Food Science Nutrition - 2019 - Ko - Effect of Leadership Style and Organizational Climate On Employees Food Safety and

20487177, 2019, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/fsn3.1056 by Cochrane Philippines, Wiley Online Library on [21/03/2023].
See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
|
Received: 23 February 2019 Accepted: 27 March 2019
DOI: 10.1002/fsn3.1056
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Effect of leadership style and organizational climate on

employees' food safety and hygiene behaviors in the
institutional food service of schools
Wen‐Hwa Ko | Hsiu‐yu Kang
Department of Restaurant, Hotel and

Institutional Management, Fu‐Jen University, Abstract
New Taipei City, Taiwan This study took the employees working in the institutional food service of schools in
Correspondence northern Taiwan as subjects to explore the influences of leadership style and organi-
Wen‐Hwa Ko, Fu‐Jen University, zational climate on food safety and hygiene behaviors. In this study, 400 question-
Department of Restaurant, Hotel and
Institutional Management, No.510, naires were distributed and 324 valid questionnaires were collected, for a valid return
Zhongzheng Rd., Xinzhuang Dist., New rate of 81%. The results showed that leadership style and organizational climate posi-
Taipei City, Taiwan.
Email: 073770@mail.fju.edu.tw tively correlate with employees' behaviors with respect to food safety and hygiene.
Transactional and transformational leadership have a significantly positive effect on
organizational climate. Organizational climate has a significantly positive impact on
employees' food safety and hygiene behaviors. Transactional and transformational
leadership have a significantly positive effect on employees' food safety and hygiene
behaviors, but the difference between the two factors is not obvious. Organizational
climate has a complete mediating effect on the process of transactional and transfor-
mational leadership affecting food safety and hygiene behaviors.
KEYWORDS
employee, food safety and hygiene behaviors, leadership style, organizational climate, school
lunch
1 | I NTRO D U C TI O N Transactional and transformational leaders, as proposed by

Burns (1978), have received greater attention in recent years. There
In any modern and highly competitive business environment, lead- is a process of exchange of benefits between transactional leaders
ership is regarded as one of the most critical factors for the success and their subordinates to realize their respective goals (Bass, 1990).
of the company's future development (Mohan, 2000). At the same Unlike transactional leaders, transformational leaders motivate em-
time, the leader is also an important factor affecting the success ployees to do things beyond their abilities and to refocus from per-
or failure of the organization (Bennis & Nanus, 1985). Bass (1985) sonal interests in favor of group interests (Bass, 1990). Food safety
points out that leaders influence 45%–65% of the success or fail- deals with relevant inappropriate behaviors and conditions, such as
ure of an organization. Andersen (2016) believes that leaders can inappropriate temperatures, poor hygiene habits, and cross‐contam-
motivate, inspire, and identify with their employees to facilitate ination, which have a significant relationship with the occurrence
employees completing their work and achieving the desired goals. of food‐borne illnesses. Such inappropriate behaviors and condi-
Moreover, leaders use a variety of different leadership styles to in- tions are caused by employees failing to comply with food safety
spire and motivate employees. regulations (Pilling, Brannon, Shanklin, Howells, & Roberts, 2008).
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.
© 2019 The Authors. Food Science & Nutrition published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Food Sci Nutr. 2019;7:2131–2143. www.foodscience-nutrition.com | 2131

