| Literature DB >> 36142064 |
Lixia Niu1, Wende Xia1, Yafan Qiao1.
Abstract
As a high-risk industry that is always struggling with unsafe factors, coal mine enterprises must prioritize safety in their operation and management, but there are still some short-sighted coal mine managers who choose to leave safety behind in the desperate pursuit of financial benefits, resulting in coal mine accidents from time to time. Unfortunately, this leadership style, known as leader bottom-line mentality, has not yet received sufficient attention in the safety field. Based on dual-system theory, this study aimed to explore the mediating role of emotional exhaustion and safety consciousness between leader bottom-line mentality and miners' safety behavior, as well as the moderating role of Chinese traditionality. Using a sample of 422 frontline miners in China, the results of the data analysis showed that emotional exhaustion and safety consciousness played parallel mediating roles between leader bottom-line mentality and miners' safety behavior, and Chinese traditionality moderated the effect of leader bottom-line mentality: the higher the Chinese traditionality, the weaker the mediating effect of emotional exhaustion and the stronger the mediating effect of safety consciousness. Present research explains the mechanisms and boundaries of the influence of leader bottom-line mentality on miners' safety behavior, contributing to the emerging literature on safety management and bottom-line mentality.Entities:
Keywords: Chinese traditionality; dual-system theory; emotional exhaustion; leader bottom-line mentality; safety behavior; safety consciousness
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36142064 PMCID: PMC9517175 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191811791
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Theoretical model.
Final participant demographics (N = 422).
| Variables | Number | Percent (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 402 | 95.3 |
| Female | 20 | 4.7 | |
| Age | 18–25 years | 69 | 16.4 |
| 26–35 years | 140 | 33.2 | |
| 36–45 years | 144 | 34.1 | |
| 46–55 years | 69 | 16.4 | |
| Marital | Unmarried | 81 | 19.2 |
| Married | 341 | 80.8 | |
| Education | Junior high school and below | 43 | 10.2 |
| High school | 141 | 33.4 | |
| Technical school | 202 | 47.9 | |
| Undergraduate or above | 36 | 8.5 | |
| Work experience | 0–2 years | 86 | 20.4 |
| 3–5 years | 128 | 30.3 | |
| 6–10 years | 123 | 29.1 | |
| 11 years and over | 85 | 20.1 |
Reliability and convergent validity (N = 422).
| Variables | Cronbach’α | AVE | CR |
|---|---|---|---|
| LBLM | 0.887 | 0.6662 | 0.8883 |
| EH | 0.894 | 0.5853 | 0.8939 |
| SC | 0.880 | 0.5169 | 0.8817 |
| CT | 0.862 | 0.5564 | 0.8623 |
| SB | 0.893 | 0.5857 | 0.8944 |
Note: LBLM, leader bottom-line mentality; EH, emotional exhaustion; SC, safety consciousness; CT, Chinese traditionality; SB, safety behavior.
Confirmatory factor analysis for testing structure validity (N = 422).
| Model | χ2 | df | χ2/df | CFI | TLI | RMSEA | SRMR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Five-Factor Model | 519.195 | 340 | 1.527 | 0.972 | 0.969 | 0.035 | 0.038 |
| Four-Factor Model | 1010.459 | 344 | 2.937 | 0.897 | 0.887 | 0.068 | 0.059 |
| Three-Factor Model | 1737.656 | 347 | 5.008 | 0.785 | 0.766 | 0.097 | 0.082 |
| two-Factor Model | 2608.119 | 349 | 7.473 | 0.651 | 0.622 | 0.124 | 0.116 |
| Single-Factor Model | 2993.611 | 350 | 8.553 | 0.592 | 0.559 | 0.134 | 0.120 |
Note: Five-Factor Model: LBLM, EH, SC, SB, CT; Four-Factor Model: LBLM, EH, SC + SB, CT; Three-Factor Model: LBLM, EH + SC + SB, CT; two-Factor Model: LBLM, EH + SC + SB + CT; Single-Factor Model: LBLM + EH + SC + SB + CT.
Descriptive statistics and correlations among variables (N = 422).
| Variables | Mean | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Gender | 0.95 | 0.21 | - | |||||||||
| 2. Age | 2.50 | 0.95 | 0.00 | - | ||||||||
| 3. Marital | 0.81 | 0.40 | 0.06 | 0.52 ** | - | |||||||
| 4. Education | 2.55 | 0.79 | −0.03 | 0.02 | −0.08 | - | ||||||
| 5. WE | 2.49 | 1.03 | 0.02 | 0.80 ** | 0.48 ** | 0.06 | - | |||||
| 6. LBLM | 3.09 | 1.00 | −0.06 | 0.06 | −0.03 | 0.00 | 0.06 | (0.82) | ||||
| 7. EH | 2.76 | 0.83 | −0.02 | 0.11 * | −0.06 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.53** | (0.77) | |||
| 8. SC | 3.83 | 0.68 | 0.12 * | −0.15 ** | −0.01 | −0.07 | −0.10 * | −0.54 ** | −0.36 ** | (0.72) | ||
| 9. CT | 3.52 | 0.85 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.21 ** | −0.11 * | 0.03 | 0.00 | −0.12 * | 0.09 | (0.75) | |
| 10. SB | 3.92 | 0.72 | 0.06 | −0.17 ** | 0.04 | −0.04 | −0.13 ** | −0.60 ** | −0.58 ** | 0.59 ** | 0.10 * | (0.77) |
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01; WE, work experience; Gender: 0 = female, 1 = male. Age: 1 = 18–25 years, 2 = 26–35 years, 3 = 36–45 years, 4 = 46–45 years. Marital: unmarried = 0, married = 1. Education: Junior high school and below = 1, High school = 2, Technical school = 3, Undergraduate or above = 4. Work experience in the current enterprise: 1 = 0–2 years, 2 = 3–5 years, 3 = 6–10 years, 4 = 11 years and over; square root of AVE are in the parentheses on the diagonal.
