Advertisement

Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation

, Volume 25, Issue 3, pp 589–598 | Cite as

Supervisor Autonomy and Considerate Leadership Style are Associated with Supervisors’ Likelihood to Accommodate Back Injured Workers

  • Connor McGuire
  • Vicki L. Kristman
  • William Shaw
  • Kelly Williams-Whitt
  • Paula Reguly
  • Sophie Soklaridis
Article

Abstract

Purpose To determine the association between supervisors’ leadership style and autonomy and supervisors’ likelihood of supporting job accommodations for back-injured workers. Methods A cross-sectional study of supervisors from Canadian and US employers was conducted using a web-based, self-report questionnaire that included a case vignette of a back-injured worker. Autonomy and two dimensions of leadership style (considerate and initiating structure) were included as exposures. The outcome, supervisors’ likeliness to support job accommodation, was measured with the Job Accommodation Scale (JAS). We conducted univariate analyses of all variables and bivariate analyses of the JAS score with each exposure and potential confounding factor. We used multivariable generalized linear models to control for confounding factors. Results A total of 796 supervisors participated. Considerate leadership style (β = .012; 95 % CI .009–.016) and autonomy (β = .066; 95 % CI .025–.11) were positively associated with supervisors’ likelihood to accommodate after adjusting for appropriate confounding factors. An initiating structure leadership style was not significantly associated with supervisors’ likelihood to accommodate (β = .0018; 95 % CI −.0026 to .0061) after adjusting for appropriate confounders. Conclusions Autonomy and a considerate leadership style were positively associated with supervisors’ likelihood to accommodate a back-injured worker. Providing supervisors with more autonomy over decisions of accommodation and developing their considerate leadership style may aid in increasing work accommodation for back-injured workers and preventing prolonged work disability.

Keywords

Supervisor Job accommodation Behavioral research Return to work Rehabilitation Cross-sectional 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by Canadian Institute of Health Research Grant MOP-102571, Supervisors’ perspectives on accommodating back injured workers: A mixed methods study (PI: V Kristman) and by intramural research funding (Project LMRIS 09-01) of the Liberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety (PI: WS Shaw).

