Research on safety motivation as a mediator linking full range leadership, safety climate, and safety performance is grounded in the grand theory of the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB).

The Theory of Planned Behavior is an extension of the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) developed by Ajzen in 1985. The TRA explains that individual behavior is driven by two factors: attitude toward the behavior and subjective norms. The TPB adds a third component: perceived behavioral control, which reflects the individual’s perception of the ease or difficulty of performing the behavior (Ajzen, 2005).

The core element of the Theory of Planned Behavior is the individual’s intention to perform a specific behavior. Intention is considered a motivational factor influencing behavior and indicates how hard a person is willing to try and how much effort they will exert to perform the behavior. Intention affects performance to the extent that individuals have control over the behavior, and performance increases with perceived behavioral control, assuming the individual is motivated to try (Ajzen, 1991).

This study adopts the Theory of Planned Behavior as its main theoretical foundation because it provides a framework for identifying the mechanisms through which safety leadership affects employees' safety motivation (Sawhney & Cigularov, 2018). In the safety context, safety intention reflects an individual's

motivation to engage in safety performance, serving as a direct antecedent to safety performance (Ajzen, 1991).

TPB also explains the role of safety climate in stimulating employee safety performance (Lee et al., 2019). In workplace safety performance, safety climate acts as a perceptual reference for organizational safety norms, helping employees form consistent perception schemes and expectations regarding the likely outcomes of safety performance (Lee et al., 2019).

Self-Determination Theory (SDT) posits that individuals are motivated to produce self-directed behavior. When motivation has not yet been internalized, external conditions may be necessary to direct behavioral performance. SDT views motivation as a multidimensional construct and emphasizes the importance of understanding both the level and type of motivation when attempting to explain individual behavior (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

SDT is based on the concept of three basic psychological needs: autonomy (the need to feel free and self-directed), competence (the need to feel effective), and relatedness (the need to feel connected to others), which are essential for growth and development (Legault, 2017).

Social Exchange Theory suggests that the safety support provided by organizations to employees leads to a sense of obligation and a desire from employees to contribute to the organization’s goals (Xia et al., 2023). In the safety literature, SET implies that positive safety attitudes and performance result from reciprocal social exchanges within the organization (Hofmann et al., 2003).

There are two general functions of social exchange: building friendships and establishing superordination over others (Mitchell et al., 2012). Engaging in ongoing social exchange can foster trust, forming close relationships. Social exchange is voluntary and typically occurs as a result of successful prior exchanges (Mitchell et al., 2012).

Organizational Support Theory (OST) is defined as the belief regarding the extent to which an organization values employee contributions and cares about their well-being (Riggle et al., 2009). Employees form perceptions of organizational support based on their interactions with supervisors, company policies, and organizational culture. High levels of support are associated with increased employee motivation, commitment, and performance.

Individuals tend to reciprocate support they receive; when the organization shows high levels of support, employees feel obliged to respond with positive behaviors (Gouldner, 1960). There is a relationship between leadership and organizational support, where leaders who encourage and support employees can enhance the perceived organizational support.

Full range leadership is designed as a linear approach to leadership style, making leadership more appropriate and effective (Harsoyo, 2022). It is a model that offers several foundational principles to potentially develop broader leadership theories (Antonakis et al., 2003).

According to Bass and Avolio (1980), full range leadership consists of three styles:

Overall, full range leadership emphasizes that effective leadership does not rely on one style alone but integrates multiple styles to adapt to organizational situations and needs in order to achieve optimal performance.

Safety climate refers to the extent to which employees perceive safety as a priority in their workplace. It is considered a critical factor in promoting employee behaviors that prevent workplace accidents and foster a safe working environment (Huang et al., 2016).

The purpose of measuring safety climate is to identify opportunities to improve safety performance within the organization (Ansori et al., 2021).

According to Zohar and Luria (2010), the dimensions of safety climate consist of three key managerial practices:

implementing and overseeing safety standards; and

and mitigate potential risks before they become safety issues.

Motivation toward a particular goal can only be achieved through learning and engagement. Therefore, managers must actively involve employees in developing safety procedures and provide safety-related knowledge (Andersson et al., 2016).

