the teacher’s extra-role behavior: the effects of transformational and paternalistic leadership. Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies 17, 105–161. Clarke, S.G., Cooper, C.L., 2004. Managing the Risk of Workplace Stress: Health and Safety Hazards. Routledge, London/New York. C.-F. Chen, S.-C. Chen / Safety Science 62 (2014) 376–385 Clarke, S., Ward, K., 2006. The role of leader influence tactics and safety climate in engaging employees’ safety participation. Risk Analysis 26 (5), 1175–1185. Clarke, L.W., Hane, C.A., Johnson, E.L., Nemhauser, G.L., 1996. Maintenance and crew considerations in fleet assignment. Transportation Science 30 (3), 249–260. Colquitt, J.A., Scott, B.A., LePine, J.A., 2007. Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: a meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 92, 909–927. Conchie, S.M., Donald, I.J., Taylor, P.J., 2006. Trust: missing piece(s) in the safety puzzle. Risk Analysis 26 (5), 1097–1104. Cooper, M.D., Phillips, R.A., 2004. Exploratory analysis of the safety climate and safety behavior relationship. Journal of Safety Research 35, 497–512. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 2006. Introduction to Safety Management Systems for Air Operators. No.: AC 120-92. Fogarty, G.J., Shaw, A., 2010. Safety climate and the theory of planned behavior: towards the prediction of unsafe behavior. Accident Analysis and Prevention 42 (5), 1455–1459. Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Structural equation models with unobservable variable and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research 18 (3), 382–388. Galotti, K.M., Ciner, E., Altenbaumer, H.A., Geerts, H.J., Rupps, A., Woulfe, J.M., 2006. Making a ‘‘major’’ life-frame decision: individual differences in performance and affective reactions. Personality and Individual Differences 41, 629–639. Garland, H., Weinberg, R., Bruya, L., Jackson, A., 1988. Self efficacy and endurance performance: a longitudinal field test of cognitive mediation theory. Applied Psychology: An International Review 37, 381–394. Gist, M.E., Schwoerer, C., Rosen, B., 1989. Effects of alternative training methods on self-efficacy and performance in computer training. Journal of Applied Psychology 74, 884–891. Goodman, S.N., 1999. Toward evidence-based medical statistics: the P value fallacy. Annals of Internal Medicine 130, 995–1004. Graham, S., Weiner, B., 1995. Theories and principles of motivation. In: Berliner, D.C., Calfe, R.C. (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology. Simon & Schuster Macmillan, NY. Griffin, M.A., Neal, A., 2000. Perceptions of safety at work: a framework for linking safety climate to safety performance, knowledge, and motivation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 5 (3), 347–358. Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., 2006. Multivariate Data Analysis, sixth ed. Prentice-Hall, NJ. Hoffman, K., Kunze, R., 1971. Characteristic Values in Linear Algebra, second ed. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey. Hofmann, D.A., Morgeson, F.P., 1999. Safety-related behavior as social exchange: the role of perceived organizational support and leader–member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology 84 (2), 286–296. Hsu, Y.L., Li, W.C., Chen, K.W., 2010. Structuring critical success factors of airline safety management system using a hybrid model. Transportation Research Part E 46, 222–235. Hunter, D.R., 2005. Measurement of hazardous attitudes among pilots. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology 15 (1), 23–43. Iacobucci, D., Churchill, G.A., 2010. Marketing Research: Methodological Foundation, 10th ed. The Dryden Press, New York. Ji, M., You, X., Lan, J., Yang, S., 2011. The impact of risk tolerance, risk perception and hazardous attitude on safety operation among airline pilots in China. Safety Science 49, 1412–1420. Jong, J.P.J., Hartog, D.N.D., 2007. How leaders influence employees’ innovative behavior. European Journal of Innovation Management 10 (1), 41–64. Joreskog, K., Sorbom, D., 2001. LISREL 8: User’s Reference Guide. Scientific Software International Inc., Chicago. Kelloway, E.K., Mullen, J., Francis, L., 2006. Divergent effects of transformational and passive leadership on employee safety. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 11 (1), 76–86. Kline, R.B., 1998. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. Guilford Press, New York. Lefton, L., Brannon, L., 2002. Psychology. Allyn & Bacon, Boston. Lewis, C., 2008. A brief overview of Safety Management Systems (SMS). Flight Safety Information Journal. Liou, J.H., Chuang, M.L., 2010. Evaluating corporate image and reputation using fuzzy MCDM approach in airline market. Quality & Quantity 44 (6), 1079– 1091. Loukopoulos, D., Dismukes, R.K., Barshi, I., 2003. Concurrent task demands in the cockpit: challenges and vulnerabilities in routine flight operations. In: 12th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, 1–6. Miller, K.A., 1988. Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Contemporary Sociology 17 (2), 253–253. Molesworth, B., Wiggins, M., O’Hare, D., 2006. Improving pilots’ risk assessment skills in low-flying operations: the role of feedback and experience. Accident Analysis and Prevention 38, 954–960. 385 Musson, D.M., Sandal, G.M., Helmreich, R.L., 2004. Personality characteristics and trait clusters in final stage astronautselection. Aviation Space and Environmental Medicine 75 (4), 342–349. Neal, A., Griffin, M.A., 2006. A study of the lagged relationships among safety climate, safety motivation, safety behavior, and accidents at the individual and group levels. Journal of Applied Psychology 91 (4), 946–953. Nicholas, J.S., Butler, G.C., Lackland, D.T., Tessier, G.S., Mohr, L.C., Hoel, D.G., 2001. Health among commercial airline pilots. Aviation, Space, & Environmental Medicine 72, 821–826. Niu, C.P., Wang, A.C., Cheng, B.S., 2009. Effectiveness of a moral and benevolent leader: probing the interactions of the dimensions of paternalistic leadership. Asian Journal of Social Psychology 12 (1), 32–39. Nnunally, J.C., 1978. Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, NY. O’Hare, D., Smitheram, T., 1995. ‘‘Pressing on’’ into deteriorating conditions: an application of behavioral decision theory to pilot decision making. International Journal of Aviation Psychology 5, 351–370. Parasuraman, R., Molloy, R., Singh, I.L., 1993. Performance consequences of automation-induced ‘‘complacency’’. International Journal of Aviation Psychology 3 (1), 1–23. Pauley, K., O’Hare, D., Wiggins, M., 2008. Risk tolerance and pilot involvement in hazardous events and flight into adverse weather. Journal of Safety Research 39 (4), 403–411. Pellegrini, E.K., Scandura, T.A., 2008. Paternalistic leadership: a review and agenda for future research. Journal of Management 34 (3), 566–593. Prinzel, L.J., 2002. The relationship of self-efficacy and complacency in pilotautomation, interaction. NASA/TM-2002-211925. Prinzel, L.J., Pope, A.T., Freeman, F.G., 1999. The double-edged sword of self-efficacy: implications in automation-induced complacency. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 43rd Annual Meeting. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, San Diego, CA, p. 434. Probst, T.M., Brubaker, T.L., 2001. The effect of job insecurity on employee safety outcomes: cross sectional and longitudinal explorations. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 6, 139–159. Raju, N.S., Brand, P.A., 2003. Determining the significance of correlations corrected for unreliability and range restriction. Applied Psychological Measurement 27, 52–71. Remawi, H., Bates, P., Dix, I., 2011. The relationship between the implementation of a safety management system and the attitudes of employees towards unsafe acts in aviation. Safety Science 49, 625–632. Robbins, S.P., 2001. Organizational Behavior: Concepts, Controversies and Applications, ninth ed. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Schunk, D.H., Pajares, F., 2001. The development of academic self-efficacy. In: Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. (Eds.), Development of Achievement Motivation. American Press, San Diego. Schwarzer, R., Jerusalem, M., 1995. Generalized self-efficacy scale. In: Weinman, J., Wright, S., Johnston, M. (Eds.), Measures in Health Psychology: A User’s Portfolio. Causal and Control Beliefs. NFER-NELSON, Windsor, UK, pp. 35–37. Segars, A., 1997. Assessing the unidimensionality of measurement: a paradigm and illustration within the context of information systems research. OmegaInternational Journal of Management Science 25 (1), 107–121. Transport Canada, 2008. Guidance on Safety Management Systems development. No.: AC 107-001. Treviño, L.K., Brown, M.E., Hartman, L.P., 2003. A qualitative investigation of perceived executive ethical leadership: perceptions from inside and outside the executive suite. Human Relations 56, 5–37. United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority (UKCAA), 2002. Safety Management Systems for commercial air transport operations. No.: CAP 712. Wells, A.T., 1997. Commercial Aviation Safety. McGraw-Hill, NY. Wiegmann, D.A., Taneja, N., 2003. Analysis of injuries among pilots involved in fatal general aviation airplane accidents. Accident Analysis and Prevention 35, 571–577. Williamson, A.M., Feyer, A.M., Cairns, D., Biancotti, D., 1997. The development of a measure of safety climate: the role of safety perceptions and attitudes. Safety Science 25 (1), 15–27. Yang, C.C., Wang, Y.S., Chang, S.T., Guo, S.E., Huang, M.F., 2009. A study on the leadership behavior, safety culture, and safety performance of the healthcare industry. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 53, 1148–1155. Yukl, G., 2002. Leadership in Organizations, 5th ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River. Zohar, D., 2002. Modifying supervisory practices to improve subunit safety: a leadership-based intervention model. Journal of Applied Psychology 87 (1), 156–163. Zohar, D., Luria, G., 2003. The use of supervisory practices as leverage to improve safety behavior: a cross-level intervention model. Journal of Safety Research 34, 567–577. Indian J Pediatr (June 2011) 78(6):703–708 DOI 10.1007/s12098-010-0311-y SPECIAL ARTICLE Culture, Communication and Safety: Lessons from the Airline Industry Lori G. d’Agincourt-Canning & Niranjan Kissoon & Mona Singal & Alexander F. Pitfield Received: 24 September 2010 / Accepted: 23 November 2010 / Published online: 17 December 2010 # Dr. K C Chaudhuri Foundation 2010 Abstract Background Communication is a critical component of effective teamwork and both are essential elements in providing high quality of care to patients. Yet, communication is not an innate skill but a process influenced by internal (personal/cultural values) as well as external (professional roles and hierarchies) factors. Objective To provide illustrative cases, themes and tools for improving communication. Methods Literature review and consensus opinion based on extensive experience. Results Professional autonomy should be de-emphasized. Tools such as SBAR and simulation are important in communication and teamwork. Conclusion Tools designed to improve communication and safety in the aviation industry may have applicability to the pediatric intensive care unit. Keywords Teamwork . Communication . Cultural values . Medical errors . Safety . Team training Introduction In his book “Outliers,” Gladwell [1] presents some interesting data on “the ethnic theory of plane crashes.” He states: “the kind of errors tha...
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Here is the answer.