20487177, 2019, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/fsn3.1056 by Cochrane Philippines, Wiley Online Library on [21/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
|
2132 KO and KANG
Therefore, changing the behavior of employees in the organization Zaheer, Rehman, and Nadeem (2012) also state that transforma-
and creating a food safety culture are very important actions to re- tional leaders can enhance the value of ethics in the workplace.
duce food‐borne illness (Yiannas, 2009).
This study took the employees working in the institutional food
2.2 | Organizational climate
service of schools as subjects with the purpose of studying whether
their food safety behaviors in the workplace are affected by dif- Stringer (2002) advocated that organizational climate is a part of cul-
ferent leadership styles of managers. This study also explored the ture, and leadership behavior has the greatest impact on organiza-
impact of leadership styles on organizational climate and further tional climate. Organizational climate can be viewed as employees'
analyzed whether there is a link between organizational climate and perception of the working environment and therefore can be defined
employees' implementation of food safety and their hygiene behav- as the shared cognition of the organization and work environment by
iors in the hope of understanding the leadership style applicable to members of the organization (James et al., 2008). Organizational cli-
employees of institutional food services. This study can be a refer- mate reflects the perceptions and emotions that members of the or-
ence to the institutional food service sector for leading staff at the ganization have about the nature of their work environment (Glisson
grassroots level. & James, 2002). Leading the organization to establish a good organi-
zational climate is a very important task for leaders (Ohly & Fritz,
2010). Organizational climate is also a key factor in determining em-
2 | LITE R AT U R E R E V I E W
ployee behavior (Ball, Wilcock, & Colwell, 2010). As food preparation
becomes increasingly commercial, the risk of potential food‐borne
2.1 | Leadership style
hazards in dining establishments due to poor food handling and hy-
Leadership is the ability of a leader to increase the effectiveness giene is increasing, and changing employee behavior and creating a
of the group (Northouse, 2013). In other words, a group of people food safety culture in the organization are necessary considerations
with specific goals, when faced with challenges or conflicts, makes for reducing such hazards (Yiannas, 2009).
use of many different resources to satisfy the motivation of the
members and reach goals (Burns, 1978). Maxwell (1998) stated that
2.3 | Food safety and hygiene
leadership is the process of leading members to achieve organiza-
tional goals. General leadership style is often divided into trans- Food‐borne illness is a disease transmitted through the intake of in-
actional leadership and transformational leadership. Transactional fected foods and is one of the most widespread and significant pub-
leaders trade or exchange valuable things (e.g., in the form of lic health problems (WHO, 2000). If a restaurant, a catered event, or
compensation, status, and other incentives) to encourage follow- a packed meal involves the slightest negligence in the manufacturing
ers to achieve the most basic job performance; on the other hand, process, such as poor sanitation in dishes or packed meals, it can eas-
transformational leaders inspire and improve followers to achieve ily result in group food poisoning (Wall, de Louvois, Gilbert, & Rowe,
higher levels of performance than usual and to promote greater 1996). Griffith, Livesey, and Clayton (2010) also estimates that ap-
demand and desire among group members (Northouse, 2013). proximately 70% of food poisoning cases occur in commercial food
Transactional leaders and organization members agree on terms, service places such as restaurants. Food‐borne illnesses associated
and the leaders recognize and reward hard‐working employees and with staff typically emerge one after another, and the frequency
correct or punish employees for deviations or errors (Burns, 1978). of occurrence appears to be increasing (Greig, Todd, Bartleson, &
Transformational leaders motivate employees to go beyond spe- Michaels, 2007). The most common causes of illness include poor
cific expectations (Doucet, Fredette, Simard, & Tremblay, 2015). personal hygiene, cross‐contamination, and inadequate time/tem-
Transformational leaders focus on promoting higher levels of moti- perature (Guzewich & Ross, 1999). An employee's personal beliefs
vation and morality for leaders and followers. This form of leader- and attitudes toward consumer health and a sense of honor toward
ship is concerned with the needs and motives of followers and tries the job will affect the employee's food safety behavior (Pragle,
to help followers exert their maximum potential (Kouzes & Posner, Harding, & Mack, 2007).
2012; Northouse, 2013). To adapt to a highly competitive ecologi-
cal environment, an organization is bound to seek changes and in-
2.4 | School lunch institutional catering
novations, and transformational leaders have a positive impact
on successful organizational change (Ahmad & Gelaidan, 2011). School lunch institutional catering creates nonprofit group meals for
Kreitner and Kinicki (2001) believe that transformational leader- schoolchildren (Mary & Gregoire, 2001). The catering mainly provides
ship achieves the process of interaction between leaders and sub- growing children with a nutritious health diet that is tasty, healthy, and
ordinates by enhancing this relationship to the level of morality and safe, with balanced nutrition. It does not emphasize delicate ingredi-
motivation beyond the original contractual relationship, where the ents; rather, eating can be finished within a fixed time, and the meal has
subordinates sincerely respect the leader and are willing to follow a low cost with fixed timing, quantity, and pricing (Henroid & Sneed,
and obey, and the incentive actions of the leader cause the sub- 2004). Schools need adequate food safety training for food supply staff
ordinates to accept the organization's vision and mission. Sheraz, to ensure safe operation practices and to incorporate them into the
KO and KANG |
2133
school's food safety management plan (Curwood, Arendt, Rajagopal, behavior. Therefore, we have H3: Organizational climate has a posi-
& Stephen, 2017). Jipiu, Abdullah, Ariffin, Anuar, and Mohi (2016) tive impact on employees' compliance with food safety and hygiene
showed that school dietary staff members have good knowledge and behaviors.
positive behavior to prevent cross‐contamination, perform hand clean- Transformational leaders have a positive effect on employee
ing procedures, maintain personal hygiene, and use disposable gloves. self‐efficacy, motivation, creativity, and organizational performance
Although this study's results are satisfactory, it also clearly points out (Bronkhorst, Steijn, & Vermeeren, 2015; Kim & Yoon, 2015; Newland,
that food operators still lack food safety behaviors that would directly Newton, Podlog, Legg, & Tanner, 2015). Transactional leaders can in-
lead to the prevention of food‐borne diseases in schoolchildren. crease job satisfaction and organizational identification (LePine, Zhang,
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Crawford, & Rich, 2015). Transformational leaders predict outcomes
(2015), the three most common food safety misconducts that result for individuals, groups, and organizations and make employees feel
in unsafe food and food‐borne illness are food handling errors, poor positive about job satisfaction through leadership behaviors of caring
personal hygiene, and cross‐contamination. Painter et al. (2013) for employees (Wang, Oh, Courtright, & Colbert, 2011). Leaders should
found that of the 17 food categories, the highest percentage (46%) motivate employees, give positive feedback, and recognize good be-
cause of food‐borne diseases is the production process. This finding haviors so that employees can be motivated to work in a safe and
again demonstrates the importance of food safety training of school secure manner (Griffith et al., 2010). Therefore, we have H4 and H5:
kitchen staff for food production and processing. Transactional and transformational leadership styles have a direct im-
pact on employees' compliance with food safety and hygiene behaviors.
Stringer (2002) proposed that “leadership behavior directly in-
2.5 | Relationships among leadership
fluences organizational climate.” Leaders provide employees with
style, organizational climate, and food safety and
respect and trust by the leadership behavior of caring for em-
hygiene behaviors
ployees, making employees' perceptual reaction to organizational
Cloete (2011) stated that organizational climate theory advocates that climate better; on the other hand, transformational leaders can
leaders in an organization have a significant influence on deciding or- create an innovative organizational climate and increase employee
ganizational climate. If there are better leaders in the organization, then creativity and employee satisfaction (Mohamed, 2016). Pragle et al.
the organization will be more productive, more competitive, and more (2007) argued that the organization's goals and expectations must
responsive (Griffith et al., 2010). Organizational climate is top‐down, be expressed clearly to employees, food safety training must be
starting with the superior and influencing the subordinate (Yianns, provided, strict regulations on food safety handling behaviors must
2009). Lemons, Newsome, and Brashears (2013) pointed out that “lead- be in place, and proper education must be provided to new employ-
ership behavior directly affects organizational climate.” Eustace and ees so that the employees can become accustomed to food safety
Martins (2011) show that there is a strong positive correlation between regulations when entering the organization. Neal, Griffin, and Hart
heuristic leadership and organizational climate. On the other hand, (2000) found that the organizational climate of the organization
transformational leadership can create an innovative organizational as a whole will significantly affect the safety climate in the work-
climate and increase employee creativity and satisfaction (Mohamed, place (safety climate is defined as a specific type of organizational
2016). Therefore, the author present H1 and H2: Transactional or trans- climate, which describes the health and safety of the workplace
formational leadership styles have a direct impact on organizational as perceived by the employees). Safety climate is associated with
climate. employees' compliance with safety regulations and procedures in
Organizational climate is considered a collective attitude of em- the workplace. If employees perceive that their organization treats
ployees toward the organization (Burton, Lauridsen, & Obel, 2004). them well and provides them with a positive organizational climate,
Organizational climate is also formed through interactions between then the employees will respond to the organization with positive
employees and affects the behavior of employees within the orga- attitudes and behaviors, such as more effort, more positive work‐
nization (Manning, Davidson, & Manning, 2005). Pragle et al. (2007) related attitudes, and lower resignation rates (Aryee, Budhwar, &
suggested that an organization's goals and expectations must be ex- Chen, 2002). Hence, we have H6 and H7: Organizational climate
pressed clearly to employees, food safety training must be provided, is the mediating factor in transactional or transformational leader-
strict regulations on food safety handling behaviors must be in place, ship styles for employees to comply with food safety and hygiene
and proper education must be provided to new employees so that behaviors. The research framework is shown in Figure 1.
the employees can become accustomed to food safety regulations
upon entering the organization. Food safety is the behavior reflect-
3 | R E S E A RC H M E TH O D
ing the food safety culture and food safety climate (Powell, Jacob,
& Chapman, 2011). If an organization provides an environment of
3.1 | Sample and data collection
proper food safety behaviors and encourages employees to comply
with food safety behaviors, then employees will perceive that the This study took the employees working in institutional food ser-
organization offers a positive food safety organizational climate. vice in northern Taiwan as the subjects. A quantitative survey was
Employees will then have a positive will to comply with food safety conducted using a questionnaire. With regard to the distribution
|
2134 KO and KANG
F I G U R E 1 Research framework
of questionnaires, school dietitians in the northern part of Taiwan After the above questionnaires were revised and adjusted to meet
(Taoyuan City and New Taipei City) were asked to assist in forward- the research purposes of this study, the wording was revised for clarity.
ing the questionnaires. The questionnaires were distributed to em- The measurement was based on a 5‐point Likert scale, ranging from 5
ployees who have worked in the school lunch institutional company (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree), to measure the degree of con-
for 3 months and who have already spent 8 hr in the food safety sent of respondents to the items on the leadership style scale.
courses, including chefs and kitchen workers. The subjects are anon-
ymous and voluntary to fill out the questionnaires. One hundred
3.2.4 | Participants' demographic information
questionnaire copies were distributed for the trial and 100 copies
were returned; 400 questionnaires were formally issued, and 324 The participants' demographic information questionnaire includes
copies were returned. The recovery rate is 81%. gender, age, educational level, years of service, type of institutional
food service, whether the employee has a license as a Chinese food
technician, managers at the job site, daily servings for lunch, and
3.2 | Measures
number of kitchen employees.
The questionnaires for this study were designed with 5 constructs:
transactional leadership, transformational leadership, organizational
3.3 | Analysis methods
climate, food hygiene and safety behavior, and basic information.
Five experts confirmed the content validity of this questionnaire.
Cronbach's alpha values for reliability of transactional and trans-
3.2.1 | Leadership style scale
formational leadership styles were 0.880 and 0.818, respectively;
This study refers to the two leadership styles proposed by Burns Cronbach's alpha value for the organization climate was 0.893; and
(1978): transactional leadership and transformational leadership. Cronbach's alpha value for the scale of food safety and hygiene behav-
The development of the questionnaire is for understanding the im- iors was 0.918. This study used the SPSS statistical software package
pact of these two leadership styles on the food safety and hygiene as a tool for data analysis. The data analysis methods include narra-
behaviors of the organizational climate and employees of institu- tive statistics, Pearson correlation analysis, and regression analysis to
tional food services. The transactional leadership scale was adapted examine the impact of leadership style on organizational climate, the
from Bass and Avolio (2004), with a total of five items; the trans- impact of organizational climate on employees' compliance with food
formational leadership scale was also modified from Lee, Almanza, safety and hygiene behaviors, and the impact of leadership styles on
Jang, Nelson, and Ghiselli (2013), with a total of four items. employees' compliance with food safety and hygiene behaviors, and to
explore the mediating impact of organizational climate.
3.2.2 | Organizational climate scale