Direct effect and indirect effect results (N = 422).
| Unstandardized Effect | Estimate | S.E. | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Direct effect | ||||
| LBLM → EH | 0.476 | 0.043 | 0.000 | [0.407, 0.560] |
| LBLM → SC | −0.329 | 0.028 | 0.000 | [−0.390, −0.276] |
| LBLM → SB | −0.132 | 0.042 | 0.002 | [−0.202, −0.052] |
| EH → SB | −0.249 | 0.044 | 0.000 | [−0.324, −0.165] |
| SC → SB | 0.417 | 0.072 | 0.000 | [0.303, 0.562] |
| Indirect effect | ||||
| LBLM → EH → SB | −0.119 | 0.021 | 0.000 | [−0.164, −0.080] |
| MED2 → SC → SB | −0.137 | 0.025 | 0.000 | [−0.179, −0.093] |
Model comparison.
| Model | Free Parameters | Loglikelihood h0 | AIC |
|---|---|---|---|
| baseline model (model 0) | 97 | −13,311.357 | 26,816.714 |
| LMS model (model 1) | 98 | −13,307.856 | 26,811.712 |
Moderating effect and moderated mediating effect results (N = 422).
| Unstandardized Effect | Estimate | S.E. | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moderating effect | ||||
| LBLM × CT → EH | −0.100 | 0.036 | 0.005 | [−0.165, −0.035] |
| LBLM → EH(Mean + SD) | 0.382 | 0.050 | 0.000 | [0.286, 0.481] |
| LBLM → EH(Mean − SD) | 0.583 | 0.058 | 0.000 | [0.469, 0.693] |
| Difference | −0.201 | 0.068 | 0.003 | [−0.331, −0.069] |
| LBLM × CT → SC | −0.056 | 0.025 | 0.025 | [−0.113, −0.005] |
| LBLM → SC(Mean + SD) | −0.380 | 0.041 | 0.000 | [−0.457, −0.310] |
| LBLM → SC(Mean − SD) | −0.269 | 0.039 | 0.000 | [−0.350, −0.188] |
| Difference | −0.111 | 0.054 | 0.038 | [−0.226, −0.009] |
| Moderated mediating effect | ||||
| IndexMM1 | 0.025 | 0.010 | 0.010 | [0.009, 0.047] |
| LBLM → EH → SB(Mean + SD) | −0.096 | 0.019 | 0.000 | [−0.140, −0.064] |
| LBLM → EH → SB(Mean − SD) | −0.146 | 0.026 | 0.000 | [−0.204, −0.098] |
| Difference | 0.050 | 0.019 | 0.010 | [0.018, 0.095] |
| IndexMM2 | −0.023 | 0.011 | 0.032 | [−0.052, −0.003] |
| LBLM → SC → SB(Mean + SD) | −0.160 | 0.026 | 0.000 | [−0.225, −0.107] |
| LBLM → SC → SB(Mean − SD) | −0.113 | 0.021 | 0.000 | [−0.168, −0.073] |
| Difference | −0.047 | 0.022 | 0.032 | [−0.105, −0.006] |
Figure 2Moderating effect of Chinese traditionality. (a) The moderation of Chinese traditionality on emotional exhaustion. (b) The moderation of Chinese traditionality on safety consciousness.
Summary of hypothesis testing results.
| Hypothesis Content | Results |
|---|---|
| H1: LBLM has a negative effect on miners’ safety behavior. | support |
| H2: Emotional exhaustion mediates the negative effect of LBLM on miners’ safety behavior. | support |
| H3: Safety consciousness mediates the negative influence of LBLM on miners’ safety behavior. | support |
| H4a: Chinese traditionality moderates the positive relationship between LBLM and miners’ emotional exhaustion. | support |
| H4b: Chinese traditionality moderates the negative relationship between LBLM and miners’ safety consciousness. | support |
| H5a: Chinese traditionality moderates the mediating effect of emotional exhaustion between the LBLM and miners’ safety behavior. | support |
| H5b: Chinese traditionality moderates the mediating effect of safety consciousness between the LBLM and miners’ safety behavior. | support |