Conflict of interest

McGuire C, Kristman VL, Williams-Whitt K, Shaw W, Soklaridis S, and Reguly P declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Hoy D, Brooks P, Blyth F, Buchbinder R. The epidemiology of low back pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2010;24:769–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Coyte PC, Asche CV, Croxford R, Chan B. The economic cost of musculoskeletal disorders in Canada. Arthritis Rheum. 2005;11:315–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beaudet N, Courteau J, Sarret P, Vanasse A. Prevalence of claims-based recurrent low back pain in a Canadian population: a secondary analysis of an administrative database. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013;14:151–9.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hashemi LMS, Webster BS, Clancy EA, Volinn E. Length of disability and cost of workers’ compensation low back pain claims. J Occup Environ Med. 1997;39:937–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ontario Service Safety Alliance. Extending your reach: participating in health and safety research can produce more than you think (2005 Annual report). Mississauga, Canada, Ontario Service Safety Alliance; 2006. Retrieved from: http://www.ossa.com.
  6. 6.
    Muijzer A, Geertzen JH, de Boer WE, Groothoff JW, Brouwer S. Identifying factors relevant in the assessment of return-to-work efforts in employees on long-term sickness absence due to chronic low back pain: a focus group study. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:77–88.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Franche RL, Severin CN, Hogg-Johnson S, Lee H, Côté P, Krause N. A multivariate analysis of factors associated with early offer and acceptance of a work accommodation following an occupational musculoskeletal injury. J Occup Environ Med. 2009;51:969–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carroll C, Rick J, Pilgrim H, Cameron J, Hillage J. Workplace-based return-to-work interventions: a systematic review of the quantitative literature. Disabil Rehabil. 2010;32:607–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Williams RM, Westmorland MG, Lin CY, Schmuck G, Creen M. A systematic review of workplace rehabilitation interventions for work-related low back pain. Int J Disabil Manag Res. 2006;1:21–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Franche RL, Cullen K, Clarke J, Irvin E, Sinclair S, Frank J. Workplace-based return-to-work interventions: a systematic review of the quantitative literature. J Occup Rehabil. 2005;15:607–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Amir Z, Wynn P, Chan F, Strauser D, Whitaker S, Luker K. Return to work after cancer in the UK: attitudes and experiences of line managers. J Occup Rehabil. 2010;20:435–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shaw WS, Robertson MM, Pranksy G, McLellan RK. Employee perspectives on the role of supervisors to prevent workplace disability after injuries. J Occup Rehabil. 2003;13:129–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Heitz C, Hilfiker R, Bachmann L, Joronen H, Lorenz T, Uebelhart D, Klipsten A, Brunner F. Comparison of risk factors predicting return to work between patients with subacute and chronic non-specific low back pain: systematic review. Eur Spine J. 2009;18:1829–35.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gates LB. The role of the supervisor in successful adjustment to work with a disabling condition: issues for disability policy and practice. J Occup Rehabil. 1993;3:179–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Aas RW, Ellingsen KG, Lindoe P, Moller A. Leadership qualities in the return to work process: a content analysis. J Occup Rehabil. 2008;18:335–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schreuder JAH, Groothoff JW, Jongsma D, van Zweeden NF, van der Klink JJL, Roelen CAM. Leadership effectiveness: a supervisor’s approach to manage return to work. J Occup Rehabil. 2013;23:428–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Webster BS, Courtney TK, Huang YH, Matz S, Christiani DC. Physicians initial management of acute low back pain versus evidence-based guidelines. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20:1132–5.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Breaugh JA. The measurement of work autonomy. Hum Relat. 1985;38:551–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Derue SD, Nahrgang JD, Wellman N, Humphrey SE. Trait and behavioral theories of leadership: an integration and meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Pers Psychol. 2011;64:7–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stogdill RM, Shartle CL. Methods in the study of administrative leadership. Research Monograph, No. 80. Columbus: Bureau of Business Research; 1955.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fleishman EA. Consideration and structure: another look at their role in leadership research. In: Dansereau F, Yammarino FJ, editors. Leadership: the multiple level approaches. Stamford: HAI Press; 1995. p. 51–60.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Skakon J, Nielsen K, Borg V, Guzman J. Are leaders’ well-being, behaviours and style associated with the affective well-being of their employees? A systematic review of three decades of research. Work Stress. 2010;24:107–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lysaght RM, Larmour-Trode S. An exploration of social support as a factor in the return-to-work process. Work. 2008;30:255–66.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jacobs C, Pfaff H, Lehner B, Driller E, Nitzsche A, Stieler-Lorenz B, Wasem J, Jung J. The influence of transformational leadership on employee well-being. J Occup Environ Med. 2013;55:772–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Baril R, Clarke J, Friesen M, Stock S, Cole D. The management of return-to-work programs for workers with musculoskeletal disorders: a qualitative study in three Canadian provinces. Soc Sci Med. 2003;57:2101–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Webster BS, Courtney TK, Huang YH, Matz S, Christiani DC. Survey of acute low back pain management by specialty group and practice experience. J Occup Environ Med. 2006;48:723–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shaw WS, Kristman VL, Williams-Whitt K, Soklaridis S, Huang YH, Côté P, Loisel P. The Job Accommodation Scale (JAS): psychometric evaluation of a new measure of employer support for temporary job modifications. J Occup Rehabil. 