4 | R E S U LT S A N D D I S CU S S I O N
The organizational climate scale was adapted from Lee et al. (2013).
The seven items in this scale were revised and adjusted to meet the
4.1 | Participants' demographic information
research purposes of this study and were designed to measure the
organizational climate perceived by employees in the workplace. More than 90% of the subjects in this study were women, and the
age group was dominated by the older age group. Higher vocational
school makes up the highest percentage of educational level. Most
3.2.3 | Scale of food safety and hygiene behaviors
subjects had working years of over 1–4 years (inclusive), and more
The scale of food safety and hygiene behaviors was modified from than one‐half of the subjects have the license of Chinese food tech-
Boeck, Jacxsens, Bollaerts, and Vlerick (2015). The items were adjusted nician; in addition, the highest proportion of main managers at the
to meet the research purposes of this study. The scale aims to measure job site was kitchen foremen (41%), followed by dietitians (29.3%).
the food safety and hygiene behaviors of the subjects with five items. School lunch facilities owned and operated by a public office
KO and KANG |
2135
TA B L E 1 Participant demographic information accounted for 52.5%, while the other 47.5% were publicly owned
under private operation. The highest proportion of average number
Background Percentage
variable Item Number (%) of daily lunch servings was 1,501–2,000 (28.4%), followed by 1,001–
1,500 (25.3%), and more than one‐half of the subjects had five–eight
Gender Male 32 9.9
kitchen employees (51.5%; Table 1).
Female 292 90.1
Age 26–30 years old 8 2.5
31–40 years old 61 18.8 4.2 | Employee percentage of leaders'
41–50 years old 86 26.5
styles of organization climate and food
51–60 years old 144 44.4
safety behavior
61 and over 25 7.7 According to the questions of transactional leadership style in
Educational Junior high school or 110 34.0 Table 2, where the highest score is when the employee's perfor-
level lower mance is not good, the supervisor will clearly point out the problem;
High school 66 20.4 the second highest score is when the employee performs well, the
Vocational school 119 36.7 supervisor will give positive feedback.
Junior college 19 5.9 Table 3 shows that the average mean of transformational lead-
College or higher 10 3.1 ership styles is between 3.81 and 4.16. The highest score is that the
Seniority <1 year 52 16.0 supervisors make employees feel that it is a pleasure to get along
with them, working with them makes employees feel proud, and
1–4 years (inclusive) 96 29.6
they encourage employees to reflect on past issues in new ways.
In terms of organizational climate, Table 4 shows that respon-
dents have a positive view of the organizational climate in the units
they serve (schools or institutional food service companies), includ-
ing employees who are excited about their work and want to do their
20 years or more 12 3.7 best for maximum performance, and every employee understands
Is there a Yes 214 66.0 the goals of this company/school, while the supervisors strongly en-
license for No 110 34.0 courage employees to develop skills.
Chinese
food tech- The average number of behaviors complying with food safety
nicians? according to Table 5 is between 4.30 and 4.44. We learn that most
Main man- Kitchen leader 133 41.0 subjects in this study believe that they have observed food safety
ager on job Chef 76 23.5 during their working hours and that they jointly observe food safety
site behaviors with others while setting a good example of behavior for
Nutritionist 95 29.3
others to follow and show their conscious behavior for compliance
Lunch secretary 11 3.4
with food safety.
Other 9 2.8
An analysis of transactional leadership style finds that most em-
School Public office owned 170 52.5
ployees believe that when their job performance is not good, super-
lunch and operated
method (self‐administration) visors will clearly point out problems. At the same time, when they
Public owned with 154 47.5 perform well, supervisors will give positive feedback. Thus, transac-
private business op- tional leaders develop a tactical strategy and structure that contrib-
eration (outsourcing) ute to the effectiveness of the organization, reward a subordinate's
Average 500 servings or less 11 3.4 efforts, and correct a subordinate's mistakes and biased behaviors to
daily serv- 501–1,000 servings 19 5.9 achieve good organizational performance (Waldman, Ramirez, House,
ings for
1,001–1,500 servings 82 25.3 & Puranam, 2001). The World Health Organization (WHO, 2000) sug-
lunch
1,501–2,000 servings 92 28.4 gests that the education and training of food handlers and consumers
2,001–3,000 servings 36 11.1 are good means of preventing food‐borne diseases, because poor pro-
3,001 servings or 25 7.7