Safety motivation refers to the willingness of company members to deliver higher levels of safety performance (Probst et al., 2001). According to Neal & Griffin (2006), safety motivation is defined as the individual’s willingness to exert effort toward enacting safety performance and the valence associated with such performance.

Safety performance refers to a series of activities carried out by the workforce on-site when performing tasks or responsibilities related to safety (Li et al., 2018). Safety performance is a crucial aspect of occupational safety (Ansori et al., 2021). Safety performance can be improved by modifying its influencing factors, which include individual (person-related) and organizational (situation- related) factors. Individual factors consist of safety motivation and safety knowledge, while organizational factors include the safety climate (Ansori et al., 2021).

Neal and Griffin (2000) identified two categories of safety performance:

improve workplace safety but help develop a safe working environment.

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework

Hypothesis 1. Safety motivation mediates the influence of full range leadership on safety performance

Self-Determination Theory identifies the conditions under which forms of motivation are likely to develop, thus providing insight into the effects of safety leadership (Gagne & Deci, 2005). Leaders typically motivate and educate their employees to work safely. Effective leadership not only increases safety knowledge but also motivates employees to behave safely in any situation (Christian et al., 2009). Furthermore, a higher level of safety motivation will improve safety performance in the form of safety compliance and participation (Vinodkumar & Bhasi, 2010).

High-quality leadership can enhance safety knowledge and motivation, which subsequently improves safety behavior (Subramaniam et al., 2023). Employees who feel motivated by their leaders to act in certain ways will be more

inclined to act similarly, with consistency and moral autonomy, thus improving safety performance. Overall, safety motivation mediates the influence of full range leadership on safety performance.

In this context, full range leadership is further elaborated into the following hypotheses:

A structured questionnaire consisting of 65 items was employed, using a five-point Likert scale. A score of 1 indicates “strongly disagree,” while a score of 5 indicates “strongly agree.” The questionnaire was distributed via Google Forms and completed online.

The Full Range Leadership variable was adapted from Avolio and Bass (1985), measured using three dimensions:

The Safety Climate variable was adapted from Zohar & Luria (2005), consisting of 16 items.The Safety Motivation variable was adapted from Vinodkumar & Bhasi (2010), measured using 5 items.The Safety Performance variable was also adapted from Vinodkumar & Bhasi (2010), consisting of 8 items.

Figure 2. Hypothesis Testing

* = significant

Table 1. Hypothesis Test Results 1

Source: Data processing results (2024)

Based on the results of hypothesis testing, the first hypothesis (H1) is accepted where the value of the Full range leadership (FRL) path to safety motivation (MK) has an estimate value of 0.233. The value of the safety motivation (MK) path to safety performance (PK) has an estimate value of 0.514. So the resulting path coefficient is 0.233 x 0.514 = 0.120 and C.R 2.926> 1.96 or the p-value of the Sobel test (0.001 <0.05) and the p-value of bootstrapping 0.003

<0.05. So it can be concluded that safety motivation (MK) plays a significant role as a mediating variable, namely a variable that mediates the indirect effect of Full range leadership (FRL) on the safety performance variable (PK).

Table 2. Hypothesis Test Results 2

Source: Data Processing Results (2024)

The second hypothesis (H2) is accepted, indicating that safety motivation (SM) plays a significant role as a mediating variable, mediating the indirect effect of safety climate (SC) on safety performance (SP) with a mediation path coefficient of 0.291 and a C.R value of 4.927 > 1.96, or a Sobel test p-value of 0.000

< 0.05 and a bootstrapping p-value of 0.003 < 0.05. Since the direct effect test or the hypothesis on the direct influence of safety climate on safety performance is accepted, the role of safety motivation (SM) is categorized as partial mediation.

The findings show that safety motivation mediates the effect of full range leadership on safety performance. In this context, safety motivation becomes a key factor linking full range leadership to employees' safety performance. Motivation drives employees to enhance alertness, risk awareness, and proactive attitudes toward maintaining safety in the workplace. As a result, safety motivation acts as a bridge, allowing full range leadership to impact safety performance through stronger internal drive from employees.

