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

Figures & data

Table 1. Sample size determination.

No	Districts	Number of employees	proportion	Sample selected from each district
1	Dangila	4656	0.16	171
2	Fagta Locoma	2823	0.09	93
3	Guagussa Shikudad	2116	0.07	75
4	Ankesha	2137	0.07	75
5	Ayo 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).

Table 2. Frequency of destructive leadership behavior through multiple response method.

Destructive leadership frequencies
		Responses		Percent of cases (%)
		N	Percent (%)
Destructive leadership behavior^a	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

^a Group.

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

Table 4. Measure of sampling adequacy result and pattern matrix.

KMO and Bartlett’s Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy		.785
Bartlett’s Test of sphericity	Approx. Chi-square	2321.521
	df	190
	Sig.	.000
Pattern matrix^a
	Component
	1	2	3	4	5	6
Make decisions without adequate information	.111	.149	−.238	.811	−.083	−.119
Ineffective in negotiation	.001	−.055	.172	.780	.017	−.108
Unable to deal with new technology and change	−.226	.318	.252	.251	.027	.331
Ineffective at coordinating and managing	−.035	.240	.406	.171	.141	−.001
Fail to seek appropriate information	−.073	−.036	.866	−.023	−.151	.040
Communicate ineffectively	.236	−.073	.633	−.156	.214	−.084
Exhibit a lack of skills to do their job	−.048	.149	−.059	−.147	.714	.070
Unable to prioritize and delegate	.410	.255	.024	.059	.240	−.328
Unable to understand a long term view	.001	.151	.077	.014	.573	−.113
Unable to make an appropriate decision	−.069	.018	−.017	.130	.583	.251
Micro-manage and over-control	−.060	.561	−.222	.196	.198	.116
Act in an insular manner	.266	.236	.091	−.0178	−.240	.000
Unclear about expectations	.104	.550	.033	.078	.118	−.060
Unable to develop and motivate subordinates	.197	.488	.105	−.212	.094	.145
Play favorites	−.014	.102	−.046	−.198	.101	.827
Tell people only what they wanted to hear	.370	−.028	.225	.098	−.126	.385
Lie or engage in other unethical behaviors	.516	.329	−.021	.104	−.324	.141
Act inappropriately in interpersonal situations	.722	.007	.015	.035	−.005	−.076
Engage in behaviors that reduced their credibility	.613	.267	−.123	−.189	−.033	.133
Exhibit inconsistent, erratic behavior	.312	−.454	−.154	.125	.248	.293
Unwilling to change their mind	.479	−.159	.096	.234	.043	−.038
Act in a brutal or bullying manner	.375	.344	−.304	.114	−.222	−.303

Extraction method: principal component analysis.

Rotation method: Promax with Kaiser normalization.

^aRotation converged in 10 iterations.

Figure 1. Result of Eigen value.

Table 5. Total variance in principal component analysis under Eigen value.

Total variance explained
Component	Initial Eigen values			Extraction sums of squared loadings			Rotation sums of squared loadings^a
	Total	% Of variance	Cumulative %	Total	% Of variance	Cumulative %	Total
1	3.162	18.597	18.597	3.162	18.597	18.597	2.425
2	1.422	8.366	26.963	1.422	8.366	26.963	1.789
3	1.318	7.751	34.714	1.318	7.751	34.714	1.626
4	1.174	6.906	41.620	1.174	6.906	41.620	1.603
5	1.098	6.460	48.080	1.098	6.460	48.080	1.497
6	1.010	5.944	54.023	1.010	5.944	54.023	1.508
7	.932	5.485	59.508
8	.844	4.965	64.473
9	.822	4.838	69.312
10	.784	4.613	73.925
11	.773	4.545	78.469
12	.749	4.409	82.878
13	.677	3.985	86.863
14	.641	3.770	90.633
15	.561	3.302	93.935
16	.537	3.159	97.094
17	.494	2.906	100.000

^a When components are correlated, sums of squared loadings cannot be added to obtain a total variance.