cessing by food handlers causes the most food poisoning incidents.
more Therefore, safe food processing specifications should be followed and
Number of 1–4 55 17.0 become familiar daily to form proper work habits. Transactional lead-
kitchen 5–8 167 51.5 ers will explain the work content and task requirements to employees
employees and provide timely correction and guidance to let the employees un-
9–12 66 20.4
derstand the work methods and provide positive feedback to meet
13 or more 36 11.1
the needs of employees (Bass, 1985) to achieve food safety goals.
|
2136 KO and KANG
TA B L E 2 Mean of transactional leadership style for employees
Construct Items Mean SD Ranking
Transactional 1. When I am performing well, the supervisor will give me positive feedback 3.97 0.66 2
leaders 2. When I have excellent performance, the supervisor will give a reward 3.94 0.91 4
3. When I perform beyond my goal, the supervisor will give a compliment 3.96 0.90 3
4. When my work is not up to standard, the supervisor will give a correction 3.93 0.96 5
or punishment according to the circumstances
5. When my job performance is poor, the supervisor will clearly point out the 4.14 0.81 1
problem
Average 3.99 0.85
An analysis of transformational leadership style finds that most organizational climate—that is, an influence on the shared cognition
employees believe that it is a pleasure to get along with their su- of their organization and the work environment of the employees of
pervisors and that working with supervisors makes employees feel institutional food services. Organizational climate runs from top to
proud—that is, transformational leaders encourage employees' mo- bottom; it begins with superiors and influences subordinates (Yianns,
tives to exceed specific expectations by influencing employees' be- 2009). The results of this study are also consistent with previous re-
liefs and values (Doucet et al., 2015). Employees' compliance with search whereby leadership behavior directly affects organizational
food hygiene and safety behaviors is based not only on job require- climate (Lemons et al., 2013; Stringers, 2002).
ments but also on the belief in maintaining the health of consumers The results of transformational leadership also show a signifi-
(school staff and schoolchildren). Therefore, transformational lead- cant impact on organizational climate, and the explanatory power
ers can inspire employees' sense of honor in their work and affect is as high as 48%; thus, H2 is supported, as shown in Table 8. The
employees' actual compliance with food safety and hygiene behav- results of this study indicate that the employees of institutional
iors. From an analysis of organizational climate, most employees feel food services are aware that their supervisor has a transformational
that they are excited about their work and want to do their best for leadership style that significantly affects the organizational climate.
optimum performance. At the same time, every employee under- The results of this study are consistent with previous studies (Bruns,
stands the goals of the company or institutional food service/school. 1978; Hollander & Offermann, 1990; Lee et al., 2013; Zohar &
Tenne‐Gazit, 2008). Some possible explanations are that employees
frequently observe the words and deeds of their supervisors and
4.3 | Influence relationship of each contract
have good interaction with their supervisors, and their supervisors
This study uses Pearson correlation analysis to explore the correla- share relevant organization policies and norms with employees and
tion between the various constructs, as shown in Table 6. All facets explain to employees the matters that should be observed and noted
were significantly positively correlated. in the workplace, which gradually form the characteristics of the
This study explored the effect of the transactional leadership organization and are recognized by the employees. The results of
style of managers of the institutional food service sector on orga- this study lead to the conclusion that the establishment and mainte-
nizational climate. The results show that the style of transactional nance of the organizational climate depend on the degree to which
leadership has a significant positive impact on organizational cli- the employees understand the supervisory norms and the perceived
mate. The explanatory power reaches 34.2%; thus, H1 is supported, relationship between them and their managers. Therefore, the re-
as shown in Table 7. This result indicates that the employees of in- lationship between transformational leadership and organizational
stitutional food services are aware that their supervisors exhibit climate as perceived by employees shows whether supervisors in
a transactional leadership style and have a significant impact on the institutional food service industry can have transformational
TA B L E 3 Mean of transformational leadership style for employees
Transformational 1. My supervisors make me feel that it is a pleasure to get along with them, and work- 4.16 0.71 1
leaders ing with them makes me feel proud
2. My supervisors help me find the meaning of the work and explain in a few simple 3.98 0.71 3
words what I could do and what I should do
3. My supervisors encourage me to reflect on past issues in new ways 4.03 0.72 2
4. My supervisors provide me with feedback on my job performance and help with my 3.81 0.95 4
career planning
Average 3.99 0.77
KO and KANG |
2137
TA B L E 4 Mean of organizational climate for employees
Organizational 1. The supervisor will talk to the employee before making any changes affecting the employee 4.05 0.74 4
climate and let the employee participate in the decision
2. Employees receive adequate training. Supervisors strongly encourage employees to develop 4.07 0.66 3
skills
3. My company/school is very flexible and willing to use new ideas 4.02 0.68 6
4. My company/school will use employee ideas to improve the employee's own work situation 3.92 0.75 7
5. Every employee understands the goals of this company/school 4.10 0.61 2
Organizational 6. My company/school is very efficient and will not waste time and money 4.05 0.71 5
climate 7. Employees are excited about their work and want to do their best for maximum performance 4.12 0.67 1
Average 4.05 0.69
TA B L E 5 Mean of food safety behavior for employees
Food safety 1. During working hours, I have observed food safety 4.40 0.54 3
behaviors 2. During working hours, I will work with others to observe food safety behavior 4.44 0.53 1
3. I will set a good example of following food safety behaviors for others to follow 4.41 0.59 2
4. At the job site, I will actively remind or inform my colleagues about the rules and practices for 4.39 0.56 4
compliance with food safety behaviors
5. I will actively discuss things related to food safety behavior with my colleagues or supervisors 4.30 0.61 5
Average 4.39 0.57
TA B L E 6 Pearson correlation
Constructs Mean SD A1 A2 B D
coefficients for all constructs
A1 Transactional 3.99 0.701 1
leader
A2 Transformational 4.00 0.628 0.682** 1
leader
B Organizational 4.05 0.540 0.587** 0.696** 1
climate
D Food safety and 4.39 0.491 0.251** 0.398** 0.477** 1
hygiene behaviors
Note: n = 324.
**p<0.01
leadership. This form of leadership can thus facilitate frontline em- employees perceive the organization's policies, norms, procedures,
ployees in the workplace in expressing the organizational climate rewards, and support systems are clear, and the employees also feel
they expect and want. that the organization is good to them, then the employees are more
This study used organization climate as a self‐variant to explore likely to put forth greater effort at work and observe food safety
the effect of organizational climate in the industry of institutional and hygiene behaviors in the workplace. Previous studies also sup-
food service on an employee's compliance with food safety and hy- port the relationship between organizational climate and employees'
giene behaviors. The results show that the impact of organizational compliance with food safety and hygiene behaviors (Lee et al., 2013).
climate on compliance with food safety and hygiene behaviors is Measuring the impact of the transactional leadership style of
significant, which means that organizational climate has a signifi- managers in an institutional food service business on employees'
cantly positive impact on compliance with food safety and hygiene compliance with food safety and hygiene behaviors, the results show
behaviors. The explanatory power is 22.5%; thus, H3 is supported, that while transactional leadership style has a significant impact on
as shown in Table 9. The results of this study show that the per- compliance with food safety and hygiene behaviors, the explanatory
ceived organizational climate of employees will significantly affect power is only 6%. Although H4 is supported, it is less explanatory, as
their food safety behavior in the workplace; in other words, if the shown in Table 10.
|
2138 KO and KANG
TA B L E 7 Regression analysis of
Unstandardized Standardized
transactional leadership style on
coefficient coefficient
organizational climate
Estimated
value of B SE β distribution T value p value
Transactional 0.452 0.035 0.587 13.006 0.000***

