Next Article in Journal
Pilot Ignition of Ammonia Spray Using Dimethyl Ether Spray at Elevated Temperature: A Numerical Study
Previous Article in Journal
Investigation and Emergency Response Strategies of Aircraft Cargo Compartment Fires: A Case Study on the Beijing Capital Airport Incident
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Fire
Volume 8
Issue 11
10.3390/fire8110435
fire-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Transformational Leadership and Safety Attitudes in Firefighting: Evidence on the Moderating Role of Perceived Accident Likelihood from South Korea

by
Kuk-Kyoung Moon
1 and
Jaeyoung Lim
2,*
1
Department of Public Administration, Inha University, Incheon 22212, Republic of Korea
2
Department of Public Administration and Social Welfare, Chosun University, Gwangju 61452, Republic of Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Fire 2025, 8(11), 435; https://doi.org/10.3390/fire8110435
Submission received: 2 September 2025 / Revised: 4 October 2025 / Accepted: 6 November 2025 / Published: 6 November 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Leadership is context-dependent in its influence on various employee attitudes and behaviors, particularly in high-risk environments. Despite this, few studies have explored the role of leadership in shaping safety-related outcomes within high-risk public sector settings. This study posits that leadership’s impact may differ in high-risk contexts such as firefighting, where safety is of utmost importance. Using survey data collected from firefighters in Gyeonggi-do, the largest province in South Korea, this study examines the relationship between transformational leadership, perceived accident likelihood, and three safety-related attitudes: safety motivation, safety compliance, and safety participation. With sample sizes for the three dependent variables ranging from 1502 to 1504, the ordinary least squares (OLS) regression results indicate that transformational leadership is positively associated with all three safety attitudes. However, perceived accident likelihood shows a positive relationship with only one of the safety-related attitudes: safety motivation. More importantly, perceived accident likelihood moderates the relationship between transformational leadership and safety attitudes; as perceived accident likelihood increases, the positive impact of transformational leadership on these attitudes diminishes. These findings underscore the contextual nature of leadership effectiveness in high-risk settings and highlight the importance of contextual factors in understanding leadership styles.

1. Introduction

Ensuring safety outcomes in employees’ work environments is critical for organizations across all sectors, particularly in high-risk public services like firefighting, where it prevents human suffering and facilitates continuity of essential services. Accidents can incur substantial human and financial costs. In the United States, firefighter injuries are estimated to cost $1.6 billion to $5.9 billion annually as of 2019 [1]. Firefighters routinely face life-threatening hazards, including on-duty deaths and injuries [1]. Thus, the government is obligated to prioritize safety for firefighters. Strong safety outcomes in organizations bolster employee morale and well-being while reducing potential liabilities related to hazards and maintaining public trust in essential services such as firefighting [2]. Consequently, it is vital to explore the factors associated with safety outcomes in this field.
This study specifically examines leadership, particularly transformational leadership, as a key factor influencing safety outcomes. Transformational leadership has been recognized as a significant driver of safety outcomes, as it shapes employees’ attitudes and behaviors by inspiring them to exceed their usual capabilities [2,3]. By articulating a clear vision, serving as role models, challenging the status quo, and demonstrating individualized consideration, transformational leaders can motivate employees to achieve strong safety outcomes [4]. Previous studies have shown that transformational leadership enhances safety climates and reduces accidents [5,6]. Additionally, transformational leadership is positively associated with employee participation in safety initiatives [3,4]. In firefighting, leaders who emphasize safety are associated with increased compliance with safety protocols among firefighters [6]. Thus, it is plausible to assert that transformational leadership is crucial for promoting employees’ safety attitudes.
Perceived accident likelihood is also an important factor influencing safety attitudes [7]. It reflects employees’ assessment of the probability of adverse events occurring on the job [7]. This perception can affect how seriously employees take safety measures. When employees believe that the likelihood of accidents is high, they tend to be more vigilant and adhere to safety protocols to protect themselves [8]. By increasing their sense of vulnerability, perceived accident likelihood makes employees more attentive to safety protocols, thereby enhancing their motivation to work safely [2]. Research has shown that employees with a heightened perception of risk are more likely to intend to use personal protective equipment and engage in preventive behaviors [8]. In essence, employees are more likely to exhibit safety-conscious attitudes when they perceive a greater degree of risk [7,9]. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that employees’ perceived accident likelihood is positively associated with their safety attitudes.
Importantly, this study investigates how transformational leadership and perceived accident likelihood interact to shape safety attitudes. Perceived accident likelihood can serve as a contextual moderator of the relationship between transformational leadership and safety outcomes [2]. In hazardous work environments, employees may act cautiously, regardless of leadership influence. Under conditions of increased perceived risk, the motivational effect of transformational leadership may be less pronounced [2]. Conversely, when perceived risk is low, employees may feel less vulnerable to safety and more inclined to rely on leadership cues [2]. Studies have indicated that the impact of transformational leadership may diminish under high-risk conditions [2]. This may occur because heightened risk perceptions lead employees to prioritize situational urgency over the inspirational motivations provided by transformational leadership [2]. Consequently, the effect of transformational leadership varies depending on the contextual moderation of perceived accident likelihood.
This study focuses on how transformational leadership and perceived accident likelihood jointly affect safety attitudes in firefighting. Firefighting offers a compelling context for this examination due to its high-risk nature, its importance in the public sector, and the varying levels of perceived risk, influenced by individuals’ assessments and situational factors—such as stationary duties versus emergency firefighting operations. For safety attitude variables as outcome variables in this study, we focus on safety motivation, safety compliance, and safety participation [10,11]. These variables were selected because they are closely linked to safety performance [10,11]. Safety motivation refers to employees’ willingness to make efforts to create safe work practices [10,11]. Safety compliance is the level of employee adherence to required safety rules and regulations [10,11]. Lastly, safety participation indicates the degree to which employees are willing to engage in behaviors that contribute to a safer work environment [10,11].
Building on these discussions, we pose three guiding questions. First, what is the relationship between transformational leadership and firefighters’ safety attitudes? Second, how do firefighters’ perceptions of accident likelihood shape their own safety motivation, compliance, and participation? And third, does this perception weaken or strengthen the influence of transformational leadership on safety attitudes?
This study makes several contributions to the understanding of leadership and safety attitudes. First, it identifies perceived accident likelihood as a boundary condition of leadership, particularly transformational leadership, demonstrating that leadership effectiveness depends on employees’ perceptions of risk in high-risk public sector settings. Second, this study advances the leadership-safety literature by incorporating psychological dimensions of risk perception, emphasizing how employees’ subjective assessments of risk may alter leader-follower relationships and dynamics. Third, by analyzing survey data from South Korean firefighters, we provide rare evidence from a non-Western high-risk public sector context, helping to broaden the scholarly scope of leadership and safety research.
Our study is centered on a single high-risk public setting—firefighting in the largest province in South Korea. Within this setting, we narrow our research focus to the relationship between transformational leadership and three specific safety attitudes (safety motivation, safety compliance, and safety participation), while examining how perceived accident likelihood influences these relationships. As such, this study is confined to one national context and one occupational group and should be interpreted within these boundaries accordingly.
In terms of the theoretical bases for this study, we rely on several strands of theory. In terms of leadership, we draw on the Full Range Leadership Theory, focusing on transformational leadership [12,13,14]. For perceived risks, we borrow from protection motivation theory to explain the positive connections between perceived risks and safety attitudes [15,16,17]. Finally, for the moderating role of perceived risks in the relationship between transformational leadership and safety attitudes, we rely on the contingency theory of leadership, which argues that no single style of leadership is effective in every circumstance [18,19].
This study proceeds as follows: first, we review the theoretical background and previous findings on transformational leadership and safety attitudes, on perceived accident likelihood and safety attitudes, and on the moderation of perceived accident likelihood that reshapes the relationship between transformational leadership and safety attitudes. Then, we subject our hypotheses to empirical testing. Finally, we discuss the findings and their implications.