2014. doi: 10.1007/s10926-014-9508-7.PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Halpin AW. Manual for the Leader Behaviour Description Questionnaire. Columbus: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University; 1957.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fleishman EA. Twenty years of consideration and structure. In: Fleishman EA, Hunt JG, editors. Current developments in the study of leadership. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press; 1973. p. 1–40.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bass BM. Bass and Stogill’s handbook of leadership. New York: Free Press; 1990.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Judge TA, Piccolo RF, Ilies R. The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration and initiating structure in leadership research. J Appl Psychol. 2004;89:36–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Karasek R, Brisson C, Kawakami N, Houtman I, Bongers P, Amick B. The Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ): an instrument for internationally comparative assessments of psychosocial job characteristics. J Occup Health Psychol. 1998;3:322–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hahn SE, Murphy LR. A short scale for measuring safety climate. Saf Sci. 2008;46:1047–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Amick BC III, Habeck RV, Hunt A, Fossel AH, Chapin A, Keller RB, Katz JN. Measuring the impact of organizational behaviors on work disability prevention and management. J Occup Rehabil. 2000;10:21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bot SDM, Terwee CB, van der Windt DAWM, Feleus A, Bierma-Zeinstra SM, Knol DL, Bouter LM, Dekker J. Internal consistency and validity of a new physical workload questionnaire. J Occup Environ Med. 2004;61:980–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Coleman J. Social capital in the creation of human capital. Am J Sociol. 1998;94(Suppl.):s95–120.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Oksanen T. Workplace social capital and employee health. Turku: Department of Occupational Health and the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health; 2009.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kouvonen A, Kivimaki M, Vahtera J, Oksanen T, Elovainio M, Cox T, Virtanen M, Pentti J, Cox SJ, Wilkinson RG. Psychometric evaluation of a short measure of social capital at work: Finnish public sector study. BMC Public Health. 2006;6:251–61.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kleinbaum DG, Klein M. Modeling strategy for assessing interaction and confounding. In: Kleinbaum DG, Klein M, editors. Logistic regression: a self-learning text. New York: Springer; 2010. p. 203–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    StataCorp. Stata software, release 13.0. College Station: StataCorp; 2013.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    McLellan RK, Pranksy G, Shaw WS. Disability management training for supervisors: a pilot intervention program. J Occup Rehabil. 2001;11:33–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Shaw WS, Robertson MM, McLellan RK, Verma S, Pransky G. A controlled case study of supervisor training to optimize response to injury in the food processing industry. Work. 2006;2:107–14.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Shaw W, Robertson MM, Pransky G, McLellan RK. Training to optimize the response of supervisor to work injuries—needs assessment, design, and evaluation. AAOHN. 2006;54:226–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ogbonna E, Harris LC. Leadership style, organizational culture and performance: empirical evidence from UK companies. Int J Hum Resour Manag. 2000;4:766–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Fleishman EA. Leadership climate, human relations training, and supervisory behavior. Pers Psychol. 1953;6:205–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kelloway KE, Barling J, Helleur J. Enhancing transformational leadership: the roles of training and feedback. LODJ. 2000;21:145–9.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Parker SK, Axtell CM, Turner N. Designing a safer workplace: importance of job autonomy, communication quality, and supportive supervisors. J Occup Health Psychol. 2001;6:211–28.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    McKnight HD, Ahmad S, Schroeder RG. Why do feedback, incentive control, and autonomy improve morale? The importance of employee-management relationship closeness. J Manag Issues. 2001;4:466–82.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Barrick MR, Mount MK. Autonomy as a moderator of the relationships between the Big Five personality dimensions and job performance. J Appl Psychol. 1993;78:111–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Hogan R, Kaiser R. What we know about leadership. Rev Gen Psychol. 2005;9:169–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Connor McGuire
    • 1
  • Vicki L. Kristman
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • William Shaw
    • 5
  • Kelly Williams-Whitt
    • 6
  • Paula Reguly
    • 1
  • Sophie Soklaridis
    • 1
    • 7
    • 8
  1. 1.Department of Health SciencesLakehead UniversityThunder BayCanada
  2. 2.Institute for Work and HealthTorontoCanada
  3. 3.Division of Epidemiology, Dalla Lana School of Public HealthUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  4. 4.Northern Ontario School of MedicineLakehead UniversityThunder BayCanada
  5. 5.Center for Disability ResearchLiberty Mutual Research Institute for SafetyBostonUSA
  6. 6.Faculty of ManagementUniversity of LethbridgeCalgaryCanada
  7. 7.Centre for Addiction and Mental HealthTorontoCanada
  8. 8.Department of PsychiatryUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations