AI Summary & Key Takeaways
AI InsightThe general average of the health workers obtained from the Toxic Leadership Scale (2.91 ± 1.03) was moderate; there were statistically significant differences due to age and income situation; the toxic leadership perceptions of administrative staff (3.40 ± 0.98) were higher than the average of other health workers.
📌 3 Key Takeaways
Abstract
The Problem of the Study: Some leadership styles have negative and toxic features such as destructive leadership, authoritarian leadership, narcissistic leadership and brute-bullying leadership. Toxic leadership is defined as the sum of the negative aspects of leadership which might include charisma, personalized use of power, narcissism, negative life themes, and an ideology of hate. The Purpose of the Study: This study aims at contributing to the theoretical gap in Turkish literature about destructive leadership. In this regard, first of all, the definitions of destructive leadership made by several authors are presented in the literature. Later, the levels of perception by 200 health workers in a university hospital are investigated using the "Toxic Leadership Scale" and the results of the research are analyzed. Finally, the findings are discussed and evaluations are made for research and application. Findings and Results: In this study, the relationship between gender, age, marital status, education status, duty in hospital, income, occupational status, unit variables of health workers, and toxic leadership levels were examined in terms of both the general average of toxic leadership scale and subscales of scale. The Cronbach-Alpha coefficient in the study was found to be 0.98. The general average of the health workers obtained from the Toxic Leadership Scale (2.91 ± 1.03) was moderate; there were statistically significant differences due to age and income situation; the toxic leadership perceptions of administrative staff (3.40 ± 0.98) were higher than the average of other health workers.