2. Theoretical Review and Hypotheses

2.1. Transformational Leadership and Safety Attitudes

Transformational leadership comprises a set of behaviors that inspire followers to strive for higher levels of performance within an organization [12,13]. It is defined by four core dimensions: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration [12,13]. Idealized influence occurs when leaders serve as role models, earning followers’ respect and trust [14,20,21]. Inspirational motivation entails leaders articulating a compelling vision that motivates followers to pursue it [14,20,21]. Intellectual stimulation encourages followers to engage in innovative and critical thinking, while individualized consideration refers to leadership behaviors that address the individual needs of each follower [14,20,21]. Through these behaviors, transformational leaders reshape followers’ values, attitudes, and motivation [14,20,21].
Transformational leadership can positively impact workplace safety [3,4,5]. Leaders who exhibit idealized influence often demonstrate a strong commitment to safety by adhering to safety protocols and setting exemplary standards for their followers [3,6,20]. As a result, followers are likely to feel more motivated to be safety-conscious, comply with safety protocols, and actively participate in safety initiatives [3,22,23]. Furthermore, transformational leaders articulate and emphasize a vision for safety, communicating its significance as a core organizational value [4,23,24]. This prioritization of safety in their messaging and decision-making fosters a shared safety climate within the organization, encouraging followers to engage more actively in safety protocols and initiatives [3,5,22]. Through intellectual stimulation, transformational leaders challenge followers to devise creative and innovative methods to enhance safety protocols and initiatives, as well as to identify and resolve safety-related issues [4,20,23]. This approach strengthens followers’ safety motivation, compliance, and participation by facilitating proactive safety behaviors. Lastly, through individualized consideration, leaders exhibit genuine concern for their followers’ safety and well-being by coaching, mentoring, and supporting them as individuals [22,24]. This personalized support fosters mutual exchanges between transformational leaders and followers, encouraging followers to reciprocate leaders’ trust by communicating openly about safety issues and going above and beyond to help colleagues remain motivated, compliant, and engaged in safety matters within the organization [22]. By exhibiting the four dimensions of transformational leadership, leaders broaden and stimulate followers’ focus on safety protocols and tasks as essential organizational performance goals [20,21]. Prior research also confirms that these dimensions not only shape safety-specific behaviors but also reinforce broader patterns of employee engagement and commitment, highlighting their central role in sustaining organizational performance [3].
Existing studies strongly support the positive connections between transformational leadership and safety attitudes and outcomes [2,3,6]. Safety-specific transformational leadership—where leaders facilitate safe practices—has been shown to reduce workplace injuries [5]. Transformational leadership is positively associated with greater compliance with safety protocols [25]. A review article demonstrated that transformational leadership correlates positively with employees’ safety behaviors across various industries [3]. Transformational leadership is particularly valued in high-risk occupations such as healthcare and emergency services [2,3]. In nursing, units with higher levels of transformational leadership see increased safety compliance and participation among nursing staff [23,24]. Similarly, in firefighting, safety-specific transformational leadership is positively associated with firefighters’ safety behavior outcomes, including equipment use and engagement in safety initiatives [6]. Thus, transformational leadership is recognized as a critical antecedent of safety outcomes [26].
Research has shown that transformational leaders can play a powerful role in shaping how employees think about and approach safety. By setting an example, communicating a clear vision, and offering support to individual team members, they create an environment where safety is viewed as a shared priority rather than just a set of rules to follow. In such contexts, employees are more motivated to stay vigilant, comply with protocols, and take part in safety initiatives. Therefore, we formally hypothesize:
Hypothesis 1.
Transformational leadership is positively associated with firefighters’ (a) safety motivation, (b) safety compliance, and (c) safety participation.