leadership style
Note: F value: 169.152; R2: 0.344; adjusted R2: 0.342.

***p < 0.001.
TA B L E 8 Regression analysis of
Unstandardized
transformational leadership style on
coefficient Standardized coefficient
organization climate
Estimated
Transformational 0.599 0.034 0.696 17.410 0.000***

leadership style

***p < 0.001.
The effect of a transformational leadership style in managers transformational leadership style and employee performance (Chi &
of an institutional food service business on employees' compliance Lai, 2011; Sheraz et al., 2012). There is also a positive and strong re-
with food safety and hygiene behaviors is shown to be significant lationship between transformational leaders and safety compliance,
(β = 0.398, p = 0.000) with an explanatory power of 15%, meaning safety participation, and safety attitudes of the employees (Mullen,
that the transformational leadership style has a significantly positive Kelloway, & Teed, 2017).
impact on compliance with food safety and hygiene behaviors. Thus, Baron and Kenny (1986) stated the established mediation oc-
H5 is supported, as shown in Table 11. curred under the following conditions: First, the independent variable
At the job site of an institutional food service business, supervi- must affect the mediator in the first equation; second, the indepen-
sors and employees set up constructive transactions or exchanges dent variable must be shown to affect the dependent variable in the
to complete contractual tasks; supervisors describe job roles and second equation; then, the mediator must affect the dependent vari-
task requirements and establish reward systems to fulfill employee able in the third equation. If these conditions all hold in the predicted
expectations. Therefore, employees understand and work hard to directions, then the effect of the independent variable on the depen-
achieve the goals of the organization while observing food safety dent variable must be less in the third equation than in the second.
and hygiene behaviors to ensure that the efforts they put forth are Perfect mediation holds if the independent variable has no effect
properly compensated. Previous research studies also support a sig- when the mediator is controlled. According to Table 12, a transac-
nificant influence of a transactional leadership style on employee tional leadership style significantly reduces such behavior, indicating
performance (Masa'deh, Obeidat, & Tarhini, 2016). that the influence of transactional leadership style on employees'
Employees perceive the transformational leadership styles compliance with food safety and hygiene behaviors generates com-
of supervisors as having a significant impact on their compliance plete mediating effects through organizational climate. Thus, H6 of
with food safety in the workplace. Supervisors with a transforma- this study is supported by empirical data, showing that transactional
tional leadership style exude an exemplary model of integrity and leadership styles have a direct impact on employee behavior.
fairness, caring for and meeting the individual needs of employees Considering the impact of organizational climate on transfor-
and encouraging employees to develop new problem‐solving meth- mational leadership style under compliance with food safety and
ods, etc. In this way, employees will be willing to exert extra effort hygiene behaviors, Table 13 shows that the standardized coeffi-
to seek personal growth and reach the goals of the organization. cient beta value of transformational leadership style decreases
Previous research also supports a significant relationship between a from 0.398 to 0.128. The downward trend indicates that the
TA B L E 9 Regression analysis of organizational climate on food safety and hygiene behaviors
Unstandardized coefficient Standardized coefficient
Estimated value of B SE β distribution T value p value
Organizational climate 0.434 0.045 0.477 9.741 0.000***

***p < 0.001.
KO and KANG |
2139
TA B L E 1 0 Regression analysis of
Unstandardized
transactional leadership style on food
safety and hygiene behaviors
Estimated
Transactional 0.176 0.038 0.251 4.652 0.000***

leadership style

***p < 0.001.
TA B L E 1 1 Regression analysis of
Unstandardized
transformational leadership style on food
safety and hygiene behaviors
Estimated
Transformational 0.311 0.040 0.398 7.794 0.000***

leadership style

***p < 0.001.
TA B L E 1 2 Regression analysis of transactional leadership style and organizational climate on food safety and health behavior
Transactional leadership style −0.031 0.042 −0.044 −0.732 0.465


***p < 0.001.
TA B L E 1 3 Regression analysis of transformational leadership style and organizational climate on food safety and hygiene behaviors
Transformational leadership style 0.100 0.053 0.128 1.890 0.060


