Following proper food safety procedures is crucial for preventing foodborne illnesses, particularly in the food service and hospitality industries. A recent study from the Penn State School of Hospitality Management highlights the role of leadership style in influencing how employees address and prevent food safety issues.
The study reveals that ethical leadership has a significant indirect impact on encouraging employees to speak up and prevent potential harm. This impact is observed through what the study terms the “prohibitive voice,” where employees actively voice concerns to hinder potential problems.
Safety first
Additionally, the research indicates that leadership prioritizing food safety over productivity has a strong indirect impact on what they call the “promotive voice” of employees. This refers to their ability to suggest improvements that contribute to a safer environment.
Given that improperly followed safety procedures, like incorrect food storage or inadequate hand hygiene, pose heightened risks, especially to vulnerable populations like children and the elderly, understanding the dynamics of employee voices is crucial.
The study delves into the motivations that drive employees to speak up, identifying specific factors that moderate the relationship between leadership style and the ways employees use their voices. This exploration sheds light on the nuanced interplay between leadership practices and the promotion of a safer and healthier food service industry.
“At first, we believed both agentic and communal motivations were important for prohibitive voice,” the researchers explain. “Through our research, we discovered it is more important for employees to feel psychologically secure and safe in speaking up about wrongdoings—or communal motivation—than it is for them to feel the motivation to show the power—or agentic motivation.”
Promotive voice
A better approach is to use what’s known as the promotive voice, which is a language that can be easily interpreted as positive by supervisors and managers alike. This contrasts with a prohibitive voice, where no such interpretation exists.
“For prohibitive voice, managers need to build up an environment where employees can speak up when they see something being done incorrectly,” the researchers explain. “Employees understand where that is coming from, so they won’t take it personally. Ethical leadership promotes an environment that says we do things fairly and not to take things personally. This is for a collective benefit, not a personal benefit.”
When we use prohibitive voice, it’s much more likely that the recipient will take things personally, which could harm relationships in the longer term.
“Building up a safe environment for people to fairly criticize each other’s behavior or report issues of wrongdoing is important for food safety prohibitive behavior,” the authors continue. “If workers or managers can see something happening and point it out, they can prevent foodborne illness or a food safety crisis that could potentially bankrupt their company.”
Ethical leadership
The study also revealed a strong bond between managers and employees when ethical leadership was present. This helped to dampen not only the likelihood of prohibitive voice being deployed but also raised the likelihood that food safety would be prioritized.
The researchers believe that their findings should encourage leaders to develop robust relationships with their employees by adroitly using promotive and prohibitive voices in the right ways.
“Leaders can be great people, but nothing will happen if they never talk to their employees or build up relationships,” they conclude. “Leaders need to reinforce food safety, set a strong example and build good relationships with their employees. The goal cannot be achieved if any of these three factors are lacking.”