2.2. Accident Likelihood and Safety Attitudes as Well as the Moderating Role of Perceived Accident Likelihood

In this study, perceived accident likelihood is an important factor in explaining safety attitudes. Defined as an individual’s subjective evaluation of the probability of an accident occurring at work, it encompasses beliefs and attitudes about potential hazards in the work environment [7]. Understanding perceived accident likelihood is crucial for firefighters, who may have varying subjective assessments of the likelihood of experiencing a serious injury, equipment failure, or entrapment during operations.
Perceived accident likelihood can influence safety attitudes and behaviors through various theoretical mechanisms. One such mechanism is protection motivation theory, which posits that individuals who perceive a greater severity in a threat are more likely to be motivated to protect themselves and engage in protective behaviors [15,16,17]. If firefighters believe an accident is likely to occur, this perception heightens their sense of threat and vigilance, consequently increasing their motivation to take protective actions [9,15,16,17]. These actions may include diligently following safety protocols, checking and wearing recommended protective gear, and actively participating in safety initiatives to mitigate hazards. Conversely, when perceived accident likelihood is low, firefighters may fail to properly assess potential threats, underestimating risks and becoming less motivated to prioritize safety, to comply with safety procedures, and to engage in safety initiatives. In this sense, a lower perceived accident likelihood can lead firefighters to take more risks, while a higher perception encourages greater caution, even in routine tasks [7].
Previous studies support a positive relationship between perceived accident likelihood and safety attitudes [7,8,27]. A review of studies found that employees’ risk perception is positively associated with their safety practices [8]. Employees with a heightened sense of risk are likely to rely more consistently on safety measures [7]. They are also more likely to utilize protective gear and comply with safety recommendations [7,27].
Given these considerations, we expect that individuals in high-risk settings, such as firefighting, will exhibit a greater level of motivation to avoid perceived accidents by increased motivation to adhere to safety practices, comply with safety protocols, and eagerly participate in safety initiatives and activities. Thus, we propose the following:
Hypothesis 2.
Perceived accident likelihood has a positive relationship with firefighters’ (a) safety motivation, (b) safety compliance, and (c) safety participation.
While transformational leadership and perceived accident likelihood may independently influence safety attitudes, an important question remains: how do they jointly affect safety attitudes? We contend that perceived accident likelihood serves as a moderator that shapes the impact of transformational leadership on safety motivation, compliance, and participation. Transformational leadership may positively correlate with these safety attitudes, but its effect is contingent upon an individual’s perception of accident likelihood [2].
We base our moderation assumption on the contingency theory of leadership [18,19]. This theory posits that there are no uniform leadership styles that are effective in all situations; rather, the effectiveness of leadership styles depends on the context in which they operate [18,19]. Perceived accident likelihood reflects how strongly each safety situation is perceived by individuals [3]. When accident likelihood is perceived as high, the situation is strong and salient in terms of the safety risks posed to those exposed [28]. In such situations, the discretionary inputs and differences associated with transformational leadership become less impactful or relevant, as the situation itself dictates a firm set of acceptable responses for employees [4]. If firefighters perceive that an accident is highly likely, they are likely compelled to take cautionary safety measures out of necessity and fear, rather than because of inspirational leadership from transformational leaders [3]. The transformational qualities of leaders may matter less in high-risk situations, as compliance with safety protocols is driven by situational urgency [28]. Conversely, when perceived accident likelihood is low, individuals become more discretionary in their safety behaviors and more receptive to transformational leadership [3]. If firefighters feel relatively safe, their natural vigilance may lessen, creating an opportunity for transformational leaders to intervene and emphasize safety through their idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration [4]. In other words, a strong, salient, high-risk situation may reduce the need for transformational leadership intervention, whereas a low-risk context creates a void that transformational leadership can fill [28].
Previous studies support the view that the effectiveness of transformational leadership may depend on the level of risk in which it operates [2,29]. In high-risk situations, employees’ attitudes toward safety become less influenced by transformational leaders [2]. A similar pattern was observed during the COVID-19 pandemic; among airport rescue firefighters, when perceived vulnerability to the virus was low, safety-specific leadership strongly impacted compliance [29]. However, under high perceived vulnerability, the level of safety compliance increased, while the leadership effect was less pronounced [29].
Based on the discussion above, it is reasonable to expect that as firefighters’ perceived accident likelihood increases, the strength of the positive relationship between transformational leadership and their safety motivation, compliance, and participation will erode. The impact of transformational leadership on safety attitudes will strengthen when accident likelihood is perceived as low and will weaken when perceived as high. Thus, we propose the following:
Hypothesis 3.
Perceived accident likelihood moderates the positive relationship between transformational leadership and safety attitudes. Specifically, as perceived accident likelihood increases, the positive effect of transformational leadership on firefighters’ (a) safety motivation, (b) safety compliance, and (c) safety participation becomes weaker.
By investigating these hypotheses, our study aims to deepen the understanding of how leadership and risk perceptions jointly influence safety attitudes in a firefighting context, offering both theoretical implications for leadership theory in high-risk environments and practical guidance for improving safety management in fire services. Figure 1 presents the research framework for this study.

3. Data and Measures

3.1. Data Sources

This study relied on data from a survey administered to firefighters in Gyeonggi-do Province, the most populous province in South Korea [30]. The province is home to over 13 million residents and 36 fire stations staffed by 9686 firefighters as of 2020 [30]. These firefighters are categorized as central-government public employees who have passed competitive entrance examinations. The survey employed a quota sampling method based on firefighters’ job grade levels, ensuring proportional representation across job grades and capturing perspectives from both frontline firefighters and managerial fire officers [30]. All respondents voluntarily participated in the survey, provided informed consent, and remained anonymous [30]. The sample sizes used for the empirical models, which will be discussed shortly, were 1502 for safety motivation as the dependent variable, 1504 for safety compliance, and 1503 for safety participation, once all relevant variables were accounted for [30].

3.2. Measures

3.2.1. Dependent Variable

The dependent variables in the empirical model are safety attitudes: safety motivation, safety compliance, and safety participation. These three variables were chosen because they are closely associated with safety performance [10,11]. Safety motivation refers to the degree to which employees willingly make efforts to maintain safe work practices [10,11]. Safety compliance, on the other hand, is defined as the degree to which employees adhere to mandated safety procedures and regulations [10,11]. Lastly, safety participation refers to the degree to which employees engage in behaviors that promote a safer work environment [10,11].
Each dependent variable consists of three items measured on a five-point Likert scale, previously validated in the safety literature [10,11]. Each variable is measured on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). For safety motivation, respondents were asked the following three items: “I feel that it is worthwhile to put in effort to maintain or improve my personal safety,” “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” [10,11]. For safety compliance, respondents answered the following three questions: “I use all the necessary safety equipment to do my job,” “I use the correct safety procedures for carrying out my job,” and “I ensure the highest levels of safety when I carry out my job” [10,11]. Finally, safety participation was assessed using these three items: “I promote the safety program within the organization,” “I put in extra effort to improve the safety of the workplace,” and “I voluntarily carry out tasks or activities that help to improve workplace safety” [10,11]. The Cronbach’s alpha for safety motivation, safety compliance, and safety participation were 0.90, 0.93, and 0.89, respectively, exceeding the threshold requirement of 0.7. As shown in Table 1, the means for safety motivation, safety compliance, and safety participation were 4.38, 4.21, and 3.79, indicating that respondents were, on average, more likely to exhibit favorable attitudes regarding safety motivation, compliance, and participation.

