Workplace Bullying: Effects on Performance and Leadership Prevention

Introduction

Among the most salient aspects of an organizational climate potentially affecting an individual's job satisfaction is workplace bullying on the part of coworkers or superiors. It constitutes any immoral or negative workplace issue such as abuse, harassment, and similar conduct (Yahaya et al., 2012). It may be defined as a typically persistent, personal attack by one individual in a workplace on another, through the use of psychologically and emotionally abusive behaviors. This includes incessant, unwelcome, demeaning, and unpleasant conduct directed by one or more people toward another person or group within the organization. Yahaya and colleagues (2012) maintain that workplace bullying essentially represents an act of aggression, frequently entailing psychological abuse and even, on occasion, minor levels of physical aggression. It is important to bear in mind that bullying can have very serious, potentially lethal consequences. This paper addresses the negative effects workplace bullying has on personnel welfare and performance, as well as the role of effective leadership in preventing workplace bullying.

Every individual naturally anticipates and welcomes a friendly work atmosphere, and the occurrence of adverse, immoral events will negatively impact personnel morale, turnover rates, and job performance — and consequently, corporate results will suffer. A victim of bullying will be unable to function properly and effectively perform job tasks. Furthermore, he or she will shy away from participating in certain extra-role behaviors that lend the company a competitive edge. Within the service sector, the client–service provider relationship determines the immense contribution of personnel outcomes to increasing client satisfaction (Tag-Eldeen, Barakat, and Dar, 2017). It is therefore a vital task to examine workplace bullying and to tackle its sources and effects.

Workplace bullying has major consequences that must not be neglected. Its adverse impacts on the bullied person include decreased feelings of self-worth, anxiety, depression, stress, fatigue, and breakdown (Obicci, 2015). Furthermore, bullying has been linked to risks of developing post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and identity-related issues. The effects of bullying extend beyond the workplace, impacting people's overall quality of life. It has been found to be linked to increased powerlessness and decreased feelings of individual control and self-reliance.

Workplace Bullying and Individual Performance

Personnel performance may be described as the capacity to handle external and internal relations and operations. This encompasses better communication, group and interpersonal processes, and the capability of managing every sort of business issue. It further entails the incorporation of better decision-making processes, increased efficacy and productivity, openness, more cost-effective resource utilization, increased collaboration and trust between members of the company, and enhanced conflict management ability (Tag-Eldeen et al., 2017). These objectives arise from a value structure grounded in the following positive outlook toward human nature: individuals placed within supportive settings can attain superior growth and achievement.

Evidence exists to confirm that bullying within workplaces has adverse impacts not only on the person subjected to it but also on the organization. The victim may end up suffering from a decline in physical or psychological health. Psychological conditions may develop, which can ultimately result in loss of self-respect and self-esteem and even, in the worst cases, suicidal ideation. Beyond its influence on the direct victim, researchers indicate that individuals who witness such instances of bullying also show likelihood of experiencing certain aforementioned symptoms (Leblebici, 2012).

Prior research into the association between bullying and job performance suggests that increased exposure to workplace bullying decreases job performance. According to a meta-analysis, increased workplace bullying and harassment was weakly linked to poorer work performance levels (Obicci, 2015; Tag-Eldeen et al., 2017). With respect to counterproductive workplace conduct, the study by Dehue and colleagues (2012) demonstrated a substantial effect of interpersonal discord and other social stressors on counterproductive workplace behavior. According to those authors, workers who experience dissatisfaction or negative emotions will end up retaliating by engaging in such conduct against the entity they perceive as responsible for those negative emotions. The findings of a meta-analysis by Devonish (2013) suggest an appreciable positive relationship between workplace bullying and both the intent to leave and counterproductive workplace conduct. Additionally, scrutiny of workplace bullying and victims' related emotional responses demonstrated that as bullying — and its associated adverse emotional responses — increases, counterproductive workplace conduct increases in frequency and intensity.