***p < 0.001.
transformational leadership style has a complete mediating effect job site, the employees are happy to inform their supervisors of
on employees' compliance with food safety and hygiene behaviors work recommendations and obtain positive feedback. The employ-
through the organizational climate. Therefore, H7 is supported by ees feel respected and supported. Therefore, they are more dedi-
empirical data. cated to their work and more willing to obey the leadership of the
For the staff of the school lunch kitchen in the north, an inde- supervisor, with better compliance with food safety and hygiene
pendent checklist and related kitchen forms for daily lunch opera- behaviors. At the same time, supervisors and employees share and
tions are in place. There are very detailed work practices, from the discuss organizational policies and norms with each other so that
inspection of the ingredients to the postcleaning process. The lead- grassroots employees can speak out about the organizational cli-
ership style perceived by the employees, whether it is transactional mate they want, and they will find ways to maintain this climate.
or transformational, significantly affects their compliance with food The results of this research are consistent with those of previous
safety and hygiene behaviors. Therefore, this research hypothesis research—that is, leaders at the highest level create and develop the
is supported by empirical data and can be established. Since there climate and tone of the organization, while leadership style is used
is an open communication channel between the employees of the to play the role of organizational climate and organizational culture
institutional food service business and the main managers on the advocate (Hollander & Offermann, 1990).
|
2140 KO and KANG
The results of this study indicate that organizational climate plays food safety and health behavior. Therefore, it is recommended that
a very important role in an employee's compliance with food safety the supervisors of institutional food services should create a good
and hygiene behaviors. As noted earlier, organizational climate is a key organizational climate that is beneficial for employees to adhere to
factor in determining employee behavior (Ball et al., 2010). In addition food safety and hygiene behaviors.
to establishing food safety standards and procedures, supervisors can The results of this study show that leadership style has a signifi-
set up a positive organizational climate, including engaging employ- cant impact on food safety and health behaviors of the employees of
ees in decisions, encouraging employees to receive training and skills, institutional food services. However, the difference between trans-
using new ideas, adopting employee ideas to improve their work, and actional leadership style and transformational leadership style is not
making each employee understand the organization's goals—that is, significant. In other words, both leadership styles are applicable to
establish values, beliefs, and work atmosphere that are shared with employees of institutional food services; thus, management can use
employees to create a food safety culture in the workplace, which in them freely to achieve organizational goals. With regard to the de-
turn affects employees' behaviors in observing food safety. velopment of transactional and transformational leadership styles, it
is recommended that the supervisors of institutional food services
receive leadership training courses for empowerment training and
5 | CO N C LU S I O N A N D S U G G E S TI O N S
have interschool/company visits for observations, exchanges, and
experience sharing.
5.1 | Conclusion
Leadership styles, organizational climate, and employees' compli-
5.2.2 | Suggestions for lunch team of a company
ance with food safety and hygiene behaviors are positively cor-
providing institutional food service/school—
related. There is a significantly positive impact of transactional
Creation of organizational climate
leadership style and transformational leadership style on organi-
zational climate, there is a significantly positive impact of organi- Leaders should engage employees when making decisions before
zational climate on employees' compliance with food safety and making changes affecting employees. They should have good in-
hygiene behaviors, there is a significantly positive impact of trans- teraction with employees and make employees feel supported and
actional leadership style and transformational leadership style on respected. Employees should be given necessary education and
employees' compliance with food safety and hygiene behaviors, and training. In addition to the required health education according to
there is a significantly positive impact of transactional leadership regulations, employees can be encouraged to participate in relevant
style, transformational leadership style, and organizational climate studies and develop skills, such as obtaining licenses as Chinese food
on employees' food safety and hygiene behaviors. Organizational technicians, taking small‐boiler training courses, cooking courses,
climate has a complete mediating effect between the transactional and healthy eating courses, to enhance the value of their work,
and transformational leadership style on food safety and hygiene inject vigor into their work, and input competitiveness into their
behaviors. In other words, the employees working in institutional organization.
food service can enhance compliance with food safety and hygiene The company/school should remain flexible and be willing to
behaviors via the mediating effect of organizational climate. employ new ideas. The company/school should review the relevant
work regulations, conform to the trend of the times and regulations,
encourage employees to receive education and training, and up-
5.2 | Suggestions
date or repair kitchen facilities and equipment timely. In addition, it
should provide leadership‐style training courses for managers and
5.2.1 | Suggestions on management of institutional
make employees aware that the company/school has clear policies
food service
and flexible practices. Moreover, the school can actively seek fund-
Ohly and Fritz (2010) found that leadership style has a significant ing from higher level units, including for equipment maintenance and
impact on organizational climate, while organizational climate has a renewal, employee salary subsidies, and grants for study courses.
comprehensive impact on the organization because it impacts or- At the same time, additional integration activities can be added and
ganizational performance. Therefore, it is recommended that su- transparency of company information can be increased to make em-
pervisors of institutional food service strengthen their education ployees work in a better environment, thus facilitating their compli-
and training of managers in school lunchtime kitchens and make the ance with food safety behaviors.
employees aware that leadership style and corporate/school system Employees can accurately understand the advantages and dis-
are good for building relationships between managers and employ- advantages of the workplace and related equipment operations
ees on the job site. and maintenance and make recommendations. The company/
The results of this study show that organizational climate has a school should update or repair work equipment to meet the needs
significant impact on food safety and hygiene behaviors of employ- of employees at the right time and facilitate the smooth prepa-
ees of institutional food services. The study also finds that organi- ration of lunches. Since lunch preparation is very constrained,
zational climate is an intermediary factor in the leadership style of and work efficiency needs to be maintained to enable dining on
KO and KANG |
2141
time, a good and normal operation of the equipment is required acceptable. An example is the first question in the scale of com-
under such time pressure, as much preparation time for employees pliance with food safety behaviors: “I have observed food safety
is needed to comply with work norms, food safety, and hygiene behaviors during my working hours.” This statement is considered
behaviors. socially acceptable—that is, everyone should comply with food
The firm can also help employees be aware of business goals. safety regulations. Therefore, the employee may be inclined to
When employees are immersed in hard work, they can be told agree or strongly agree with this statement, whether or not that
about organizational goals. In addition to providing meals on time, person actually complies with food safety behaviors. This bias may
the most important goal is to ensure safety and hygiene. To en- thus affect the average mean of variables.
able employees to understand the value of their work, the com-
pany/school needs to pass on experience through education and
AC K N OW L E D G E M E N T
training.
I thank all of the subjects that are anonymous and voluntary to fill
out the questionnaires.
5.2.3 | Suggestions for individuals of employees of
institutional food services
C O N FL I C T O F I N T E R E S T
It is recommended that employees should be rational in reflecting
their suggestions for work or personal needs. They should respect The authors declare no conflict of interest.
the managers at the job site, follow normal communication chan-
nels to reflect their own opinions on appropriate occasions to create
E T H I C A L S TAT E M E N T S
good interaction with supervisors, and actively participate in educa-
tion and training and obtain relevant certificates. This study does not involve any human or animal testing. All of the
subjects are anonymous and voluntary to fill out the questionnaires.
5.2.4 | Suggestions for future research and