3.2.2. Independent Variables

The main independent variables in the model were transformational leadership and perceived accident likelihood. As previously indicated, transformational leadership consists of four distinct dimensions: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration [12,13,14]. While it is ideal to rely on a composite questionnaire developed by Bass & Avolio (1995), this article utilized five items validated in public administration research [12,13,14,31]. It should be noted that This scale captures general transformational leadership behaviors, not safety-specific transformational leadership. Respondents were asked to rate the degree to which their immediate supervisor exhibited transformational leadership behaviors, with responses recorded on a five-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The items are as follows: “clearly articulates his/her vision of the future (inspirational motivation),” “has a clear sense of where our organization should be in five years (inspirational motivation),” “leads by setting a good example (idealized influence),” “challenges me to think about old problems in new ways (intellectual stimulation),” and “says things that make employees proud to be part of the organization (inspirational motivation)” [31]. The Cronbach’s alpha for transformational leadership was 0.93. Its mean was 3.61, indicating that respondents, on average, rated their immediate supervisors highly in terms of transformational leadership behaviors. As hypothesized earlier, transformational leadership is expected to be positively associated with safety motivation, safety compliance, and safety participation.
Another main independent variable is perceived accident likelihood, which estimates respondents’ subjective assessment of the likelihood of an accident occurring while they perform their duties [7]. This measure relied on two items that were validated in the safety literature [2]. Respondents recorded their responses on a five-point Likert scale regarding the following two statements: “I am sure it is only a matter of time before I am involved in an accident” and “In my job, the chances of being involved in an accident are quite large” [2]. Since the measure consists of only two items, Cronbach’s alpha, typically calculated for measures with three or more items, was not estimated. Instead, the correlation between the two items was measured and found to be 0.44. The mean perceived accident likelihood was 3.05, indicating that respondents, on average, had a balanced risk perception. As previously hypothesized, perceived accident likelihood is predicted to be positively associated with safety motivation, safety compliance, and safety participation. More importantly, it is expected to moderate the relationship between transformational leadership and the dependent variables.

3.2.3. Controls and Measurement Validity

Several control variables were included to account for individual differences known to influence safety-related attitudes. First, job satisfaction has been positively associated with individuals’ safety behaviors [32]. This measure consists of five items validated in the public administration literature [33]. Respondents rated their level of agreement with each item using a five-point Likert scale: “I feel fairly well satisfied with my present job,” “I am satisfied with my job for the time being,” “Most days I am enthusiastic about my work,” “I like my job better than the average worker does,” and “I find real enjoyment in my work” [33]. The Cronbach’s alpha for this measure was 0.89, indicating good reliability. The mean job satisfaction score was 3.95, suggesting that respondents were, on average, highly satisfied with their jobs.
Second, affective commitment was also accounted for. As one of the three dimensions of organizational commitment, it reflects emotional attachment to the organization, which helps enhance employees’ safety-related attitudes [34]. This measure consists of three items validated in the existing literature [35]. Respondents rated their agreement with the following items on a five-point Likert scale: “I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization,” “I really feel as if this organization’s problems are my own,” and “This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me” [35]. The Cronbach’s alpha for this measure was 0.90, indicating reliability. The mean score for this variable was 4.03, suggesting that respondents felt a high level of emotional attachment to their organization.
Third, the model accounted for safety culture, which refers to management’s emphasis on safety within the organization [3,10,11]. It is known to be positively associated with employees’ safety-related attitudes [3,10,11]. This measure consists of three items validated in previous safety literature [10,11]. Respondents were asked to evaluate the following statements: “Management places a strong emphasis on workplace health and safety,” “Safety is given a high priority by management,” and “Management considers safety to be important” [10,11]. The Cronbach’s alpha for this measure was 0.94, indicating strong reliability. The mean score for this variable was 4.37, suggesting that individuals, on average, held a high regard for their organization’s emphasis on safety.
Finally, the model included demographic characteristics of respondents: age, gender, education, tenure, and job grade. Gender was coded as an indicator variable, with women assigned a value of 1 and men a value of 0. The percentage of women responding to the survey was 14%, indicating that female firefighters are a minority in the Korean firefighting workforce. Age, education, and tenure were coded as levels. Job grade consisted of eight grades in the original survey, but for clarity regarding managerial responsibilities, this measure was re-coded into four levels: 1 (firefighters), 2 (junior fire officers), 3 (mid-level fire officers), and 4 (senior fire officers).
A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to ensure the validity of the measurement models. CFA results demonstrated a good fit to the data: CFI of 0.98 (above 0.95), TLI of 0.97 (above 0.95), RMSEA of 0.056 (less than 0.06), and SRMR of 0.03 (less than 0.08). Additionally, since the data were self-reported, steps were taken to mitigate common method variance by ensuring respondent anonymity and varying item order. These indices and precautions helped ensure the validity of the models. We also checked variance inflation factors, all of which were below 5.0, indicating that multicollinearity was not a serious issue. Moreover, we examined whether the reliability of the study scales (Cronbach’s α) varied across gender or job grade. The coefficients were highly similar across groups, indicating that scale reliabilities did not differ meaningfully. We also relied on items with a five-point Likert scale because they were consistent with prior validated studies [10,11,31,33,35] and because they were drawn from a secondary survey, in which the items and scales could not be modified. Pearson correlation coefficients for all study variables are reported in Table 2.

