Defining safety leadership : A qualitative exploration of senior leaders’ perspectives in high-risk industries

Adra, Islam and Leka, Stavroula and Hardy, Claire (2026) Defining safety leadership : A qualitative exploration of senior leaders’ perspectives in high-risk industries. Safety Science, 198: 107159. ISSN 0925-7535

Text (Manuscript_Final_Accepted)
Manuscript_Final_Accepted.pdf - Accepted Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (405kB)

Abstract

With workplace fatalities and injuries on the rise, research on safety and leadership has also grown, given the critical role leadership has been shown to play in enhancing safety performance. Despite the frequent use of the term ‘safety leadership’ in both academia and industry, no consensus exists on what safety leadership actually means, nor has a concrete definition of safety leadership been developed. The present study aimed to address these gaps by adopting a qualitative exploratory research approach. Twenty-five semi-structured interviews were conducted to explore two key questions: how senior leaders in high-risk industries from around the world define safety leadership; and what qualities characterize safety leaders. Inductive thematic analysis was employed to analyze the data and address the research questions. A conceptual definition of safety leadership is presented together with the key characteristics of safety leaders. Despite having parallels with other leadership styles, safety leadership was found to be conceptually unique from other leadership constructs, especially from transformational leadership, highlighting a key theoretical advancement that challenges the prevailing, long-standing perspective in the academic literature. Additionally, while safety leadership has traditionally been discussed in relation to safety performance, the present study unveils its additional positive impact on business performance. These findings offer significant contributions to both safety science and practice, with implications discussed alongside recommendations for future research while recognizing the study’s strengths and limitations.