Identifying the prevalence of destructive leadership behavior and its determinants in northwest Ethiopia

Mebratie, Eshetu; Shanbel, Birhanu Article Identifying the prevalence of destructive leadership behavior and its determinants in northwest Ethiopia Cogent Business & Management Provided in Cooperation with: Taylor & Francis Group Suggested Citation: Mebratie, Eshetu; Shanbel, Birhanu (2024) : Identifying the prevalence of destructive leadership behavior and its determinants in northwest Ethiopia, Cogent Business & Management, ISSN 2331-1975, Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, Vol. 11, Iss. 1, pp. 1-17, https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2315696 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/326066 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Cogent Business & Management ISSN: 2331-1975 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/oabm20 Identifying the prevalence of destructive leadership behavior and its determinants in northwest Ethiopia Eshetu Mebratie & Birhanu Shanbel To cite this article: Eshetu Mebratie & Birhanu Shanbel (2024) Identifying the prevalence of destructive leadership behavior and its determinants in northwest Ethiopia, Cogent Business & Management, 11:1, 2315696, DOI: 10.1080/23311975.2024.2315696 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2315696 © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published online: 17 Feb 2024. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 1569 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 1 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oabm20 ManageMent | ReseaRch aRticle Cogent Business & ManageMent 2024, VoL. 11, no. 1, 2315696 Identifying the prevalence of destructive leadership behavior and its determinants in northwest Ethiopia eshetu Mebratie and Birhanu shanbel College of Business and economics, injibara university, injibara, ethiopia ABSTRACT Destructive leadership behaviors and their effects on the organization have received little attention in terms of research & theory development. as a result, the purpose of this article is to investigate the prevalence and determinants of destructive leadership behavior from the quantitative data collected through questionnaire. a total of 947 sample employees were included in this study stratified sampling technique. Personal behavior, ineffective decision, management incompetency, and political behavior have a positive significance difference at p = 0.01 after the data has been analyzed through factor analysis and regression analysis. however, at the 1% significance level, the difference in political behavior and negotiation problem is negative. On the other hand, poor communication has a negative relationship with destructive leadership behavior, but it is statistically insignificant at a 5% alpha level. according to the findings, ~65% of public-sector employees in the awi zone are susceptible to destructive leadership. in this case, the researchers recommended that organizations intentionally and consistently need to promote an environment in which employees feel free to speak up about leaders’ behavior that they believe it violates not only their own but also the organization’s values. IMPACT STATEMENT For the success of any organization, good leaders are needed; but a mere focus on those good leadership traits is not enough to get the organization more effective and efficient. so, this study is intended to show the prevalence of destructive eadership and contributing factors in target public organizations. it is founded that leaders may behave destructively for a variety of reasons, be it their personality, incompetence, inability to negotiate, perceived injustice or threat to their identity, ineffective decision-making, financial reasons, low organizational identification, Political behavior etc. 1. Introduction Most academicians, organizations, and managers have traditionally sought to improve organizational performance through the study of good, effective, visionary, and charismatic leadership, according to Burke et al. (2006). Understanding and avoiding destructive leadership, on the other hand, may be just as important, if not more so, than understanding and improving positive aspects of leadership (ashforth, 1987). several authors and academics have recently called for a more in-depth examination of the characteristics and outcomes associated with such destructive leadership behavior by exploring it as a ‘dark side’ of leadership to contribute to a better understanding of leadership effectiveness and development (einarsen et al., 2010). those researchers and scholars clearly support the idea that destructive leadership is widespread in the workplace and is not limited to the absence of effective leadership behavior (Kelloway et al., 2006). Different researchers have proposed several concepts that arguably fall within the domain of destructive leadership that is directed at subordinates, such as ‘abusive supervisors’ (hornstein, 2016; tepper, 2000), ‘health endangering leaders’ (Kile, 1990) as cited in the works of tran et al. (2014), ‘petty tyrants’ (ashforth, 1987), ‘bullies’ (Brodsky, 1976). © 2024 the author(s). Published by informa uK Limited, trading as taylor & Francis group CONTACT eshetu Mebratie [email protected] College of Business and economics, injibara university, injibara, ethiopia https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2315696 this is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. the terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 16 January 2022 Revised 24 May 2023 accepted 3 February 2024 REVIEWING EDITOR huifen (helen) cai, Middlesex