4. Results

Since the dependent variables were averaged sums of three items, they were treated as continuous variables. As such, we used ordinary least squares (OLS) regression and Stata 14 for statistical analysis. The OLS regression results are presented in Table 3. We conducted the OLS regression in two steps: Model 1 (Main Effects) examined the direct relationships between the main independent variables and the dependent variables (Hypotheses 1 and 2), while Model 2 (Moderation Effects) focused on the moderation of perceived accident likelihood on the relationship between transformational leadership and the dependent variables (Hypothesis 3). Missing data were minimal, with less than 1.5% missing on any given variable. Cases with missing values were handled through listwise deletion. The models were estimated using listwise deletion, which accounts for the small differences in sample size across tables. Moreover, since heteroskedasticity was present, we addressed it by estimating all models with cluster-robust standard errors, which adjust for unequal error variance and for possible correlation of responses within fire stations.
In Model 1, transformational leadership was positively associated with safety motivation (β = 0.098, p < 0.01), suggesting that firefighters perceiving greater levels of transformational leadership reported a greater level of motivation to engage in safe behaviors. The effect of transformational leadership was slightly larger for safety compliance (β = 0.136, p < 0.01) and most substantial for safety participation (β = 0.280, p < 0.01). The results align with existing studies, demonstrating that, by articulating a vision, demonstrating inspirational leadership, being a role model, exhibiting individualized considerations, and fostering intellectual stimulation, transformational leadership facilitates employees’ motivation to engage in, adherence to, and participation in safety behaviors [3,5].
Perceived accident likelihood showed a limited relationship with the dependent variables. It was positively associated with safety motivation (β = 0.032, p < 0.05). But it was not significantly associated with safety compliance or participation. These results indicate that a greater level of risk perceptions leads employees to be motivated to engage in safety behaviors, but it was not sufficient in its standalone effect for rule-following or discretionary participation on behalf of safety behaviors.
However, this study centers on the moderating effect of perceived accident likelihood. Model 2 demonstrated that perceived accident likelihood consistently acts as a situational modifier. The interaction between perceived accident likelihood and transformational leadership was consistently and negatively associated with all three safety attitudes. For motivation, the interaction coefficient was −0.049 (p < 0.01); for compliance, −0.055 (p < 0.01); and for participation, −0.076 (p < 0.01). These results indicate that the influence of transformational leadership is not necessarily positive in all circumstances. Rather, it may be shaped by circumstances. When the level of perceived risk is high, employees appear to be motivated to engage in safe behaviors, adhere to them, and participate in them regardless of the behaviors of transformational leadership, mitigating the role that transformational leadership plays on behalf of safety attitudes and behaviors. Thus, perceived accident likelihood serves as an important boundary condition in which transformational leadership exerts its influence in high-risk contexts. The results also suggest that transformational leadership may be more effective when the risk felt by employees is less threatening.
In terms of effect size, the standardized coefficients were β = 0.10 for safety motivation, 0.14 for safety compliance, and 0.30 for safety participation, demonstrating small effects for motivation and compliance and a moderate effect for participation. This suggests that transformational leadership is particularly effective in promoting active safety participation, while still exerting smaller but meaningful influences on motivation and compliance. Perceived accident likelihood, by contrast, had only a very small effect on safety motivation (β = 0.03), indicating that its direct role in shaping safety attitudes is limited. Finally, the interaction between transformational leadership and perceived accident likelihood was positive across outcomes, with coefficients of β = −0.05 for motivation, −0.06 for compliance, and −0.08 for participation. Although these are small effects, they provide theoretically important evidence that risk perceptions slightly weaken the impact of transformational leadership, particularly in relation to safety participation. These effect sizes can be interpreted using Cohen’s conventional thresholds, where β = 0.10 represents a small effect, β = 0.30 a moderate effect, and β = 0.50 a large effect [36].
Control variables generally behaved as expected. Job satisfaction, affective commitment, and safety culture were consistently and positively associated with safety attitudes. Gender showed a negative link with safety compliance and safety participation. One explanation may be that female firefighters, as a small minority in the workforce, often encounter different role expectations or are placed in assignments with fewer structured safety requirements. In addition, cultural and organizational factors in male-dominated settings may limit opportunities for women to take part in safety initiatives or voice safety concerns. Education, age, and tenure showed inconsistent effects, suggesting these demographics play a more limited role in shaping safety attitudes compared to leadership and cultural influences.
Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4 visually illustrate the moderation effects of perceived accident likelihood. The slopes of the transformational leadership–safety attitude relationships are steepest under low perceived accident likelihood and become flatter as perceived risk increases. Thus, the figures demonstrate that perceived accident likelihood (PAL) functions as a boundary condition for transformational leadership and its influence in high-risk work environments like firefighting.

5. Discussion

5.1. Discussion

In line with earlier work, we find that transformational leadership is positively associated with safety attitudes [3,6]. Perceived accident likelihood is also positively associated with safety motivation, but it is not significantly associated with safety compliance or participation. This partly echoes Arezes and Miguel’s finding that risk increases vigilance but diverges from their conclusion that risk also increases compliance [7]. Finally, similar to Willis et al. (2017), we find that transformational leadership is less effective under high perceived risk [2]. Thus, we extend the leadership and safety literature by showing that risk perceptions shape when leadership does—and does not—matter for safety.
This study contributes to the understanding of leadership and safety attitudes in high-risk settings in several ways. First, it introduces perceived accident likelihood as a critical boundary condition that moderates the relationship between transformational leadership and safety attitudes. This finding advances the understanding of effective leadership styles by demonstrating that individuals’ perceptions of contextual threats can reshape leadership outcomes. Thus, it adds a contextual perspective to the literature on leadership. Second, the findings position risk perception as a core theoretical construct in leadership and safety studies, advocating for a psychologically grounded model of leadership. This suggests that cognitive-affective variables are important for understanding employees’ receptivity to leadership [3,37]. Third, the findings support the need for an adaptive leadership style that responds to varying perceptual situations [38]. In high-risk work, leaders need to remain flexible, especially when situations are volatile or unpredictable. Fourth, the study highlights the necessity of implementing real-time psychological safety monitoring as a vital management tool to enhance organizational capacity. By connecting employee perceptions with real-time leadership interventions, the study presents a framework for designing feedback systems, performance management, and leadership development programs in high-risk work environments [39,40]. Finally, through its focus on a high-risk setting within the South Korean public sector, this study extends and deepens the existing leadership and safety literature.
The findings also offer theoretical implications for leadership in high-risk contexts. First, the evidence underscores the importance of integrating contextual and psychological moderators, such as perceived accident likelihood, into leadership theory. It provides empirical support for a dynamic leadership model that considers the contextual variability employees encounter in their work environments [2]. Second, this study contributes to contingency theory and aligns with existing theories, such as social information processing, which posits that employees interpret leaders’ behaviors through environmental cues [41]. Additionally, it integrates affective events theory into leadership models, suggesting that perceived accident likelihood may function as an affective event influencing employees’ emotional responses and reshaping how leadership affects safety behaviors [42]. In high-risk settings, fear or worry can alter employees’ attention and reduce their receptivity to leadership messaging and decision-making [43]. Finally, by linking leadership effectiveness to perceptual measures like perceived accident likelihood, the study highlights the role of subjective perceptions and cognition in altering leader-follower dynamics. This insight emphasizes how employees make sense of their work environments and what this means for their responses to varying leadership styles [44]. The findings raise an important question about how organizational variables—ranging from culture to training, communication, structure, and feedback systems—reshape employees’ perceptions, such as perceived accident likelihood. In summary, the theoretical insights derived from the findings highlight the need to understand leadership through psychological and contextual lenses.
The findings also provide practical implications for supporting leadership in high-risk work settings. First, since the findings indicate that leadership effectiveness depends on employees’ real-time psychological states, leaders need to be equipped with the necessary skills to assess and respond to varying perceptions of risk among their followers. Therefore, appropriate training programs should be developed and implemented, including scenario-based exercises, emotional intelligence development, and decision-making under stress, to enhance leaders’ situational awareness and adaptability. Second, the findings advocate for integrating real-time feedback and monitoring into organizational safety practices. Leaders can gain timely insights regarding followers’ risk perceptions by utilizing various tools such as digital pulse surveys (frequent short questions) and sentiment analysis. This can serve as the foundation for modulated leadership strategies that enhance responsiveness to varying perceived risk levels. Third, organizations need to improve performance management systems. Leaders should be evaluated not only on their adherence to transformational leadership principles but also on their ability to adapt to varying safety conditions and perceptions. Fourth, for organizations, the findings suggest that leadership programs should be adapted to employees’ sense of risk on the ground. When risk feels minimal, leaders may need to double down on motivational messaging and individualized support to prevent complacency. Regular pulse surveys, no longer than a few questions, can help managers spot changes in perception early. Combining these surveys with metrics such as safety audit results, near-miss counts, and attendance at drills allows leaders to evaluate whether their interventions are working in both the short and medium terms. In summary, these practical implications highlight the need for organizations to view leadership as a dynamic entity, influenced by ever-changing psychological and operational safety environments.

