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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
This effect is likely due to differences in accommodation law between Canada and the United States. Employers in Canada must meet a higher accommodation standard, which impacts decision-making and autonomy.
Hoy D, Brooks P, Blyth F, Buchbinder R. The epidemiology of low back pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2010;24:769–81.
Coyte PC, Asche CV, Croxford R, Chan B. The economic cost of musculoskeletal disorders in Canada. Arthritis Rheum. 2005;11:315–25.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Breaugh JA. The measurement of work autonomy. Hum Relat. 1985;38:551–70.
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.
Stogdill RM, Shartle CL. Methods in the study of administrative leadership. Research Monograph, No. 80. Columbus: Bureau of Business Research; 1955.
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.
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.
Lysaght RM, Larmour-Trode S. An exploration of social support as a factor in the return-to-work process. Work. 2008;30:255–66.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Halpin AW. Manual for the Leader Behaviour Description Questionnaire. Columbus: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University; 1957.
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.
Bass BM. Bass and Stogill’s handbook of leadership. New York: Free Press; 1990.
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.
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.
Hahn SE, Murphy LR. A short scale for measuring safety climate. Saf Sci. 2008;46:1047–66.
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.
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.
Coleman J. Social capital in the creation of human capital. Am J Sociol. 1998;94(Suppl.):s95–120.
Oksanen T. Workplace social capital and employee health. Turku: Department of Occupational Health and the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health; 2009.
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.
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.
StataCorp. Stata software, release 13.0. College Station: StataCorp; 2013.
McLellan RK, Pranksy G, Shaw WS. Disability management training for supervisors: a pilot intervention program. J Occup Rehabil. 2001;11:33–41.
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.
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.
Ogbonna E, Harris LC. Leadership style, organizational culture and performance: empirical evidence from UK companies. Int J Hum Resour Manag. 2000;4:766–88.
Fleishman EA. Leadership climate, human relations training, and supervisory behavior. Pers Psychol. 1953;6:205–22.
Kelloway KE, Barling J, Helleur J. Enhancing transformational leadership: the roles of training and feedback. LODJ. 2000;21:145–9.
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.
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.
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.
Hogan R, Kaiser R. What we know about leadership. Rev Gen Psychol. 2005;9:169–80.
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.
About this article
Cite this article
McGuire, C., Kristman, V.L., Shaw, W. et al. Supervisor Autonomy and Considerate Leadership Style are Associated with Supervisors’ Likelihood to Accommodate Back Injured Workers. J Occup Rehabil 25, 589–598 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-015-9567-4
- Job accommodation
- Behavioral research
- Return to work