1

Leadership and Motivation

Leadership and Motivation

Name
Institution
Course
Instructor
Date

2

Leadership and Motivation

Leadership and Motivation
Leadership and followership are two sides of the same coin and are integral to maintain a
successful organization. There is no standard definition of leadership because generally, it
denotes the ability of an individual to influence, motivate, and enable others to contribute
effectively towards the goals of the organization which the members. On the other hand,
followership refers to the willingness to cooperate towards achieving organizational goals and is
generally associated with the ability to build cohesion with other members within the
organization. Good leadership practices motivate other members to be better followers by
fostering a positive and supportive work environment where followers' needs are given adequate
consideration and they are allowed to participate in decision making.
Traits of Good Leaders and Followers
Good leaders possess adequate skills, knowledge, and attitudes that are ideal for the
success of an organization. Such attributes generally emanate from transformational and
supportive leadership whose main goal is to create supportive and motivational work
environments where followers are respected and encouraged to take part in organizational
decision-making processes (de Brito Neto, 2015). Transformative and supportive leaders are
kind, forgiving, honest, empathetic, and demonstrate high levels of humility. Their character is
associated with those traits that foster a friendly and collaborative work environment that is
centered on the followers' needs. The defining mark of good leadership is the commitment to
walk away from traits associated with dangerous transactional leadership style.
On the other hand, traits that make good followers are those that enable `them to
coordinate effectively with the rest of the organization and form a cohesive team. Kelley (1992)
posits that exemplary followership is actuated by a high level of critical thinking and engagement

Leadership and Motivation

3

in the organization. Further, good followers take responsibility, support their leaders, and
demonstrate a willingness to be subservient to the needs of the organization. They are honest,
respectful, resourceful, and demonstrate competence and diligence in the execution of their
duties.
Leader...

Related Tags