5.2. Limitations and Future Research

Several limitations are associated with this study and its findings. First, the study’s cross-sectional design makes it difficult to draw causal inferences. Moreover, it was based on a survey of firefighters in one province of South Korea, albeit the most populous one. Thus, the findings cannot be interpreted as causal and cannot be generalized to other cultural or occupational contexts. Second, the data were self-reported and gathered simultaneously rather than across multiple time periods. Consequently, its findings may not be entirely free from common method bias, despite steps being taken to conduct confirmatory factor analysis and ensure anonymity and voluntary participation for survey respondents. It is possible that some responded in a socially desirable way, especially on questions related to safety. This may have made the associations between variables appear stronger than they actually are. Furthermore, Harman’s single-factor test showed that the first factor explained 59% of the variance, exceeding the conventional 50% threshold. This result suggests the potential presence of common method bias, although it is worth noting that the test is conservative and often overstates such concerns. Still, future research needs to use designs such as multi-source or time-lagged data collection to minimize possible bias. Similarly, we recognize here that stronger diagnostic approaches (such as marker-variable or latent method factor techniques) were not feasible with the secondary dataset we used. Third, while the construct of perceived accident likelihood used in this study was derived from previously validated research, it captures only the psychological dimension. A construct encompassing broader dimensions, such as emotional or cognitive assessments, would have increased the validity of the findings. Fourth, perceived accident likelihood was captured with only two items, which resulted in modest reliability (Spearman–Brown reliability of 0.61). This may have dampened the strength of the moderation effects we observed. Future research would benefit from using validated multi-item scales or developing richer measures of risk perception to strengthen measurement reliability and validity. Fifth, while using cluster-robust standard errors helps account for non-independence in our data, future research could build on this by applying full multilevel models to more directly capture differences between stations.
Sixth, we included safety culture, job satisfaction, and affective commitment as controls, but we recognize that these factors might also function as mediators of leadership effects. Future studies could explore this possibility more directly by modeling the pathways through which leadership may reshape these variables and, in turn, safety attitudes. Seventh, we were not able to formally test measurement invariance across gender and job grade, which is a limitation of this study. Future work with longer and more comprehensive scales could examine this issue more directly. Eighth, the negative associations we found for gender in relation to safety compliance and participation may reflect dynamics such as task allocation, cultural expectations, or the challenges of being a minority in a male-dominated occupation. Because women made up only a small share of our sample (only 14% female respondents), we were not able to examine these mechanisms in depth. Future research with larger and more balanced samples is needed to better understand how gender influences safety behaviors in firefighting. Ninth, we relied on Cronbach’s α as our main reliability check. While widely used, α assumes equal item loadings and does not capture convergent validity as fully as CFA-based indices like composite reliability (CR) or average variance extracted (AVE). Future studies with longer scales could apply these approaches for a more comprehensive assessment. Tenth, while we argue that transformational leadership influences safety attitudes, the reverse could also be true—employees who already hold stronger safety attitudes may be more inclined to view their leaders as transformational. Lastly, we relied on an abridged transformational leadership scale rather than a safety-specific version, which may limit the precision of our measurement. Future studies would benefit from using validated safety-specific leadership scales to capture more context-sensitive insights.
Thus, future studies should consider longitudinal or experimental designs to enhance causality and generalizability of the findings. Additionally, employing a safety-specific transformational leadership questionnaire could improve the validity of the findings. Finally, the inclusion of more leadership styles, such as transactional leadership and servant leadership, would enrich the understanding of the contexts in which varying levels of perceived accident likelihood operate.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: K.-K.M. and J.L.; data curation: K.-K.M. and J.L.; analysis: K.-K.M. and J.L.; methodology: K.-K.M. and J.L.; writing, reviewing, and editing: K.-K.M. and J.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the INHA UNIVERSITY Research Grant (2025).

