Description
Organizational Climate is a driving force in the organization behavior which provides foundations to
many physical and psychological phenomena to the employees. Bullying is one of the major under
considered phenomenon, usually caused by the organizational climate. The objective of the study is to
examine the relationship between organizational climates, workplace bullying and workers’ health in
selected higher education institutes of Pakistan.
2214-4625/$ – see front matter © 2014 Holy Spirit University of Kaslik. Hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aebj.2014.05.009
ARAB ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS JOURNAL 9 (2014) 133–146
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er. com/ l ocat e/ aebj
* Muhammad Imran Qureshi. Tel.: +92-331-5017887; fax: +92-992-383441.
E-mail address: [email protected]
Peer review under responsibility of Holy Spirit University of Kaslik.
Conference Title
A New Trilogy to Understand the Relationship among Organizational
Climate, Workplace Bullying and Employee Health
Muhammad Imran Qureshi
* a
, Amran Md. Rasli
a
, Khalid Zaman
b
a
Faculty of Management, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 UTM Skudai, Malaysia.
b
Department of Management Sciences, COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Abbottabad, 20060, Pakistan.
A R T I C L E I N F O
Article history:
Received 24 January 14
Received in revised form 05 March 14
Accepted 09 May 14
Keywords:
Organizational climate
Workplace bullying
Employee health
Pakistan
A B S T R A C T
Organizational Climate is a driving force in the organization behavior which provides foundations to
many physical and psychological phenomena to the employees. Bullying is one of the major under
considered phenomenon, usually caused by the organizational climate. The objective of the study is to
examine the relationship between organizational climates, workplace bullying and workers’ health in
selected higher education institutes of Pakistan. A proportionate random sample of 20 Universities
comprising of 10 from public sector and 10 from private sector was selected for the study. The model of
workplace bullying, organizational climate and worker’s health was estimated by Structural Equation
Modeling using AMOS software. The study found a negative relationship between organizational climate
and bullying on one hand, while on the other hand, an increased workplace bullying effects employees’
health negatively due to affected sleeping hours. Drug abuse was treated as a moderator between health
and affected sleeping hours. The study suggested that organizations should control workplace bullying
which may cause physical and psychological effects on employee’s health.
© 2013 Holy Spirit University of Kaslik. Hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Workplace bullying reflects negative workplace behaviour when an
employee continuously exposed by the mistreatment from others at
workplace (Adams & Crawford, 1992), Workplace bullying often named
workplace mobbing (Leymann, 1990, Qureshi, Iftikhar, Janjua, Zaman,
Raja, & Javed, 2013). Mobbing is psychological aggression that often
involves a group of ‘mobbers’ instead of a single person. In theory,
mobbing is considered to be an extreme type of social stressor at
workplace (Qureshi et al. 2013).
Workplace bullying needs to be explored in a sustained and
systematic way because organizations have a responsibility to protect their
employees from the psychological harassment of a workplace bully
(Georgakopoulos, Wilkin, & Kent, 2011). In addition, bullying is related
to the development of sleep disorders (Einarsen, 2000) as bullying victims
© 2014 Holy Spirit University of Kaslik. Hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
134 ARAB ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS JOURNAL 9 (2014) 133–143
use sleep-inducing drugs more than those who are not being the victims of
bullying (Vartia, 2003). A huge sample of French employees revealed that
bullying in the workplace was associated with sleep disturbances
(Niedhammer, David, & Degioanni, 2006). Negative work environment
may have serious effects on health of employees, i.e. employees might
suffer from psychological effects, such as impaired judgment, anxiety,
irritability, anger, memory loss and an inability to concentrate
(Appelbaum & Girard, 2007). Barling (1996) found that depressive
symptoms and negative mood are directly linked with bullying.