The discussion of each component of full range leadership— transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership—is outlined as follows:

Safety motivation is a strong predictor of safety participation. Leaders can shape employee attitudes in several ways by demonstrating transformational behavior—articulating vision, modeling behavior, and providing support by emphasizing the priority of safety for employee well-being. These leaders

promote positive attitudes. Safety motivation refers to employees' desire to deliver better safety performance (Al Bayati, 2021).

Safety motivation contributes 46.14% to safety performance, making it the most significant contributing factor among all variables. This is because employees believe workplace safety is highly important, consistently use all necessary safety equipment, ensure the highest safety standards during task execution, and encourage coworkers to work safely.

Highly motivated employees will manage safety-related actions more effectively due to their awareness of the importance of safety and recognition of accident risks in the workplace. By complying with safety rules and procedures, making efforts to prevent accidents and injuries for themselves and colleagues, and actively seeking improvements in workplace safety, employees contribute to enhanced organizational safety performance.

The test results show that transformational leadership directly affects safety motivation but not safety performance. However, safety motivation has a direct effect on safety performance and mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and safety performance.

Safety motivation is directly associated with performance and indirectly mediates the effect of transformational leadership on performance. It is a critical mediator in the relationship between safety leadership and safety outcomes. This mediation role is only effective when employees have a high level of trust in their leaders (Conchie, 2013).

Motivation is a crucial factor through which transformational leadership influences employee behavior. Transformational leaders encourage followers to focus on personal development and motivate them to exhibit proactive, change- oriented behavior (Bazzoli & Curcuruto, 2020).

This study is consistent with the findings of Conchie (2013), Adjekum (2017), and Subramaniam et al. (2022), who stated that transformational leadership influences safety performance through safety motivation. When leaders demonstrate transformational behavior, employees feel motivated to work safely because the leader instills trust, thereby enhancing their motivation and intention to act safely—particularly through cognitive-based trust in their leader to ensure safety performance.

Transformational leaders who display idealized attributes—such as speaking optimistically about the future and articulating an inspiring vision— can ignite employee motivation by providing a clearer sense of the organization's future direction. Those who exhibit idealized behavior—by seeking different perspectives to solve organizational problems—gain subordinates' trust as employees see their leader as a problem-solver.

Leaders with inspirational motivation who recognize that each employee has unique needs, abilities, and aspirations will help employees feel valued and needed, thereby increasing their motivation to give their best for the organization. Leaders who demonstrate strength and confidence will make subordinates feel proud, and those who apply intellectual stimulation—by emphasizing shared missions and strong goals—will unite with subordinates to

achieve organizational goals. This can trigger subordinates' motivation to achieve safety performance in line with organizational objectives.

Thus, hypothesis 1a, which posits that safety motivation mediates the

effect of transformational leadership on safety performance, is supported.

Safety motivation mediates the effect of transactional leadership on safety performance (Subramaniam et al., 2023). Leaders who exemplify safety implementation tend to motivate employees. Management-by-exception practices—such as monitoring worker behavior, detecting problems, and correcting errors—can facilitate workers in engaging in safety-related error recovery and learning from mistakes, which increases their involvement in safety issues and enhances their motivation.

Transactional leaders who provide rewards and recognition to employees who meet expectations can give meaning to their work and are likely to boost engagement. This motivates employees to report safety hazards or unsafe coworkers because they feel they are assisting their leaders in safety oversight.

When followers have a high level of trust in their leaders, they are more likely to behave as expected by participating in organizational activities and supporting others (Li et al., 2018). Employees are more willing to work together to improve workplace safety when they share common values with their leaders and have close relationships that foster affective commitment to the organization (Curcuruto & Griffin, 2018).

Employees with affective commitment are more motivated to engage in safety behavior, such as protecting coworkers and making efforts to prevent accidents (Curcuruto & Griffin, 2018). Those with strong commitment are more likely to follow safety rules and reduce deviant behavior.