Table 6. Pattern matrix under Eigen value.

Pattern matrix^a
	Component
	1	2	3	4	5	6
Act inappropriately in interpersonal situations	.737
Ineffective at co-coordinating and managing	.633
Lie or engage in other unethical behaviors	.590
Engage in behaviors that reduced their credibility	.523
Unwilling to change their mind	.475
Unclear about expectations		.643
Unable to develop and motivate subordinates		.615
Micro-manage and over-control		.459
Fail to seek appropriate information		.382
Communicate ineffectively			.785
Make decisions without adequate information			.764
Ineffective in negotiation				.838
Play favorites				.702
Unable to understand a long term view					.688
Exhibit a lack of skills to do their job					.684
Unable to make an appropriate decision						.715
Unable to prioritize and delegate						.651

Extraction method: principal component analysis.

Rotation method: Promax with Kaiser normalization.

^a Rotation converged in 7 iterations.

Table 7. Component correlation matrix under Eigen value.

Component correlation matrix
Component	1	2	3	4	5	6
1	1.000	.302	.158	.143	.223	.164
2	.302	1.000	−.024	−.056	.116	.180
3	.158	−.024	1.000	.131	.045	.162
4	.143	−.056	.131	1.000	.176	.065
5	.223	.116	.045	.176	1.000	−.053
6	.164	.180	.162	.065	−.053	1.000

Extraction method: principal component analysis.

Rotation method: Promax with Kaiser normalization.

Figure 2. The normality plot.

Figure 3. The homo-scedasticity plot.

Table 8. Coefficients of the model.

Coefficients^a
Model		Unstandardized coefficients		Standardized coefficients	T	Sig	Collinearity statistics
		B	Std. error	Beta			Tolerance	VIF
1	(Constant)	2.110	.027		77.593	.000
	personal behavior	.807	.030	.590	26.999	.000	.828	1.208
	management incompetency	.285	.029	.208	9.759	.000	.867	1.153
	unable to negotiate	−.150	.028	−.110	−5.344	.000	.938	1.066
	poor communication	−.047	.028	−.034	−1.662	.097	.932	1.073
	ineffective decision	.230	.028	.168	8.092	.000	.913	1.095
	political behavior	−.594	.028	−.434	−20.939	.000	.919	1.088

^a Dependent Variable: bullying average (destructive behavior).

Table 9. The ANOVA explained.

ANOVA^a
Model		Sum of squares	df	Mean square	F	Sig
1	Regression	1112.365	6	185.394	265.546	.000^b
	Residual	654.178	937	.698
	Total	1766.542	943

^a Dependent variable: bullying average (destructive behavior).

^b Predictors: (constant), political behavior, ineffective decision, unable to negotiate, poor communication, management incompetency, personal behavior.

Table 10. Regression model of the study.

Model summary^b
Model	R	R square	Adjusted R square	Std. error of the estimate
1	.794^a	.630	.627	.83556

^a Predictors: (constant), political behavior, ineffective decision, unable to negotiate, poor communication, management incompetency, personal behavior.

^b Dependent variable: bullying average (destructive behavior).

Figure 4. The regression standardized residual.

Table 11. Correlation coefficient.

Correlations
		Personal behavior	Management incompetency	Unable to negotiate	Poor communication	Ineffective decision	Political behavior
Personal behavior	Pearson correlation	1	.302**	.158**	.143**	.223**	.164**
Management incompetency	Pearson correlation	.302**	1	−.024	−.056	.116**	.180**
Unable to negotiate	Pearson correlation	.158**	−.024	1	.131**	.045	.162**
Poor communication	Pearson correlation	.143**	−.056	.131**	1	.176**	.065*
Ineffective decision	Pearson correlation	.223**	.116**	.045	.176**	1	−.053
Political behavior	Pearson correlation	.164**	.180**	.162**	.065*	−.053	1
	N	947	947	947	947	947	947

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

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.

 Google Scholar