Past research on individual-directed citizenship behaviors indicated that a growth in perceived abusive supervision was predictive of decreased citizenship behavior levels (Devonish, 2013; Leblebici, 2012). This research does not directly examine workplace bullying, but it describes and operationalizes abusive supervision using behavioral descriptors such as terrorization, degradation, suppression of vital information, and explicit and covert aggression — all of which fall within the behavioral domain of workplace bullying.

Empirical research establishes the likelihood that psychological health mediates the impact of workplace bullying (as a stressor) on job performance. Such research proves the existence of important linkages between psychological health and bullying, as well as between performance and psychological wellbeing indicators. For instance, numerous longitudinal and cross-sectional studies indicate that the occurrence of workplace bullying adversely and directly affects job-related depression and job satisfaction (Giorgi et al., 2016; Tag-Eldeen et al., 2017). There is similarly sound evidence suggesting that job-related depression and job satisfaction significantly predict personnel conduct and performance. This body of evidence provides a robust academic foundation for arguing and testing the likelihood that psychological health indicators mediate the relationship between workplace bullying and personnel performance.

Workplace Bullying and Job Satisfaction

Studies aimed at ascertaining bullying incidence suggested that nursing staff victimized by workplace bullies reported substantially decreased work satisfaction levels along with increased turnover tendency, anxiety, and depression (Tag-Eldeen et al., 2017). However, employer and organizational support was shown to be capable of protecting nursing staff from some of the detrimental impacts of bullying. Other research scholars likewise claim that exposure to bullying produces the following negative consequences: decreased job satisfaction, potential for job loss, increased absenteeism, physical and psychosomatic symptoms, increased turnover intent, higher turnover rates, and reduced efficiency and commitment to one's job.

Bullying, as a form of affective relational conflict, adversely influences personnel performance. However, factors including dissatisfaction, illness, absenteeism, and turnover make it challenging to explicitly establish the effects bullying experiences have on performance, since some workers are known to deliver adequate performance even while being victimized. Literature reviews indicate that regardless of the description, classification, form, or strategy adopted in analyzing workplace bullying, the act does influence personnel conduct and outlook.

Research analyzing the association between job performance and job satisfaction yields mixed results. According to Obicci (2015), the concept of satisfied individuals exhibiting greater productivity was widely held during the 1970s, but it proved difficult to garner broad support for the theory that personnel performance was appreciably affected by job satisfaction. Aslam and Hussain (2015) observe, in support of this view, that a majority of prior studies record a fragile and somewhat inconsistent link between personnel performance and job satisfaction. In contrast, Tag-Eldeen and colleagues (2017) demonstrated that job satisfaction predicted personnel performance, and that this association was stronger in the case of professional roles. Yahaya and coworkers (2012) were able to establish a sound linkage between personnel performance and job satisfaction; nevertheless, they too observed that the relationship was inconsistent in nature. In other words, an inconclusive association exists between personnel performance and job satisfaction.

Leblebici (2012) established that personnel being subjected to workplace bullying on a daily basis was a common phenomenon. Regardless of its intensity or form, bullying has an adverse influence on individuals' job performance and overall wellness and must be discouraged by management in the interest of the organization. A company's workforce represents an important pillar of the business, and in order to achieve corporate success, it is essential to provide personnel with a friendly, supportive, and favorable work climate. Indeed, personnel reporting less exposure to workplace bullying deliver superior performance compared to those with greater exposure. Likewise, bullying adversely impacts job satisfaction, and a satisfied employee will be able to deliver superior performance. Consequently, it is imperative that organizations develop and implement zero-tolerance bullying policies through harsh sanctions for perpetrators and the provision of appropriate assistance to their victims. Such steps will tend to decrease the adverse impacts of bullying on personnel performance and job satisfaction.

Conclusion

Workplace bullying represents a harmful problem that results in physical and mental damage to individuals. Furthermore, organizations incur losses in the form of decreased productivity and performance, loss of personnel morale, and financial consequences. The phenomenon of workplace bullying results in poor physical and mental health — including anxiety, decreased vitality, and related conditions — owing to victims' exposure to highly stressful situations. Research demonstrates the positive impact of effective leadership in reducing the adverse effects of bullying on victims, peers, and the organization itself. Management, supported by the whole organization, must demonstrate dedication to cultivating and sustaining a safe, positive, and healthy work atmosphere that promotes cooperation and transparency in communication, and prohibits disruptive conduct such as bullying.

References

Arnsten, A. F., Raskind, M. A., Taylor, F. B., and Connor, D. F. (2015). The effects of stress exposure on prefrontal cortex: translating basic research into successful treatments for post-traumatic stress disorder. Neurobiology of Stress, 1, 89–99.

Asfaw, A. G., Chang, C. C., and Ray, T. K. (2014). Workplace mistreatment and sickness absenteeism from work: results from the 2010 National Health Interview Survey. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 57, 202–213.

Coyne, I., Gopaul, A. M., Campbell, M., Pankász, A., Garland, R., and Cousans, F. (2017). Bystander responses to bullying at work: the role of mode, type and relationship to target. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–15.

Dehue, F., Bolman, C., Vollink, T., and Pouwelse, M. (2012). Coping with bullying at work and health related problems. International Journal of Stress Management, 19, 175–197.

Devonish, D. (2013). Workplace bullying, employee performance and behaviors: the mediating role of psychological well-being. Employee Relations, 35(6), 630–647.

Eriksen, T. L. M., Hogh, A., and Hansen, Å. M. (2016). Long-term consequences of workplace bullying on sickness absence. Labour Economics, 43, 129–150.

Giorgi, G., Arcangeli, G., Mucci, N., and Cupelli, V. (2015). Economic stress in workplace: the impact of fear of the crisis on mental health. Work, 51, 135–142.

Giorgi, G., Perminienė, M., Montani, F., Fiz-Perez, J., Mucci, N., and Arcangeli, G. (2016). Detrimental effects of workplace bullying: impediment of self-management competence via psychological distress. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 60.

Hussain, H., and Aslam, Q. (2015). Workplace bullying and employee performance among bank personnel in Pakistan. The Lahore Journal of Business, 3(2), 59–78.

Hutchinson, M., and Hurley, J. (2013). Exploring leadership capability and emotional intelligence as moderators of workplace bullying. Journal of Nursing Management, 21(3), 553–562.

Laschinger, H. K. S., and Fida, R. (2014). A time-lagged analysis of the effect of authentic leadership on workplace bullying, burnout, and occupational turnover intentions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(5), 739–753.

Leblebici, D. (2012). Impact of workplace quality on employee's productivity: case study of a bank in Turkey. Journal of Business Economics and Finance, 1(1).

Obicci, P. A. (2015). Effect of workplace bullying on employee performance in the public sector. Asian Journal of Management Research, 6(43), 55.

Tag-Eldeen, A., Barakat, M., and Dar, H. (2017). Investigating the impact of workplace bullying on employees' morale, performance and turnover intentions in five-star Egyptian hotel operations. Tourism and Travelling, 1, 4–14.

Tuckey, M. R., Li, Y., and Chen, P. Y. (2017). The role of transformational leadership in workplace bullying: interactions with leaders' and followers' job characteristics in a multi-level study. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 4(3), 199–217.

Wolke, D., Copeland, W. E., Angold, A., and Costello, E. J. (2013). Impact of bullying in childhood on adult health, wealth, crime, and social outcomes. Psychological Science, 24(10), 1958–1970.

Yahaya, A., Ing, T. C., Lee, G. M., Yahaya, N., Boon, Y., Hashim, S., and Jesus, S. K. C. I. (2012). The impact of workplace bullying on work performance. Archives des Sciences, 65(4), 18–28.