University Business school, United Kingdom KEYWORDS Destructive leadership; multiple regression; leadership behavior; factor analysis; determinants SUBJECTS Psychological science; leadership; Business, Management and accounting 2 e. MeBRatie anD B. shanBel according to tran et al. (2014), destructive leadership is defined as a leader’s, supervisor’s, or manager’s systematic and repeated behavior that undermines and/or sabotages the organization’s goals, tasks, resources, and effectiveness, as well as the motivation, well-being, or job satisfaction of subordinates. Destructive leaders may make repeated errors and/or act aggressively toward subordinates through sabotage, theft, and corruption (Kelloway et al., 2006). therefore, a focus that is just on a leader’s aggressive behavior (hubert and van Veldhoven, 2001; or abusive supervision alone) or a focus that is overly narrowed (tepper, 2007) may only provide a partial view of the multifaceted phenomena of destructive leadership. Destructive leadership is not something that exists apart from constructive leadership but is an integrated part of the behavioral toolbox of leaders, as evidenced by the moderate correlations that exist between the various forms of destructive leadership behavior and constructive leadership behavior. an english research on manager harassment led to a similar outcome. Of the 72 supervisors rated by subordinates, only 11.1% were exclusively viewed as ‘tough managers’, whereas 9.7% of the managers were only viewed as ‘angels’. about 28% of the managers in the same survey were classified as ‘tough managers with supporters’, ‘middle’s with victims’, or ‘angels with victims’. consequently, leaders exhibit both destructive and constructive behavior, using a variety of behaviors and behavior combinations in response to various subordinates, each of whom may respond in a variety of ways. this has ramifications for leadership research, which in the past has mostly seen leadership as either being constructive or destructive, with the latter being an outlier. according to Duffy etal. (2002) and Major et al., experiencing both constructive and destructive behavior from the same source may have more disturbing consequences on the target than only being exposed to destructive behavior. given the diversity of notions used to define destructive leaders, it is obvious that this form of leadership encompasses a variety of behaviors rather than just one type. the present study makes use of the broad concept of ‘destructive leadership’, which is defined as ‘systematic and repeated behavior by a leader, supervisor, or manager that violates the legitimate interest of the organization by undermining and/or sabotaging the organization’s goals, tasks, resources, and effectiveness and/or the motivation, well-being, or job satisfaction of subordinates’ (einarsen et al., 2007, p. 208). there are two main reasons for the growing interest in the dark side of leadership: First, there is the question of the prevalence of and costs as a result of destructive leaders. While aryee et al. (2004) consider abusive supervision, as the one concept that has dominated empirical research in this area, as a ‘low base rate phenomenon’ (p. 394), other studies report a strong prevalence of destructive leader behaviors in organizations. this case is similar to the context of ethiopia. the second reason for the interest in destructive leader behaviors stems from the findings that their effects on individual followers are quite severe. a large variety of outcomes have been studied in relation to destructive leadership behaviors. examples include effects on job tension and emotional exhaustion (e.g. Martinko et al., 2007), resistance behavior (e.g. Bamberger & Bacharach, 2006), deviant work behavior (e.g. Zellars etal., 2002), reduced family well-being (e.g. hoobler & Brass, 2006), and intention to quit and job satisfaction (e.g. tepper, 2000). Both prevalence rates and potential serious effects of destructive leader behaviors make it a concept worthwhile of investigations. leadership researchers like einarsen et al. (2007), Bass et al. (2003), and Birkland et al. (2008) argued that the extent to which destructive leadership prevail have relationship with the cultural and societal factors. Based on their argument, this study tries to investigate the prevalence of destructive leadership behaviour in the target area. as a result, this is the first empirical research paradigm to investigate the prevalence and content of destructive leadership in awi work culture. additionally, several academics have concentrated on the contribution of constructive (good) leaders to organizational performance, such as ayalew et al. (2018), Dea and tekalign (2022), and Mengistu and lituchy (2017). it appears that dealing with the positive side of leadership is the greatest way to succeed, particularly in the ethiopian environment. the flip side of good leadership (i.e. destructive leadership) is missed. University held a workshop for leaders titled ‘improving leadership competence’ (2019). When a series of questions were given out and scores were tallied, the majority of the participants in this training described themselves as democratic, but when a series of questions were given out and scores were tallied, their leadership style fell into the autocratic group. as a result of this disparity, the researchers cOgent BUsiness & ManageMent 3 came to the conclusion that even leaders are unaware of their own actions and that they may engage in destructive leadership behavior toward their subordinates. therefore, the objectives of this study were to: • look into the prevalence of destructive