Employee’s health plays a vital role in the productivity of any
organization. It is very important for organizations to develop strategies
that can promote their employees’ health or at least can eliminate health-
related problems. The organizations must be aware of those organizational
risk factors that might have negative association with employee’s health
particularly bullying at workplace which can be one of the major factors.
Few studies have been conducted on bullying behaviours in non-western
societies and focused solely on bullying occurrence and frequencies of
negative acts. The present study is initiated with an objective to sort out
the root causes, nature and the extent of bullying behaviours at workplace
of higher educational institutes of Pakistan and to investigate its
relationship with organizational climate and health.
The study has the following key objectives i.e. (i) to
investigate the relationship between organizational climate and
workplace bullying; (ii) to investigate the relationship between
workplace bullying and employees’ health; and (iii) to assess the
moderating effect of drug use between employee health and affected
sleeping hours.
The study is divided into the following sections after the
introduction which is presented in Section 1. Section 2 describes the
review of literature, methodology is explained in Section 3, results are
discussed in Section 4 and the final section concludes the study.
2. Literature Review
Bullying has progressively become an essential area of debate in the last
15 years, mainly among researchers who are adopting a psychological
aspect of the work (Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf & Cooper (2003). Einarsen et al.
2003; Hoel, Rayner, & Cooper 1999; Lewis & Sheehan 2003). The
findings of various UK surveys indicated that bullying in about 3 out of 4
cases is a downward process that is directed by someone in a supervisory
or managerial position at a subordinate (Hoel & Cooper 2000; Unison
1997, 2000). While, roughly a third of incidents, victims of bullying have
identified their peers/colleagues as the perpetrators, even though some
bullying by colleagues/peers is also interlinked with bullying by managers
of the organization.
Bullying is the term that is preferably used in most of the
English speaking countries, including Ireland, UK and Australia. In
Southern European countries other terminologies have been used like
‘moral harassment’ in France and Spain, ‘emotional abuse’ and ‘work
mistreatment’ are used in America, and most remarkably in German-
speaking countries and Scandinavia the English-derived term ‘mobbing’
has been usually adopted. Though the terms are being used
interchangeably and a common understanding is rising within the
community of an international research, significant differences have been
recognized between both the terms mobbing and bullying and their
practical application as well (Hoel et al. 1999; Di Martino, Hoel, &
Cooper, 2003; Einarsen et al. 2003). This distinction is mainly associated
with the choice of focus with UK researchers tending to focus their
attention to the perpetrator and bully behaviour, whereas German and
Scandinavian researchers are putting emphasis to the experience of
victims (Zapf & Einarsen, 2005).
2.1. The nature of bullying at work
The concept of bullying may be used in various situations in common
language, describing a variety of behaviours (Crawford, 1998). It can be
used in a joking manner, i.e. describing good natured horseplay, or
referring to the negligible events of aggressive behaviour that are inclined
to be easily tolerated and accepted (Munthe, 1989). On the other hand, in
the scientific studies reviewed, this concept refers to a rather specific
phenomenon where physical or non-physical aggressive and hostile
behaviours are analytically directed at a subordinate or one or more
colleagues that leads toward victimization and stigmatization of the
recipient (Leymann, 1996; BjoÈrkqvist, ésterman, K. & Hjelt-Back,
1994). While considering both theoretical and empirical evidence, Zapf
(in press) categorizes 5 types of bullying behaviours as follow: (i) work
related bullying that includes changing your work tasks or making the
tasks more difficult to perform; (ii) social isolation; (iii) personal attacks
i.e. attacks on your private life by gossips, ridicule and giving insulting
remarks; (iv) verbal threats where you are humiliated in public or
criticized; and (v) physical violence or threats of such violence.
In descriptions and definitions of workplace bullying, multiple
negative behaviours have been described, that includes insulting remarks,
physical assaults, the unjust removal of responsibilities and work tasks,
rumors spreading and social exclusion (Zapf, & Cooper, 2003; Bowling &
Beehr, 2006; Einarsen, Hoel, Harvey & Treadway, 2006). Therefore,
workplace bullying consists of different varieties of negative acts whether
these acts are physical or verbal and acts intended directly at the target
personally or at the target’s work environment or tasks.