Transactional leaders applying the contingent reward dimension motivate employees by providing rewards for good performance. This encourages employees to perform better and reduce mistakes. Subordinates respond positively to proactive leaders who closely monitor errors and focus on addressing problems, complaints, and failures. Passive leaders who intervene only after problems occur may show trust in subordinates by assuming they can work independently, which in turn increases motivation to earn that trust and improve safety performance.

This study demonstrates that safety motivation mediates the effect of transactional leadership on safety performance. According to social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), transactional leadership—through contingent rewards—can increase employee motivation to report hazards and maintain safety (Subramaniam et al., 2023; Bazzoli & Curcuruto, 2020).

These findings are consistent with Addo and Dartey-Baah (2019) and Wu et al. (2022), who found that transactional leadership does not directly influence safety performance. Instead, high safety motivation among employees leads to improved safety performance—especially when they feel appreciated, trusted, and have affective commitment to the organization (Li et al., 2018; Curcuruto &

Griffin, 2018).Thus, hypothesis 1b, which posits that safety motivation mediates the effect of transactional leadership on safety performance, is supported.

By motivating employees to achieve company goals, laissez-faire leadership empowers followers by involving them in decision-making and instilling a sense of being an integral component of the business process (Iqbal et al., 2021). Employees thrive when they feel competent in performing tasks. Laissez-faire can be highly effective when employees are skilled and motivated, as making their own decisions can enhance safety performance.

Although laissez-faire leadership is often regarded as poor leadership, some employees view the increased responsibility and authority to make decisions as an opportunity to exceed expectations and improve themselves. It can benefit the organization when both leaders and employees are motivated and knowledgeable in their fields. Laissez-faire leadership fosters employee motivation by enhancing their self-efficacy and granting autonomy, which helps improve employee performance.

This study shows that laissez-faire leadership has a positive effect on safety motivation, as employees are given the freedom to determine their own methods of achieving workplace safety (Sulistiyani et al., 2022), even though its contribution to motivation is only 3.66%. While laissez-faire leaders tend to avoid responsibility (Bass, 1999), potentially increasing safety risks, they also encourage employees to take greater initiative.

Laissez-faire leadership affects individuals differently depending on their self-concept (Robert & Vanderbergh, 2021; Wisse & Sleebos, 2016), where employees with strong self-concepts may become more motivated. Additionally, leaders who provide autonomy and trust encourage proactive involvement in safety (Lorena & Hariasih, 2019; Jiang & Probst, 2016; Tong, 2020). Despite often being viewed negatively, this leadership style can enhance safety motivation and performance when applied to skilled and motivated employees (Iqbal et al., 2021). Thus, hypothesis 1c, which posits that safety motivation mediates the effect of Laissez-faire leadership on safety performance, is supported

Safety motivation mediates the effect of safety climate on safety performance Employees will be more motivated to comply with safety procedures and participate in safety activities if they believe such behaviors will yield valuable outcomes. Perceptions of the safety climate reflect employees’ beliefs about the priority of safety, and these perceptions influence behavioral expectations and outcomes. A better safety climate in a company will increase employees’ motivation to adopt safe behaviors, ultimately enhancing safety performance.This study reveals that safety motivation partially mediates the effect of safety climate on safety performance, as indicated by the direct effect estimate being higher than the estimate with motivation included as a mediator. This suggests that safety climate affects safety performance both directly and indirectly through safety motivation. When motivation is involved as a mediator,

the relationship becomes more structured, with safety motivation supporting the internalization of safety values among employees.

The safety climate includes dimensions such as active practices (where supervisors directly monitor safe work and ensure necessary safety equipment), proactive practices (where supervisors insist on following safety rules), and declarative practices (where supervisors inform employees about job hazards). With such leaders, employees feel that their safety is a priority, increasing motivation to improve safety performance.

This study shows that a positive safety climate—reflecting employee perceptions of safety policies and practices—plays a vital role in enhancing safety motivation (Santoso et al., 2020 Rahlin et al., 2022), fostering responsibility and active participation. Supervisors emphasizing safety procedures even under pressure further enhance employees' intrinsic motivation (Flatau-Hariston et al., 2020). Thus, hypothesis 2, which posits that safety motivation mediates the effect of Laissez-faire leadership on safety performance, is supported.