leadership behavior in awi zone. • identify the destructive leadership behaviors that happened most frequently in the study area’s organizations. • identify the most significant factors influencing the extent of destructiveness in organizational leadership in the research area. 2. Review of related literatures Mccleskey (2013), leadership is an essential feature of human relations. he noted that the large number of studies on leadership is a testament to the importance of organizational research and the fundamental role it plays in human relations and interactions. While it is easier to downplay constructive leadership amidst the growing research trend of destructive leadership, scholars have begun to realize that most leaders display a combination of constructive and destructive behaviors during the leadership cycle (skogstad et al., 2014). Pynnonen and takala (2013) used content and interpretive discourse analyzes to seek the core of good leadership, recognize the implicit existence of destructive leadership, and find improvements for effective leadership and governance. they noted that leadership consisted of partly overlapping elements in the ecology that included the leader, the follower, and the context (Pynnonen & takala, 2013). Pynnonen and takala’s study showed the dominating discourse was that a good leader was beyond the reach of ordinary people, a ‘superior human being’ (p. 14). einarsen etal. (2007) offered a typology of destructive leadership within an organizational context, which emphasized that most leaders did not fall on either one or the other side of the continuum as completely bad or good. instead, leaders engaged in a mix of destructive and constructive behaviors influenced by workplace factors that encouraged productive and counterproductive behaviors. therefore, destructive leadership is contextual in nature, as a non-static, dynamic, and socially constructed phenomenon that lies on a spectrum of constructive-destructive leadership behaviors (Krasikova etal., 2013). a leader who is initially constructive and begins the leadership cycle with basic skills to lead a complex organization may evolve through time to become a far different leader. einarsen et al. (2007) suggested that a leader who performs destructively on one dimension might not do so on another when the leader can compensate with corresponding constructive attributes. For example, derailment may occur during a leadership role occupancy, which may warrant the leader to change supervisory tactics over time. alternatively, a contention could be made that it takes a combination of dysfunctional attributes lying on a spectrum to cause destructive leadership; the reverse, however, is not true. Destructive leadership prima facie does not cause dysfunctional attributes (avolio & Walumbwa, 2014). in a systematic review of recent leadership literature, schilling and schyns (2014) gleaned theories from several studies to obtain a deeper understanding of the negative types of leadership. the analysts’ acknowledgement of the multiple ways that charismatic leadership could deteriorate if leaders abused their allure was of interest. For example, poor organizational outcomes can occur when charismatic leaders place their own needs ahead of the legitimate needs of their subordinates or the organization. schilling and schyns (2014) results supported the complicated assumption that although destructive leadership was bad, and that ‘bad is stronger than good’ (p. 188), scientists must be cautious to avoid sweeping conclusions about the harmfulness of destructive leadership, or the usefulness of constructive leadership. Understanding the dynamics and contexts in which destructive leadership occurs requires exploration of the cognitive and implicit biases that propel the emergence of this destructive phenomenon. Burke and Page (2017) suggested that a firm’s behavioral description of the actions of a destructive leader was a good start and argued that destructive leadership was not conducive to sustainable leadership. this important revelation was another factor that drove the rationale for the current project. Multiple researchers of destructive leadership have focused on the negative effects on followers (aasland et al., 2010; nyberg et al., 2011; tavanti, 2011). however, organizational scientists overall 4 e. MeBRatie anD B. shanBel disagree on the prevalence of destructive leadership. For example, some analysts reported that destructive leadership was quite rare (Vogel et al., 2015), while others believed it was rampant within organizations (antoniou et al., 2016; Meuser etal., 2016). Despite this ambiguity, dysfunctional leadership may be a bigger setback than many organizational scientists believe (aasland etal., 2010; tavanti, 2011). aasland et al. (2010) concluded that destructive leadership behavior was not a rare or unique phenomenon, but a typical experience during the working cycle of subordinates. schyns and schilling (2014) concurred, reporting an estimated 13.6% prevalence rate for U.s. workers affected by abusive supervision in their study. these examiners also acknowledged that the results of their meta-analysis indicated a high correlation between destructive leadership and 34 counterproductive work behavior, also known as the dark side of performance. namie and namie (2000) reported that ~10–16% of employees have experienced abusive supervision, a subset of destructive leadership. in response to conflicting research on the prevalence of destructive leadership, aasland et al. (2010) investigated the prevalence of four forms of destructive leadership, including tyrannical, derailed, supportive-disloyal, and