limitations ORCID
A questionnaire survey method was adopted as the research method Wen‐Hwa Ko https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7907-2685
of this study. The depth and value of research results can be en-
hanced if long‐term observations or qualitative interviews are used
for looking into the impact of leadership style and organizational REFERENCES
climate on employee food safety and hygiene behaviors to further
Ahmad, H., & Gelaidan, H. M. (2011). Organizational culture, leadership
understand employees' views on leadership style and organizational styles, and employee’s affective commitment to change: A case of
climate. Yemen public sector. Journal of Organizational Management Studies,
Regulations require that 70% of staff working in institutional 2011, 1–10.
Andersen, J. A. (2016). An old man and the sea of leadership. Journal
food service in school lunch kitchens must have a license as a
of Leadership Studies, 9(4), 70–81. https://doi.org/10.1002/jls.21422
Chinese food technician. Presently, it is not clear whether all institu- Aryee, S., Budhwar, P. S., & Chen, Z. X. (2002). Trust as a mediator of the
tional food service companies or schools are encouraging employees relationship between organizational justice and work outcomes: Test
to obtain this license. However, some companies and schools encour- of a social exchange model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(3),
267–285. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.138
age employees to actively obtain certification by way of subsidy fees
Ball, B., Wilcock, A., & Colwell, S. (2010). Factors predicting worker food
and monthly incentives granted after obtaining the license. As previ- safety behaviour in Ontario meat plants. Poster session presented
ously indicated, employees who have food safety certifications have at the meeting of International Association for Food Protection,
a significantly better attitude and intention regarding food safety and Anaheim, CA.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator‐mediator variable dis-
hygiene behaviors. At the same time, food safety certification pres-
tinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and
ents a mediating effect (Lee et al., 2013). Therefore, it is suggested statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
that in the future, whether or not an employee has a Chinese food 51(6), 1173–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
technician license should be studied to investigate the related medi- Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New
York, NY: Macmillan.
ating effect of leadership style on food safety and health behaviors.
Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership:
Some of the questionnaires in this study were distributed by Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19–31.
the school dietitian to the staff of the institutional food service https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(90)90061-S
serving in the school. Because school dietitians are either direct Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2004). Multifactor leadership questionnaire, 3rd
managers or supervisors at the job site, the subjects might there- ed. Menlo Park, CA: Mind Garden.
Bennis, W. G., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge.
fore be less willing to fill out their true thoughts or opinions. Some
New York, NY: Harper and Row.
subjects might be affected by social desirability bias when filling Boeck, E. D., Jacxsens, L., Bollaerts, M., & Vlerick, P. (2015). Food safety
out questionnaires and give answers they think correct are socially climate in food processing organizations: Development and validation
|
2142 KO and KANG
of a self‐assessment tool. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 46, Kim, S., & Yoon, G. (2015). An innovation‐driven culture in local gov-
242–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2015.09.006 ernment: Do senior manager's transformational leadership and the
Burton, R. M., Lauridsen, J., & Obel, B. (2004). The impact of organiza- climate for creativity matter? Public Personnel Management, 44(2),
tional climate and strategic fit on firm performance. Human Resource 147–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026014568896
Management, 43(1), 67–82. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2012). The leadership challenge, 5th ed. San
Bronkhorst, B., Steijn, B., & Vermeeren, B. (2015). Transformational lead- Francisco, CA: Wiley.
ership, goal setting, and work motivation: The case of a Dutch mu- Kreitner, R., & Kinicki, A. (2001). Organizational behavior. Boston, MA:
nicipality. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 35(2), 124–145. Irwin/McGraw‐Hill.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X13515486 Lee, J. E., Almanza, B. A., Jang, S., Nelson, D. C., & Ghiselli, R. F. (2013).
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Does transformational leadership style influence employees’ atti-
Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2015). Preventing future out‐ tudes toward food safety practice? International Journal of Hospitality
breaks. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/outbreaks/ Management, 33, 282–293.
preventioneducation/future.html Lemons, L., Newsome, S., & Brashears, T. (2013). An investigation of the
Chi, L. C., & Lai, C. C. (2011). A research on the influence of leadership effect of leadership change on organizational climate. Poster proceed-
style and job characteristics on job performance among accoun- ings of the (2013). American Association for Agricultural Education
tants of county and city government in Taiwan. Public Personnel Research Conference (pp. 195–198). OH: Columbus.
Management, 40(2), 101–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026011 LePine, M. A., Zhang, Y., Crawford, E. R., & Rich, B. L. (2015). Turning
04000202 their pain to gain: Charismatic leader influence on follower stress ap-
Cloete, M. (2011). The relationship between leadership styles and organ‐ praisal and job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 59(3),
isational climate. Master's dissertation.University of South Africa, 1036–1059. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0778
Pretoria. Manning, M. L., Davidson, M., & Manning, R. L. (2005). Measuring tour-
Curwood, S. C., Arendt, S. W., Rajagopal, L., & Stephen, S. W. (2017). ism and hospitality employee workplace perceptions. International
Challenges to implementing food safety and produce handling train- Journal of Hospitality Management, 25, 75–90. https ://doi.
ing in school meal program. Journal of Food Studies, 6(1), 31. https:// org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2004.05.001
doi.org/10.5296/jfs.v6i1.11669 Mary, F. N., & Gregoire, M. B. (2001). Analysis of the process used to
Doucet, O., Fredette, M., Simard, G., & Tremblay, M. (2015). Leader select a food production system for school foodservice. Journal Child
profiles and their effectiveness on employee outcomes. Human Nutrition and Management, 24(2), 84–91.
Performance, 28(3), 244–264. Masa'deh, R., Obeidat, B. Y., & Tarhini, A. (2016). A Jordanian empirical
Eustace, A., & Martins, N. (2011). The role of leadership in shaping or- study of the associations among transformational leadership, trans-
ganizational climate: An example from the fast moving consumer actional leadership, knowledge sharing, job performance, and firm
goods industry. Journal of Industrial Psychology, 40(1). https://doi. performance: A structural equation modelling approach. Journal of
org/10.4102/sajip.v40.1112 Management Development, 35(5), 681–705. https://doi.org/10.1108/
Glisson, C., & James, L. R. (2002). The cross level effects of culture and JMD-09-2015-0134
climate in human service teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, Maxwell, J. C. (1998). The 21 irrefutable laws of leadership : Follow them
23(6), 767–794. and people will follow you. Nashille, Tenessee: Thomas Nelson Inc.
Greig, J. D., Todd, E. C. D., Bartleson, C. A., & Michaels, B. S. (2007). Mohamed, L. M. (2016). Assessing the effects of transformational lead-
Outbreaks where food workers have been implicated in the spread of ership: A study on Egyptian hotel employees. Journal of Hospitality
foodborne disease. Part 1. Description of the problem, methods, and and Tourism Management, 26, 49–59. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.
agents involved. Journal of Food Protection, 70(7), 1572–1761. jhtm.2016.04.001
Griffith, C. J., Livesey, K. M., & Clayton, D. (2010). The assessment of Mohan, T. (2000). Leadership Styles in Information Technology Projects.
food safety culture. British Food Journal, 112, 439–456. International Journal of Project Management, 18(4), 235–241.
Guzewich, J., & Ross, M. P. (1999). Evaluation of risks to microbiological Mullen, J., Kelloway, K., & Teed, M. (2017). Employer safety obligations,
contamination of ready‐to eat food by food preparation workers and transformational leadership and their interactive effects on em-
the effectiveness of intervention to minimize those risks. Food and ployee safety performance. Safety Science, 91, 405–412. https://doi.
Drug Administration Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.09.007
Retrieved from http//vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~ear/-rterisk.html Neal, A., Griffin, M. A., & Hart, P. M. (2000). The impact of organizational
Henroid, D. Jr, & Sneed, J. (2004). Readiness to implement hazard anal- climate on safety climate and individual behavior. Safety Science,
ysis and critical control point (HACCP) systems in Iowa schools. 34(1–3), 99–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-7535(00)00008-4
Journal America Dietetic Association, 104(2), 180–185. Newland, A., Newton, M., Podlog, L., Legg, W. E., & Tanner, P. (2015).
Hollander, E. P., & Offermann, L. R. (1990). Power and leadership in or- Exploring the nature of transformational leadership in sports: A
ganizations; relationship in transition. American Psychologist, 45(2), phenomenological examination with female athletes. Qualitative
179–189. Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 7(5), 663–687.
James, L. R., Choi, C. C., Ko, C. H. E., McNeil, P. K., Minton, M. K., Wright, Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks,
M. A., & Kim, K. I. (2008). Organizational and psychological climate: CA: Sage.
A review of theory and research. European Journal of Work and Ohly, S., & Fritz, C. (2010). Work characteristics, challenge appraisal,
Organizational Psychology, 17(1), 5–32. creativity, and proactive behavior: A multilevel study. Journal of
Jipiu, L. B., Abdullah, R. P. S. R., Ariffin, H. F., Anuar, N. A. M., & Organizational Behavior, 31, 543–565. https ://doi.org/10.1002/
Mohi, Z. (2016). Good hygiene practices (GHP) among school job.633
canteen food handlers. In S. M. Radzi, M. H. Mohd Hanafiah, Painter, J. A., Hoekstra, R. M., Ayers, T., Tauxe, R. V., Braden, C. R., Angulo,
N. Sumarjan, Z. Mohi, D. Sukyadi, K. Suryadi & P. Purnawarman F. J., & Griffin, P. M. (2013). Attribution of foodborne illnesses, hospi-
(Eds.), Heritage, culture and society: Research agenda and best prac‐ talizations, and deaths to food commodities by using outbreak data,
tices in the hospitality and tourism industry ‐ Proceedings of the 3rd United States, 1998–2008. Emerging Infectious Disease Journal, 19(3),
International Hospitality and Tourism Conference, IHTC 2016 and 407–415. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid1903.111866
2nd International Seminar on Tourism, ISOT 2016 (pp. 723–728). Pilling, V. K., Brannon, L. A., Shanklin, C. W., Howells, A. D., & Roberts, K.
London, UK: CRC Press/Balkema. R. (2008). Identifying specific beliefs to target to improve restaurant
KO and KANG |
2143
employees’ intentions for performing three important food safety Wang, G., Oh, I. S., Courtright, S. H., & Colbert, A. E. (2011). Transformational
behaviors. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 108(6), 991– leadership and performance across criteria and levels: A meta‐analytic
997. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jada.2008.03.014 review of 25 years of research. Group and Organization Management,
Powell, D. A., Jacob, C. J., & Chapman, B. J. (2011). Enhancing food safety 36(2), 223–270. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601111401017
culture to reduce rates of foodborne illness. Food Control, 22, 817– World Health Organization (2000). Foodborne disease: A focus for health
822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2010.12.009 education. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
Pragle, A. S., Harding, A. K., & Mack, J. C. (2007). Food workers’ per- Yiannas, F. (2009). Food safety culture: Creating a behavior‐based food
spectives on handwashing behaviors and barriers in the restaurant safety management system. Spring Street, NY: Springer Science.
environment. Journal of Environmental Health, 69(10), 27–32. Zohar, D., & Tenne‐Gazit, O. (2008). Transformational leadership and
Sheraz, A., Zaheer, A., Rehman, K., & Nadeem, M. (2012). Enhancing group interaction as climate antecedents: A social network anal-
employee performance through ethical leadership, transforma- ysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(4), 744–757. https ://doi.
tional leadership and organizational culture in development sector org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.4.744
of Pakistan. African Journal of Business Management, 6, 1244–1251.
Stringer, R. (2002). Leadership and organizational climate. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
How to cite this article: Ko W‐H, Kang H‐Y. Effect of
Waldman, D., Ramirez, G., House, R., & Puranam, P. (2001). Does leader-
leadership style and organizational climate on employees' food
ship matter? CEO leadership attributes and profitability under condi-
tions of perceived environmental uncertain. Academy of Management safety and hygiene behaviors in the institutional food service
Journal, 44, 134–143. of schools. Food Sci Nutr. 2019;7:2131–2143. https://doi.
Wall, P. G., de Louvois, J., Gilbert, R. J., & Rowe, B. (1996). Food poison- org/10.1002/fsn3.1056
ing: Notifications, laboratory reports and outbreaks—where do the
statistics come from and what do they mean. Communicable Disease
Report, 6, 93–100.