Institutional Review Board Statement

We assured participants that their data would remain confidential. The questionnaires did not involve clinical trials with humans or animals, and respondents completed and returned them voluntarily, providing consent to participate in the survey. All collected data and related information were treated with strict confidentiality.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was provided from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data will be provided upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Butry, D.T.; Webb, D.H.; Gilbert, S.W.; Taylor, J. The Economics of Firefighter Injuries in the United States; National Institute of Standards and Technology: Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2019. Available online: https://www.nist.gov/publications/economics-firefighter-injuries-united-states (accessed on 15 June 2025).
  2. Willis, S.; Clarke, S.; O’Connor, E. Contextualizing Leadership: Transformational Leadership and Management-By-Exception-Active in Safety-Critical Contexts. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2017, 90, 281–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Clarke, S. Safety Leadership: A Meta-Analytic Review of Transformational and Transactional Leadership Styles as Antecedents of Safety Behaviours. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2013, 86, 22–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Mullen, J.E.; Kelloway, E.K. Safety Leadership: A Longitudinal Study of the Effects of Transformational Leadership on Safety Outcomes. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2009, 82, 253–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Barling, J.; Loughlin, C.; Kelloway, E.K. Development and Test of a Model Linking Safety-Specific Transformational Leadership and Occupational Safety. J. Appl. Psychol. 2002, 87, 488–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Smith, T.D.; Eldridge, F.; DeJoy, D.M. Safety-Specific Transformational and Passive Leadership Influences on Firefighter Safety Climate Perceptions and Safety Behavior outcomes. Saf. Sci. 2016, 86, 92–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Arezes, P.M.; Miguel, A.S. Risk Perception and Safety Behaviour: A Study in an Occupational Environment. Saf. Sci. 2008, 46, 900–907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Priolo, G.; Vignoli, M.; Nielsen, K. Risk Perception and Safety Behaviors in High-Risk Workers: A Systematic Literature review. Saf. Sci. 2025, 186, 106811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Mearns, K.; Flin, R. Risk Perception and Attitudes to Safety by Personnel in the Offshore Oil and Gas Industry: A Review. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 1995, 8, 299–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Neal, A.; Griffin, M.A. Safety Climate and Safety Performance. In The Psychology of Workplace Safety; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2004; pp. 15–34. [Google Scholar]
  11. Neal, A.; Griffin, M.A. A Study of the Lagged Relationships among Safety Climate, Safety Motivation, Safety Behavior, and Accidents at the Individual and Group Levels. J. Appl. Psychol. 2006, 91, 946–953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Bass, B.M.; Avolio, B.J. Improving Organizational Effectiveness Through Transformational Leadership; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  13. Bass, B.M.; Avolio, B.J. MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for Research: Permission Set; Mind Garden: Redwood City, CA, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  14. Bass, B.M.; Riggio, R.E. Transformational Leadership; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  15. Rogers, R.W. A Protection Motivation Theory of Fear Appeals and Attitude Change. J. Psychol. 1975, 91, 93–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Rogers, R.W. Cognitive and Physiological Processes in Fear Appeals and Attitude change: A Revised Theory of Protection Motivation. In Social Psychophysiology: A Sourcebook; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 1983; pp. 153–176. [Google Scholar]
  17. Floyd, D.L.; Prentice-Dunn, S.; Rogers, R.W. A Meta-Analysis of Research on Protection Motivation Theory. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2000, 30, 407–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Fiedler, F.E. A Theory of Ledership Effectiveness; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1967. [Google Scholar]
  19. Hersey, P.; Blanchard, K.H. Management of Organizational Behavior: Utilizing Human Resources; Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  20. Rafferty, A.E.; Griffin, M.A. Dimensions of Transformational Leadership: Conceptual and Empirical Extensions. Leadersh. Q. 2004, 15, 329–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Judge, T.A.; Piccolo, R.F. Transformational and Transactional Leadership: A Meta-Analytic Test of Their Relative Validity. J. Appl. Psychol. 2004, 89, 755–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Wu, T.; Wang, Y.; Ruan, R.; Zheng, J. Divergent Effects of Transformational Leadership on Safety Compliance: A Dual-Path Moderated Mediation Model. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0262394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ghasemi, F.; Mahdinia, M.; Doosti-Irani, A. Safety-Specific Transformational Leadership and Safety Outcomes at Workplaces: A Scoping Review Study. BMC Public Health 2025, 25, 2723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Lievens, I.; Vlerick, P. Transformational Leadership and Safety Performance among Nurses: The Mediating Role of Knowledge-Related Job Characteristics. J. Adv. Nurs. 2014, 70, 651–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Kelloway, E.K.; Mullen, J.; Francis, L. Divergent Effects of Transformational and Passive Leadership on Employee Safety. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2006, 11, 76–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Ree, E.; Wiig, S. Linking Transformational Leadership, Patient Safety Culture and Work Engagement in Home Care Services. Nurs. Open 2019, 7, 256–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Man, S.S.; Alabdulkarim, S.; Chan, A.H.S.; Zhang, T. The Acceptance of Personal Protective Equipment among Hong Kong Construction Workers: An Integration of Technology Acceptance Model and Theory of Planned Behavior with Risk perception and Safety Climate. J. Saf. Res. 2021, 79, 329–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Zohar, D.; Luria, G. A Multilevel Model of Safety Climate: Cross-Level Relationships between Organization and Group-Level Climates. J. Appl. Psychol. 2005, 90, 616–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Le, A.B.; Mullins-Jaime, C.; Smith, T.D. The Impact of Safety Leadership on Safety Behaviors of Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting Personnel during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2024, 31, 157–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Gyeonggi Provincial Council. A Study on Policy Measures to Improve the Happiness Index of Firefighters in Gyeonggi Province. 2020. Available online: https://memory.library.kr/items/show/210053287 (accessed on 5 August 2023).