laissez-faire. aasland et al. gathered questionnaire data on leadership behaviors of respondents’ superiors and respondents’ exposure to bullying behaviors, job satisfaction, health complaints, and psychosocial aspects of their work environments. the findings of aasland et al.’s team indicated that almost 33% of employees reported experiencing destructive leadership on a frequent basis. Overall, analysis of survey data indicated that destructive leadership behaviors were commonplace. a nationwide workforce survey revealed that up to 67% of employee participants were disengaged because of bad management and destructive leadership practices (gallup, 2017). the purpose of this study is to identify the prevalence of destructive leadership in the awi zone of north West ethiopia, to contribute by demonstrating that such behavior is prevalent, and to provide a roadmap for organizational researchers to explore the causes of and/or the extent to which such leadership behavior may have an impact on organizational performance. 3. Materials and methods 3.1. Research approach and design Because the data was collected through a questionnaire, a quantitative research approach was used in this study. also, to describe the leadership behavior in the study area, the research design was descriptive, regression, and factor analysis. 3.2. Population and sampling procedure the participants in this study were all employees of public organizations in awi Zone, including all woredas and town administrations. there were a total of 28,663 government workers, according to the awi Zone administration human Resource Development Office (2020). the researcher chose 1069 samples from this entire target population using Yamane’s formula, as shown below. Finally, depending on their woreda, stratified sampling Table 1. sample size determination. no Districts number of employees proportion sample selected from each district 1 Dangila 4656 0.16 171 2Fagta Locoma 2823 0.09 93 3guagussa shikudad 2116 0.07 75 4 ankesha 2137 0.07 75 5ayo guagussa 2120 0.07 75 6 guangua 2744 0.09 93 7 Zigem 2520 0.08 85 8 Jawi 2856 0.09 93 9 Banja 2113 0.07 29 10 injibara 3151 0.11 75 11 Chagni 1427 0.05 53 total 28,663 1069 source: awi Zone administration Human Resource Development office (2020). cOgent BUsiness & ManageMent 5 procedures were employed to calculate the sample size (table 1), and convenience sampling was utilized to choose samples from each woreda. at a confidence level of 97% and a precision level of 0.03, the sample size was estimated using the (Yamane, 1967) sample size determination formula as follows: n N Ne = + () = + () = 1 28663 1 28663 0 03 1069 22 . Where: n is the sample size N is the population sizee is the level of precision. the overall sample size was 1069 as a result of the above calculation. Finally, according to their proportion, a structured questionnaire has been developed and distributed to employees in each woreda. 3.3. Data collection methods Primary and secondary data sources were used by the researcher. the respondents’ primary data was collected using a structured questionnaire which is adapted from erickson et al. (2015). the likert scale was used as the measurement method, which consists of statements in which respondents rate their level of agreement or disagreement on a five-point scale. 0 = Do not engage in this behavior, 1 = Very infrequently engage, 2 = Occasionally engage, 3 = Frequently engage, and 4 = Very Frequently engaged, where 0 = Do not engage in this behavior, 1 = Very infrequently engage, 2 = Occasionally engage, 3 = Frequently engaged, and 4 = Very Frequently engaged. secondary data was gathered from books, journals, articles, and reports to supplement the primary data. 3.4. Reliability and validity the issue of measure consistency is at the heart of reliability (Patton, 2002). it was considered and tested in this study using sPss software and cronbach’s alpha method. a score of 0.7 or higher indicates an acceptable level of internal consistency (nunnally & Bernstein, 1994) as cited by saleem et al. (2021). in this regard, the cronbach’s alpha value for this study is 0.73, indicating that the items representing destructive leadership behavior have a high level of overall internal consistency. ‘Validity is about how well a test does the job it is employed to do’, according to cureton. this statement denotes that the term validity refers to the extent to which any measuring instrument measures what it is designed to measure. this study had tested its face (content) validity in this regard. the questionnaires for 50 respondents were pre-tested before being administered to avoid ambiguity, confusion, and poorly prepared items. 3.5. Data analysis as a result, 947 cases out of a total of 1069 were processed in this study. Due to missing values, the remaining cases were excluded from the analysis (list-wise exclusion of cases). Using sPss software version 20 and frequency distribution tables, descriptive analysis was used to describe the characteristics of destructive leadership behavior. the technique of principal component analysis (Pca) was also used because it is a useful multivariate technique of analysis in the variable reduction procedure (i.e. when we have data on a large number of redundant variables) (Jolliffe, 2002). then, using regression analysis, it was possible to predict how subordinates felt about their bosses, as measured by an overall good-bad scale. importantly, the Pcs are thus used as input variables for the upcoming regression analysis, which will be used to further analyze the data. in general, the model can be represented as: PC a x a x a x i i i ik ik = + + …… + 11 2 2 . (1) 6 e. MeBRatie anD B. shanBel Where ik= …… 1; aa i ik 1 ……… = the component loading which represents the ith Pc and the 1s t t h…… .k constraint; and xx k 1 − = the k variables or factors. 