It is reported that harassment and bullying both happened on a
regular basis in most of the work organizations (e.g. Einarsen &
Skogstad, 1996; Keashly & Jagatic, 2000; Hoel, Cooper & Faragher,
2001); and is also reported to happen at all the levels of organization
(Hoel, Cooper & Faragher, 2001). Up till now, managers of the
organization are seen as the most usual perpetrators in most of the
bullying cases (Rayner, Hoel & Cooper, 2002). In this regard, a
Norwegian study has shown that more than 50 percent of those
considering themselves as targets reported having been bullied by
someone in a managerial capacity (Einarsen, Raknes, & Matthiesen,
1994). In countries such as UK and Ireland this ratio is rising to more than
75 percent (Hoel, Cooper & Faragher, 2001; Unison, 1997; O’Moore,
Seigne, McGuire, & Smith, 1998). Employees can be bullied by both
managers and co-workers (Hogh, Carneiro, Giver, & Rugulies, 2011); is
repeated over longer periods of time (Einarsen & Mikkelsen, 2003); is
linked with a low level of self-esteem (Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2007); and
loss of self-confidence of the targets.
2.2. Intensity
As a distinctive phenomenon, adult bullying at work has 4 specific
features i.e. repetition, intensity, power disparity and duration. Firstly,
bullying involves a pattern of various negative acts (Mikkelsen &
Einarsen, 2001), and most of the targets are subjected to several forms of
ARAB ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS JOURNAL 9 (2014) 133–146 135
abuse (Einarsen, 1999; Keashly & Harvey, 2005). The word ‘intensity’ is
used in order to specify the number of several negative acts that are
reported by the targets. Researchers make estimation of bullying by
counting these negative acts that include humiliation, isolation, and
intimidation among others. Leymann (1990) operationalized bullying as a
negative act, while others belief that a minimum of 2 negative acts is a
more accurate measure (Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2001; Salin, 2001).
Second, to be comprised as bullying, these negative acts should occur
frequently, typically weekly or more often. Since bullying is considered as
a recurring ‘hammering away’ at targets (Tracy et al., 2006), various
researchers openly disregard one time incidents as a bullying instances
(Rayner, Hoel, & Cooper, 2002; Einarsen & Hoel, 2001; Leymann, 1990;
Salin, 2001). Thirdly, they must occur over a duration or period of time. It
must be 2 or more negative acts that occur weekly. Researchers typically
apply a 6-month duration criterion in order to differentiate bullying from
lower level negativity (Hoel, Cooper, & Faragher, 2001; Leymann, 1990;
Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2001; Zapf, Knorz & Kulla, 1996).
2.3. Degree of Bullying
Previous researchers suggested that bullying may occur in gradations,
which we call degrees that depends on intensity, frequency, and duration
(Davenport, Schwartz, & Elliott, 2002; Sandvik, 2003a). Bullying degree
is conceptualized as a cumulative score that reflects the frequency,
intensity and duration of negative acts that add up to bullying at
workplace. The bullying intensity is most often a collection of hostile
strategies instead of a single negative act. In a study of a Danish
organization, all self-reported victims also reported experience to a large
range of bullying behaviours (Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2001). Furthermore,
duration and frequency appears to be associated, i.e. targets ‘who are
bullied frequently also report a longer duration of their problem’ (Einarsen
& Skogstad, 1996:192). The sheer number of different negative acts
linked to bullying and the effect of duration and frequency on targets
pointed out that bullying is not a dichotomous (yes or no) experience,
victims may need to express this negative experience.
