International Journal on Leadership

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access
Open Access Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Restricted Access Subscription Access

Prevalence of Destructive Leadership Behaviour and its Determinants in Northwest Ethiopia


Affiliations
1 College of Business and Economics, Injibara University, Injibara,, Ethiopia
     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


Destructive leadership behaviours and their effects on the organisation have received little attention in terms of research and theory development. As a result, the goal of this research is to look into the prevalence and determinants of destructive leadership behaviour in the Awi Zone. The study used cross-sectional data collected from 947 employees in Northwest Ethiopia, using a stratified sampling technique, to achieve its objectives. After the data was analysed through descriptive statistics, it was found that approximately 65 Percent of the public-sector employees in the Awi Zone are vulnerable to destructive leadership. Personal behaviour, ineffective decision-making, management incompetency, and political behaviour were identified as determinants of destructive leadership behaviour. Finally, the researcher recommended that organisations be selective in their hiring and promotion practices, because personal behaviour is the most important factor in destructive leadership behaviour. Furthermore, organisations need to intentionally and consistently promote an environment in which employees feel free to speak up about their leaders behaviour, which they believe violates not only their own, but also the companys values.

Keywords

Awi, Determinants, Factor Analysis, Leadership Behaviour, Prevalence
Subscription Login to verify subscription
User
Notifications
Font Size


  • Ashforth, B. E. (1987). Petty tyranny in organizations: An exploratory study. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management. Louisiana: New Orleans.

  • Bartlett, M. S. (1951). A further note on tests of significance in factor analysis. The British Journal of Psychology, 1-2.

  • Brodsky, C. M. (1976). The harassed worker. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Lexington Books, DC Heath.

  • Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Halpin, S. M. (2006). What type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 288-307.

  • Cureton, E. E. (1951). Validity. In E. F. Lindquist (Ed.), Educational Measurement (pp. 621-694).

  • Einarsen, S., Skogstad, A., & Aasland, M. S. (2010). The nature, prevalence, and outcomes of destructive leadership: A behavioral and conglomerate approach.

  • In B. Schyns & T. Hansbrough (Eds.), When Leadership Goes Wrong: Destructive Leadership, Mistakes, and Ethical Failures (pp. 145-171). IAP Information Age Publishing.

  • Erickson, A., Shaw, B., Murray, J., & Branch, S. (2015). Destructive leadership: Causes, consequences and countermeasures. Organizational Dynamics, 4(4), 266-272.

  • Golub, G. H., & Vorst, H. A. V. D. (2000). Eigenvalue computation in the 20th century. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 123(1-2).

  • Hornstein, H. A. (2016). Boss abuse and subordinate payback. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 52(2), 231-239.

  • Jolliffe, I. T. (2002). Principal components analysis. New York: Springer.

  • Kellerman, B. (2004). Bad leadership: What it is, how it happens, why it matters (p. 282). Boston, Harvard Business Publishing.

  • Kelloway, E. K., Mullen, J., & Francis, L. (2006). Divergent effects of transformational and passive leadership on employee safety. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 76-86.

  • Kile, S. (1990). Health endangering leadership. Bergen: Universitetet I Bergen.

  • Kim, J. O., & Mueller, C. W. (1978). Factor analysis: Statistical methods and practical issues. Newbury Park.

  • Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005). The allure of toxic leaders: Why we follow destructive bosses and corrupt politicians – and How we can survive them. New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Lombardo, M. M., & McCall, M. W. J. (1984). Coping with an intolerable boss. Center for Creative Leadership.

  • Namie, G. (2003). Workplace bullying: Escalated incivility. Ivey Business Journal.

  • Nkansah, B. K. (2011). On the Kaiser-meier-Olkin’s measure of sampling adequacy. Math. Theory Model, 52-76.

  • Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

  • Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

  • Saleem, F., Malik, M. I., & Malik, M. K. (2021). Toxic leadership and safety performance: Does organizational commitment? Congent Buisiness & Management.

  • Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. The Academy of Management Journal, 178-190.

  • Tran, Q., Tian, Y., Li, C., & Sankoh, F. P. (2014). Impact of destructive leadership on subordinate behavior via behavior, loyalty and neglect in hanoi, Vietnam. Journal of Applied Science, 2320-2330.

  • Willmer, M., Westerberg Jacobson, J., & Lindberg, M. (2019). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of the 9-item utrecht work engagement scale in a multi-occupational female sample: A cross-sectional study. Frontiers in Psychology, 10.

  • Yamane, T. (1967). Statistics: An introductory analysis (2nd ed.). New York: Harper and Row.


Abstract Views: 344

PDF Views: 1




  • Prevalence of Destructive Leadership Behaviour and its Determinants in Northwest Ethiopia

Abstract Views: 344  |  PDF Views: 1

Authors

Eshetu Mebratie
College of Business and Economics, Injibara University, Injibara,, Ethiopia

Abstract


Destructive leadership behaviours and their effects on the organisation have received little attention in terms of research and theory development. As a result, the goal of this research is to look into the prevalence and determinants of destructive leadership behaviour in the Awi Zone. The study used cross-sectional data collected from 947 employees in Northwest Ethiopia, using a stratified sampling technique, to achieve its objectives. After the data was analysed through descriptive statistics, it was found that approximately 65 Percent of the public-sector employees in the Awi Zone are vulnerable to destructive leadership. Personal behaviour, ineffective decision-making, management incompetency, and political behaviour were identified as determinants of destructive leadership behaviour. Finally, the researcher recommended that organisations be selective in their hiring and promotion practices, because personal behaviour is the most important factor in destructive leadership behaviour. Furthermore, organisations need to intentionally and consistently promote an environment in which employees feel free to speak up about their leaders behaviour, which they believe violates not only their own, but also the companys values.

Keywords


Awi, Determinants, Factor Analysis, Leadership Behaviour, Prevalence

References