3.6. Ethical considerations to protect the research subjects, the researcher noticed ethical concerns. Before respondents consented to engage in the study, the researcher sorts their informed consent. the researcher also informs them that they have the only right to leave the study at any point during the data gathering process. Furthermore, the researcher guaranteed respondents of confidentiality and anonymity, as well as the fact that the information gathered was solely for academic purposes and would not be shared with anyone else. 4. Results and discussion 4.1. Results of descriptive statistics according to the table (table 2), 12.9% of respondents confirm that their leaders do not engage in destructive leadership behavior, 22% of the time leaders engage in destructive leadership behavior very infrequently, 27.2% occasionally engage, 21.3% frequently engage, and 16.6% of the time leaders engage in destructive leadership behavior very frequently. as a result, it can be concluded that employees are exposed to destructive leadership behavior in the workplace 65% of the time. the Destructive leadership Questionnaire (DlQ) is one of several surveys that ask subordinate employees to identify specific destructive behaviors that a leader exhibits to identify dysfunctional or toxic leadership. the short version of the DlQ lists 22 discrete behaviors that are frequently cited as characteristics of destructive leaders, and employees rate the frequency with which they engage in these behaviors (Do it) or have seen others engage in them (seen it), with 0 indicating that you do not engage in this behavior, 1 indicating that you engage in this behavior very infrequently, 2 indicating that you engage in this behavior Occasionally, 3 indicating that you engage in this behavior Frequently, and 4 indicating that you engage in this behavior very Frequently. the more destructive the leader is, the higher the score (>2). as shown in table 3, all leaders in the awi Zone exhibit destructive leadership, with the exception of those elements of Micro-Manage and Over-control [mean score 1.9366 (SD = 1.20876)], tell People Only What they Wanted to hear [mean score 1.9609 (SD = 1.30520)], lie or engage in Other Unethical Behaviors [mean score 1.9609 (SD = 1.3095)], and unwillingness to change their mind [mean score 1.9683 (SD = 1.27798)]. 4.2. Results of multivariate analysis 4.2.1. Component factor analysis When we use multiple measures to overcome measurement error by multivariable measurement, factor analysis is an interdependence technique whose primary purpose is to define the underlying structure among the variables in the analysis; and the researchers even strive for correlation among the variables. Table 2. Frequency of destructive leadership behavior through multiple response method. Destructive leadership frequencies Responses Percent of cases (%)NPercent (%) Destructive leadership behaviora Do not engage in this behavior 2681 12.9 283.1 Very infrequently engage 4576 22.0 483.2 occasionally engage 5658 27.2 597.5 Frequently engage 4427 21.3 467.5 very frequently engage 3454 16.6 364.7 total 20796 100.0 2196.0 agroup. cOgent BUsiness & ManageMent 7 as the variables become more correlated, the researcher will need to find new ways to manage them, such as grouping highly correlated variables together, labeling or naming the groups, and possibly even developing a new composite measure to represent each group of variables and test hypotheses about which variables should be grouped together on a factor or the exact number of factors (Yekkalam et al., 2019). the goal of factor analytic techniques is to find a way to condense (summarize) the information contained in a large number of original variables into a smaller number of new, composite dimensions or variates (factors) with the least amount of information loss—in other words, to find and define the fundamental constructs or dimensions assumed to underpin the original variables (Kim & Mueller, 1978). the only time high correlations aren’t indicative of a bad correlation matrix is when two variables are highly correlated and have significantly higher loadings on that factor than other variables. then their partial correlation may be high because the other variables don’t explain them very well, but they do explain each other. this is also to be expected when a factor only has two highly loaded variables. a high partial correlation is one that has both practical and statistical significance, and partial correlations above 0.7 are considered high. another way to see if factor analysis is appropriate is to look at the entire correlation matrix. One such measure is the statistical test for the presence of correlations among variables. it indicates that at least some of the variables in the correlation matrix have statistically significant correlations. the measure of sampling adequacy is a third way to quantify the degree of inter-correlations among variables and the appropriateness of factor analysis (Msa). this index ranges from 0 to 1, with 1 indicating that each variable is perfectly predicted by the other variables with no errors. the following guidelines can be used to interpret the measure: Meritorious is a score of 0.80 or higher; middling is a score of 0.70; mediocre is a score of 0.60; miserable is a score of 0.50; and unacceptable is a score of 0.50 or lower (nkansah, 2011). Before proceeding with the factor analysis, the researcher should always have an overall Msa value of at