  31. Pandey, S.K.; Davis, R.S.; Pandey, S.; Peng, S. Transformational Leadership and the Use of Normative Public Values: Can Employees Be Inspired to Serve Larger Public Purposes? Public Admin 2016, 94, 204–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Christian, M.S.; Bradley, J.C.; Wallace, J.C.; Burke, M.J. Workplace safety: A Meta-Analysis of the Roles of Person and Situation Factors. J. Appl. Psychol. 2009, 94, 1103–1127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Judge, T.A.; Locke, E.A.; Durham, C.C.; Kluger, A.N. Dispositional Causes of Job Satisfaction: A Core Evaluations Approach. J. Appl. Psychol. 1998, 83, 17–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Meyer, J.P.; Allen, N.J. Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research, and Application; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  35. Sun, R.; Peng, S.; Pandey, S.K. Testing the Effect of Person-Environment Fit on Employee Perceptions of Organizational Goal Ambiguity. Public Perform. Manag. Rev. 2014, 37, 465–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  37. Kapp, E.A. The Influence of Supervisor Leadership Practices and Perceived Group Safety Climate on Employee Safety Performance. Saf. Sci. 2012, 50, 1119–1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Weick, K.E.; Sutcliffe, K.M. Managing the Unexpected: Assuring High Performance in an Age of Complexity; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  39. Flin, R.; Mearns, K.; O’Connor, P.; Bryden, R. Measuring Safety Climate: Identifying the Common Features. Saf. Sci. 2000, 34, 177–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hofmann, D.A.; Burke, M.J.; Zohar, D. 100 Years of Occupational Safety Research: From Basic Protections and Work Analysis to A Multilevel Model of Safety Culture/Climate. J. Appl. Psychol. 2017, 102, 375–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Salancik, G.R.; Pfeffer, J. A Social Information Processing Approach to Job Attitudes and Task Design. Adm. Sci. Q. 1978, 23, 224–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Weiss, H.M.; Cropanzano, R. Affective Events Theory: A Theoretical Discussion of the Structure, Causes and Consequences of Affective Experiences at Work. Res. Organ. Behav. 1996, 18, 34–74. [Google Scholar]
  43. Staw, B.M.; Sandelands, L.E.; Dutton, J.E. Threat-Rigidity Effects in Organizational Behavior. Adm. Sci. Q. 1981, 26, 501–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Lord, R.G.; Maher, K.J. Leadership and Information Processing: Linking Perceptions and Performance; Unwin Hyman: Boston, MA, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
Fire 08 00435 g001
Figure 1. Research framework.
Figure 1. Research framework.
Fire 08 00435 g001
Fire 08 00435 g002
Figure 2. Predicted Safety Motivation as a Function of Transformational Leadership at Low, Medium, and High Levels of Perceived Accident Likelihood (95% Confidence Bands).
Figure 2. Predicted Safety Motivation as a Function of Transformational Leadership at Low, Medium, and High Levels of Perceived Accident Likelihood (95% Confidence Bands).
Fire 08 00435 g002
Fire 08 00435 g003
Figure 3. Predicted Safety Compliance as a Function of Transformational Leadership at Low, Medium, and High Levels of Perceived Accident Likelihood (95% Confidence Bands).
Figure 3. Predicted Safety Compliance as a Function of Transformational Leadership at Low, Medium, and High Levels of Perceived Accident Likelihood (95% Confidence Bands).
Fire 08 00435 g003
Fire 08 00435 g004
Figure 4. Predicted Safety Participation as a Function of Transformational Leadership at Low, Medium, and High Levels of Perceived Accident Likelihood (95% Confidence Bands).
Figure 4. Predicted Safety Participation as a Function of Transformational Leadership at Low, Medium, and High Levels of Perceived Accident Likelihood (95% Confidence Bands).
Fire 08 00435 g004
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics.
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics.
VariablesMeanS.D.Min.Max.
Safety motivation4.380.5825
Safety compliance4.210.631.675
Safety participation3.790.7315
Transformational
leadership (TFL)		3.610.7015
Perceived accident likelihood3.050.9215
Job satisfaction3.950.6615
Affective commitment4.030.7315
Safety culture4.370.641.335
Gender0.140.3401
Age2.340.9614
Education2.320.8314
Tenure1.610.8414
Job grade1.800.8814
Table 2. Correlations between variables.
Table 2. Correlations between variables.
(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)
(1)1.000
(2)0.590 ***1.000
(3)0.518 ***0.598 ***1.000 ***
(4)0.373 ***0.402 ***0.481 ***1.000
(5)−0.006−0.042−0.103 ***−0.164 ***1.000
(6)0.378 ***0.445 ***0.461 ***0.430 ***−0.081 ***1.000
(7)0.382 ***0.438 ***0.470 ***0.438 ***−0.145 ***0.683 ***1.000
(8)0.521 ***0.447 ***0.385 ***0.420 ***−0.0270.348 ***0.372 ***1.000
(9)−0.089 ***−0.137 ***−0.149 ***−0.083 ***0.008−0.135 ***−0.142 ***−0.065 **1.000
(10)0.092 ***0.096 ***0.223 ***0.055 **−0.0040.126 ***0.119 ***0.112 ***−0.152 ***1.000
(11)−0.030−0.105 ***−0.067 ***−0.059 **−0.017−0.075 ***−0.085 ***−0.054**0.130 ***−0.0471.000
(12)0.110 ***0.103 ***0.219 ***0.109 ***−0.0160.124 ***0.126 ***0.143 ***−0.109 ***0.812 ***−0.128 ***1.000
(13)0.105 ***0.101 ***0.208 ***0.081 ***−0.0200.127 ***0.133 ***0.136 ***−0.092 ***0.798 ***−0.078 ***0.842 ***1.000
Note: ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.01; (1) safety motivation; (2) safety compliance; (3) safety participation; (4) transformational leadership; (5) perceived accident likelihood; (6) job satisfaction; (7) affective commitment; (8) safety culture; (9) gender; (10) age; (11) education; (12) tenure; (13) job grade.
Table 3. Regression Results.
Table 3. Regression Results.
VariablesSafety MotivationSafety ComplianceSafety Participation
Model 1: Main EffectsModel 2:
Interaction Effects		Model 1: Main EffectsModel 2:
Interaction Effects		Model 1: Main EffectsModel 2:
Interaction Effects
Coef.(S.E.)Coef.(S.E.)Coef.(S.E.)Coef.(S.E.)Coef.(S.E.)Coef.(S.E.)
Transformational
leadership (TFL)		0.0980.019 ***0.2470.068 ***0.1360.025 ***0.3030.054 ***0.2800.030 ***0.5080.080 ***
Perceived accident likelihood0.0320.015 **0.2160.082 ***0.0170.0130.2230.068 ***−0.0150.0260.2660.093 ***
TFL × Perceived accident likelihood −0.0490.021 *** −0.0550.017 *** −0.0760.022 ***
Job satisfaction0.1050.031 ***0.1040.030 ***0.1740.035 ***0.1730.034 ***0.1750.050 ***0.1740.049 ***
Affective commitment0.0880.024 ***0.0890.023 ***0.1180.030 ***0.1190.030 ***0.1630.038 ***0.1650.037 ***
Safety culture0.3540.024 ***0.3510.023 ***0.2580.031 ***0.2540.032 ***0.1540.030 ***0.1500.030 ***
Gender−0.0400.035−0.0430.035−0.0980.048 **−0.1000.048 **−0.1060.046 **−0.1100.046 **
Age−0.0010.023−0.0020.0230.0200.0230.0190.0220.0980.029 ***0.0960.029 ***
Education0.0150.0160.0160.016−0.0380.013 **−0.0360.013 ***−0.0010.0190.0010.019
Tenure0.0080.0220.0050.023−0.0270.032−0.0300.0310.0150.0330.0100.032
Job grade0.0030.0240.0060.0250.0080.0280.0110.0280.0050.0310.0100.031
Constant1.5680.128 ***1.0200.289 ***1.4630.136 ***0.8490.228 ***0.5580.170 ***−0.2810.304
R-squared0.3360.3390.3330.3370.3760.381
n150215041503
Note: ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01; S.E. = robust clustered standard errors; slight sample size differences due to listwise deletion of missing data.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Moon, K.-K.; Lim, J. Transformational Leadership and Safety Attitudes in Firefighting: Evidence on the Moderating Role of Perceived Accident Likelihood from South Korea. Fire 2025, 8, 435. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire8110435

AMA Style

Moon K-K, Lim J. Transformational Leadership and Safety Attitudes in Firefighting: Evidence on the Moderating Role of Perceived Accident Likelihood from South Korea. Fire. 2025; 8(11):435. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire8110435

Chicago/Turabian Style

Moon, Kuk-Kyoung, and Jaeyoung Lim. 2025. "Transformational Leadership and Safety Attitudes in Firefighting: Evidence on the Moderating Role of Perceived Accident Likelihood from South Korea" Fire 8, no. 11: 435. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire8110435

APA Style

Moon, K.-K., & Lim, J. (2025). Transformational Leadership and Safety Attitudes in Firefighting: Evidence on the Moderating Role of Perceived Accident Likelihood from South Korea. Fire, 8(11), 435. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire8110435

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop