Evaluation and improvement countermeasures of safety leadership in construction enterprises based on the LCB theory

Although construction accidents in China have declined over the past decade, safety management in the construction industry continues to face persistent challenges. Weak safety leadership remains a critical factor contributing to the attenuation of safety requirements across organizational levels. This study aims to assess the current state of safety leadership among construction enterprise managers and to propose targeted improvement strategies grounded in the leadership-culture-behavior (LCB) theoretical framework.

Drawing on LCB theory, a safety leadership assessment scale was developed, covering four dimensions—leading by example, vision motivation, care and respect, and performance control—and consisting of 20 items tailored to construction enterprises. A questionnaire survey was administered to 1 115 managers in a Shenzhen-based construction enterprise. Following rigorous validity checks, 1 032 valid responses were retained (response rate: 92.5%). Descriptive statistics, one-way analysis of variance, and qualitative interviews were employed to evaluate the status of safety leadership. Differences across demographic variables, including gender, age, work experience, position, and educational background, were also examined.

The overall safety leadership score was 4.18, suggesting a relatively high level according to established standards. However, notable imbalances were observed across dimensions: vision motivation (4.05) scored significantly lower than leading by example (4.27) and performance control (4.19). This result reflects a typical pattern of "strong institutional control but weak vision-driven leadership, " aligning with China's current phase of strict supervision in work safety. Three critical weaknesses were identified: (1) safety-prioritized decision-making (item L13, score 4.19), (2) innovative safety incentive mechanisms (item L24, 3.85, with only 29.5% reporting full compliance), and (3) implementation of reward and punishment systems (item L43, 3.96, with 66.7% reporting inadequate execution). Moreover, educational background was inversely correlated with leadership scores: high school graduates achieved the highest score (4.34), compared with bachelor's (4.15) and master's degree holders (3.95). This finding supports the "experience compensation effect" described in the efficiency-thoroughness trade-off theory, suggesting that less-educated front-line managers rely on practical experience and microlevel perspectives, whereas highly educated managers adopt norm-oriented frameworks with higher expectations of leadership effectiveness.

A three-tier intervention framework is proposed to address the identified challenges. First, vision-driven leadership should be strengthened through safety innovation incentives, such as innovation funds and quarterly microinnovation competitions. Second, employee care should be enhanced by establishing bidirectional communication channels, including monthly nonwork-related leader-subordinate interactions and the introduction of mental health days with counseling services. Third, reward systems should be continuously refined by aligning incentives to position-specific risks, linking safety performance to career advancement, and adjusting policies through regular evaluations. The findings emphasize that cultivating effective safety leadership requires organizational-level interventions that consider the diverse cognitive backgrounds of managers. The proposed scale offers a reliable tool for ongoing assessment and targeted improvement. Overall, this study provides practical guidance for strengthening safety leadership, preventing the erosion of safety management requirements, and enhancing safety culture within construction enterprises. Future research should extend validation of the framework across broader regions and examine the predictive relationship between safety leadership development and safety performance outcomes.