least 0.50. if the Msa value falls below 0.50, the variable-specific Msa values can be used to identify variables that should be deleted to achieve a 0.50 overall value. however, KMO is 0.785 in this study, and Bartlett’s test of sphericity (Bartlett, 1951) is significant (<0.05). the loading coefficients for the items unable to deal with new technology and change, act insularly, tell people only what they want to hear, exhibit inconsistent, erratic behavior, and act in a brutal or bullying manner are all <0.4 in principal component analysis. as a result, the researcher removed these items from the list with lower loading and ran the analysis again, finding that the six factors had better explanatory power (table 4). as shown in Figure 1, all of the remaining 17 items are condensed into six factors with eigen values >1. examining the eigenvalues associated with the factors can help you decide how many to extract to represent the data (see table 5). the first six factors will be rotated based on the criterion of retaining Table 3. Descriptive results of destructive leadership behavior. Mean std. deviation Make decisions without adequate information 2.0591 1.25108 ineffective in negotiation 2.0634 1.23300 unable to deal with new technology and change 2.3495 1.81062 ineffective at coordinating and managing 2.1404 1.25177 Fail to seek appropriate information 2.1859 1.49463 act in an insular manner 2.3263 1.91967 Communicate ineffectively 2.0412 1.34258 exhibit a lack of skills to do their job 2.1943 1.55595 unable to prioritize and delegate 2.1098 1.28932 unable to understand a long term view 2.0222 1.71039 unable to make an appropriate decision 2.0961 1.29246 Micro-manage and over-control 1.9366 1.20876 unclear about expectations 2.0971 1.64280 unable to develop and motivate subordinates 2.1763 1.40354 Play favorites 2.1457 1.74236 tell people only what they wanted to hear 1.9609 1.30520 Lie or engage in other unethical behaviors 1.9578 1.30955 act inappropriately in interpersonal situations 2.0000 1.25754 engage in behaviors that reduced their credibility 2.0265 1.27573 exhibit inconsistent, erratic behavior 2.1996 1.43809 unwilling to change their mind 1.9683 1.27798 acting in brutal or bulling manner 2.1098 1.36885 14 e. MeBRatie anD B. shanBel on the constructive leadership behaviour to scaled to get the desired organizational performance, the another aspect of leadership in organization needs to be researched as fair as the constructive one. in this regard, this study identified the higher prevalence of destructive leadership behaviour in the selected organization of awi zone, north West ethiopia. according to the result of the statistical analysis, the prevalence of destructive leadership is attributed to factors of political and personal behaviour of a leader, poor communication, management incompetency, and poor decision making skill. this result is consistent with the finding of the study conducted by shaw et al. (2014) titled ‘Destructive leader behaviour: a study of iranian leaders using the Destructive leadership Questionnaire. leadership’. in this same study, the researcher concluded that leader related concepts; organization related concepts and follower related concepts were the major factors that can determine the destructiveness of leaders in organizational settings. 5.2. Conclusions the prevalence of destructive leadership behavior in awi Zone was investigated in this study. after collecting the necessary data and analyzing it, the following major conclusions that are related to the objectives of the study were made. according to the descriptive statistic result of the analysis, it was concluded that more than 65% of employees in the zone are vulnerable to destructive leadership behaviour. this result indicates that even if most of the time scholars and practitioners in ethiopia and other areas of the world give due attention to good leadership for better organizational performance, this study indicates that organizations were experiencing destructive leadership practices that will hinder their productivity. as it was indicated by different researchers, destructive leadership is not a separate leadership style rather it is behaviour that leader may consistently exhibits in the work place. From those behaviours identified by researchers, political behavior, ineffective in decision making, unable to negotiate, poor communication, management incompetency, and personal behavior were the behaviours the target public organizations’ leaders frequently exhibits. those six factors were the most prevalent leadership behaviour in awi zone. Personal behavior, ineffective decision making, management incompetence, and political behavior all have a positive significance difference at p = 0.01 according to the regression results. however, at the 1% significance level, political behavior and negotiation problem are negative. Poor communication, on the other hand, has a negative correlation with destructive leadership behavior, but the correlation is statistically insignificant at a 5% alpha level. accordingly, this statistical output shows that from the behaviours indicating the prevalence destructive leadership in the target research area, poor communication has no direct relation with the presence and absence of destructive leadership practice in organizations. so, it can be concluded that a leader who is not good at communication with others may not show his/her destructive leadership behaviour. 5.3. Recommendations after all, as evidenced by this and other researches in the field, harmful leadership is common, and dealing with problematic leaders is a difficult task. the organization can, however, take several steps to prevent, manage, and hopefully eliminate this toxic leadership style. it was thought that the best way for organizations to avoid destructive leadership is for them to be selective in their hiring and promotion practices (personal behavior is the most important factor in destructive leadership behavior), as well as to clearly state and model the positive leadership values and behaviors that the organization values. Furthermore, businesses should actively and consistently foster a climate in which workers feel free to speak out about circumstances that they believe violate not just their own, but also the company’s values. senior management is responsible for aiding those who have reported such problems and ensuring that they are addressed properly and quickly once they have been raised. cOgent BUsiness & ManageMent 15 Acknowledgements i’d like to express my gratitude to everyone who supported me during the research process, particularly the employees in each woreda who gave up their time to participate in the study and share their perspectives and practices. Disclosure statement no potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). About the authors Eshetu Mebratie Muluneh is a lecturer at injibara University, ethiopia. his current area of interest is leadership, human resource management and business administration. Birhanu Shanbel Andargie is a lecturer at injibara University, ethiopia. his current research interests are business management, organizational leadership and organizational behavior. Funding no funding was available for this research work. ORCID eshetu Mebratie http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5444-9992 Birhanu shanbel http://orcid.org/0009-0003-3635-0731 References aasland, M. s., skogstad, a., notelaers, g., nielsen, M. B., & einarsen, s. (2010). the prevalence of destructive leadership. British Journal of Management, 21(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2009.00672.x anjum, a., & Muazzam, a. (2018). the gendered nature of workplace bullying in the context of higher education. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research, 33. antoniou, a. s., Burke, R. J., & cooper, s. c. l. (eds.). (2016). The aging workforce handbook: individual, organizational, and societal challenges. emerald group Publishing limited. aryee, s., chen, Z. X., sun, l. Y., & Debrah, Y. a. (2004). Examining the mediating and moderating influences on the relationships between abusive supervision and contextual performance in a Chinese context [Paper presentation]. Paper presented at the 4th asia academy Management conference, December 16–18, shanghai, china. ashforth, B. e. (1987). Petty tyranny in organizations: An exploratory study [Paper presentation]. Paper presented at the annual Meeting of the academy of Management, new Orleans, la, Usa. avolio, B. J., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2014). authentic leadership theory, research and practice: steps taken and steps that remain. in D. V. Day (ed.), The Oxford handbook of leadership and organizations (pp. 331–356). Oxford University Press. awi Zone administration human Resource Development Office (2020). Annual employment opportunity creation performance in Awi Zone public organizations. annual report, awi Zone human Resource Development Office, injibara. ayalew, s., Manian, s., & sheth, K. (2018). Discrimination from below: Experimental evidence on female leadership in Ethiopia. technical report, Mimeo. Bamberger, P. a., & Bacharach, s. B. (2006). abusive supervision and subordinate problem drinking: taking resistance, stress and subordinate personality into account. Human Relations, 59(6), 723–752. https://doi. org/10.1177/0018726706066852 Bartlett, M. s. (1951). a further note on tests of significance in factor analysis. British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 4(1), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.1951.tb00299.x Bass, B. M., avolio, B. J., Jung, D. i., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 207–218. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.207 Brodsky, c. M. (1976). The harassed worker. 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, 17(3), 288–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.02.007 16 e. MeBRatie anD B. shanBel Burke, R. J., & Page, K. M. (eds.). (2017). Research handbook on work and well-being. edward elgar Publishing limited. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781785363269 Dea, t., & tekalign, t. F. (2022). the practice of managerial leadership roles and its effect on building human resource capability: the case of north Wollo Zone, amhara Region, ethiopia. Asia-Pacific Journal of Management Research and Innovation, 18(3–4), 131–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/2319510X221148617 einarsen, s., aasland, M. s., & skogstad, a. (2007). Destructive leadership behaviour: a definition and conceptual model. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 207–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.03.002 einarsen, s., skogstad, a., & aasland, M. s. (2010). the nature, prevalence, and outcomes of destructive leadership: a behavioral and conglomerate approach, 145–171. erickson, a., shaw, B., Murray, J., & Branch, s. (2015). Destructive leadership: causes, consequences and countermeasures. Organizational Dynamics, 44(4), 266–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2015.09.003 gallup (2017). state of the american workplace. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/y8f9cct2 hornstein, h. a. (2016). Boss abuse and subordinate payback. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 52(2), 231– 239. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886316636308 hoobler, J. M., & Brass, D. J. (2006). abusive supervision and family undermining as displaced aggression. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 1125–1133. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1125 Jolliffe, i. t. (2002). Principal components analysis. springer. Kellerman, B. (2004). Bad leadership: What it is, how it happens. Why It, 282. Kelloway, e. K., Mullen, J., & Francis, l. (2006). Divergent effects of transformational and passive leadership on employee safety. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11(1), 76–86. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.11.1.76 Kile, s. (1990). Health endangering leadership. Universitetet i Bergen. Kim, h. t. (2020). linking managers’ emotional intelligence, cognitive ability and firm performance: insights from Vietnamese firms. Cogent Business & Management, 7(1). Kim, J.-O., & Mueller, c. W. (1978). Factor analysis: Statistical methods and practical issues. Krasikova, D. V., green, s. g., & leBreton, J. M. (2013). Destructive leadership: a theoretical review, integration, and future research agenda. Journal of Management, 39(5), 1308–1338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312471388 Martinko, M. J., harvey, P., & Douglas, s. c. (2007). the role, function, and contribution of attribution theory to leadership: a review. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(6), 561–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.09.004 Mccleskey, J. (2013). the dark side of leadership: Measurement, assessment, and intervention. The Business Renaissance Quarterly: Enhancing the Quality of Life at Work, 8(2/3), 35–53. Mengistu, a. B., & lituchy, t. R. (2017). leadership in ethiopia. in LEAD: Leadership effectiveness in Africa and the African Diaspora (pp. 177–199). Meuser, J. D., gardner, W. l., Dinh, J. e., hu, J., liden, R. c., & lord, R. g. (2016). a network analysis of leadership theory: the infancy integration. Journal of Management, 42(5), 1374–1403. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316647099 namie, g. (2003). Workplace bullying: escalated incivility. Ivey Business Journal. namie, g., & namie, R. (2000). Workplace bullying. Usa research. www.workplacebullying.org/multi/pdf/nn-2000.pdf. nkansah, B. K. (2011). On the Kaiser-Meier-Olkin’s measure of sampling adequacy. Mathematical Theory and Modeling, 8, 52–76. nunnally, J. c., & Bernstein, i. h. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). Mcgraw-hill. nyberg, a., holmberg, i., Bernin, P., alderling, M. (2011). Destructive managerial leadership and psychological well-being among employees in swedish, Polish, and italian hotels. Work, 39(3), 267–281. https://doi.org/10.3233/ WOR-2011-1175 Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. sage. Pynnönen, a., & takala, t. (2013). Recognised but not acknowledged: searching for the bad leader in theory and text. Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organizational Studies. saleem, F., Malik, M. i., & Malik, M. K. (2021). Toxic leadership and safety performance: Does organizational commitment? congent Business & Management. schilling, J., & schyns, B. (2014). the causes and consequences of bad leadership. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 222(4), 187–189. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000185 schyns, B., & schilling, J. (2013). how bad are the effects of bad leaders? a meta-analysis of destructive leadership and its outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 138–158. shaw, J. B., erickson, a., & nassirzadeh, F. (2014). Destructive leader behaviour: a study of iranian leaders using the Destructive leadership Questionnaire. Leadership, 10(2), 218–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715013476082 skogstad, a., aasland, M. s., nielsen, M. B., hetland, J., Matthiesen, s. B., & einarsen, s. (2014). the relative effects of constructive, laissez-faire, and tyrannical leadership on subordinate job satisfaction. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 222(4), 221–232. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000189 tavanti, M. (2011). Managing toxic leaders: Dysfunctional patterns in organizational leadership and how to deal with them. Human Resource Management, 2011, 127–136. tepper, B. J. (2000). consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178–190. https:// doi.org/10.2307/1556375 tepper B. J. (2007). abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33(3), 261–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307300812 cOgent BUsiness & ManageMent 17 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 Sciences, 14(19), 2320–2330. https://doi.org/10.3923/ jas.2014.2320.2330 Vogel, R. M., Mitchell, M. s., tepper, B. J., Restubog, s. l., hu, c., hua, W., & huang, J. c. (2015). a cross-cultural examination of subordinates’ perceptions of and reactions to abusive supervision. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(5), 720–745. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1984 Yamane, t. (1967). Statistics, an introductory analysis (2nd ed.). harper and Row. Yekkalam, n., coello, e., Mikaela, e., hajer, J., nikolaos, c., & ernberg, M. (2019). could reported sex differences in hypertonic saline-induced muscle pain be a dose issue? Dental Oral Biology and Cranofacial Research, 2(5), 3–8. Zellars, K. l., tepper, B. J., & Duffy, M. K. (2002). abusive supervision and subordinates’ organizational citizenship behavior. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1068–1076. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.6.1068