Food Science Nutrition - 2019 - Ko - Effect of Leadership Style and Organizational Climate On Employees Food Safety and

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Food Science Nutrition - 2019 - Ko - Effect of Leadership Style and Organizational Climate On Employees Food Safety and

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Food Science Nutrition - 2019 - Ko - Effect of Leadership Style and Organizational Climate On Employees Food Safety and

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

20487177, 2019, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/fsn3.1056 by Cochrane Philippines, Wiley Online Library on [21/03/2023].

Effect of leadership style and organizational climate on

Department of Restaurant, Hotel and

1 | I NTRO D U C TI O N Transactional and transformational leaders, as proposed by

Food Sci Nutr. 2019;7:2131–2143. www.foodscience-nutrition.com | 2131

3.2.2 | Organizational climate scale

3,001 servings or 25 7.7

TA B L E 2 Mean of transactional leadership style for employees

Construct Items Mean SD Ranking

TA B L E 3 Mean of transformational leadership style for employees

Construct Items Mean SD Ranking

TA B L E 4 Mean of organizational climate for employees

Construct Items Mean SD Ranking

TA B L E 5 Mean of food safety behavior for employees

Construct Items Mean SD Ranking

Transactional 0.452 0.035 0.587 13.006 0.000***

Note: F value: 169.152; R2: 0.344; adjusted R2: 0.342.

Transformational 0.599 0.034 0.696 17.410 0.000***

Note: F value: 303.111; R2: 0.485; adjusted R2: 0.483.

TA B L E 9 Regression analysis of organizational climate on food safety and hygiene behaviors

Unstandardized coefficient Standardized coefficient

Estimated value of B SE β distribution T value p value

Organizational climate 0.434 0.045 0.477 9.741 0.000***

Note: F value: 94.878; R2: 0.228; adjusted R2: 0.225.

Transactional 0.176 0.038 0.251 4.652 0.000***

Note: F value: 21.637; R2: 0.063; adjusted R2: 0.060.

Transformational 0.311 0.040 0.398 7.794 0.000***

Note: F value: 60.747; R2: 0.159; adjusted R2: 0.156.

Unstandardized coefficient Standardized coefficient

Estimated value of B SE β distribution T value p value

Transactional leadership style −0.031 0.042 −0.044 −0.732 0.465

Note: F value: 47.638; R2: 0.229; adjusted R2: 0.224.

Unstandardized coefficient Standardized coefficient

Estimated value of B SE β distribution T value p value

Transformational leadership style 0.100 0.053 0.128 1.890 0.060

Note: F value: 49.605; R2: 0.236; adjusted R2: 0.231.

5.2.4 | Suggestions for future research and

You might also like