2.4. Causes of workplace bullying
Researchers have taken an incorporated perspective concerning the
contributions of both person and working environment variables in
relationship with workplace bullying (Einarsen, 2000; Einarsen et al.,
2003). It is more likely that people with poor social competencies or
having particular personality traits will easily become victims of bullying
(Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2002) though, studies paying attention towards
individual antecedents have founded inconsistent results. Individuals have
grater internal locus of control are less likely to victim of workplace
bullying, some other personality traits have proven effects on the
victimisation of bullying (Giorgi & Majer, 2008).
2.4.1. Organizational climate
The organizational environment/climate has been defined “as how work is
organized, the culture or climate of the organization, and the nature of the
leadership within the organization” (Zapf, 1999 p162; Hoel & Salin, 2003
p 619). The framework of our study is based on the proposal that
workplace bullying is mainly related to the characteristics of the
organization that include seven components i.e. organizational leadership,
job description, working conditions, team, dynamisms, time pressures and
cultural norms. The relationship between the role of the organization and
the existence of bullying has been stated clearly since the initial studies by
Leymann (1990). Current empirical studies have provided additional
support related to the relationship between organization and workplace
bullying, specially job design and working conditions (Giorgi & Majer,
2008), Laissez-faire leadership (Skogstad, Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2007a,
b), organizational climate and violence (Giorgi, 2009) and organizational
change, (Skogstad et al., 2007a, b). On the basis of interviews with the
victims of bullying, Leymann (1993) claims that the following four
factors are prominent as the cause of bullying at work: (i) deficiencies in
work design; (ii) deficiencies in leadership behaviour; (iii) a socially
exposed position of the victim; and (iv) a low moral standard in the
department.
From a number of studies, the influence of psychosocial
factors on the occurrence of bullying has gained much support. Thirty
Irish bullying victims considered their workplace to be a highly
competitive and stressful environment, overwhelmed with interpersonal
conflicts and a lack of supportive, directive and friendly atmosphere while
undergoing organizational changes and having an authoritarian style of
leadership (Seigne, 1998). A Norwegian study shows that out of 2,200
members of 6 labor unions, both the observers and victims of workplace
bullying reported about their dissatisfaction with their work environment
as compared to others. Respondents observed a lack of constructive
leadership, lack of possibilities to control and monitor their own work
tasks and particularly a high level of role conflict (Einarsen, Raknes, &
Mattheisen, 1994a). It is argued that incompatible expectations and
demands around tasks, roles, and responsibilities can produce stress and
frustration within a group of worker, particularly in connection to
obligations, rights, positions and privileges. This sort of situation might
act as a contributor to poor inter-work relationships, conflicts, and a
requirement for an appropriate scapegoat. On the basis of an individual
level analysis, a diversity of work environment factors are recognized as
antecedents of bullying at the workplace (Zapf & Einarsen, 2003; Hoel &
Salin, 2003). Different studies (Hoel, Glasø, Hetland, Cooper, & Einarsen,
2009) indicated that relationship oriented factors such as interpersonal
conflict, leadership behaviour, role conflict, and social climate are
considered to be very strong independent predictors of bullying at
workplace, while task oriented factors in the form of decision authority
and job demands shows weaker but significant relationships with
workplace bullying.
Findings of the studies by Berkowitz (1989) and Fox &
Spector (1999) show that a stressful work environment may result in
aggressive behaviour due to the individual’s negative effect, thus
encouraging perpetrators to be engaged in bullying behaviours. Therefore
the environmental factors may create inter-group conflict and may results
in negative social climate that may cause bullying at the workplace
(Einarsen, 2000). Different studies of bullying at workplace depicted that
psychosocial work environment characteristics may act as precursors of
bullying (Einarsen, 2000; Agervold & Mikkelsen, 2004; Hoel & Salin,
2003). For example, studies conducted by Leymann (1990, 1992, 1996)
have founded out that poorly organized working conditions, inadequacies
in leadership practices, as well as low morale levels in departments are the
major causes of workplace bullying. Various studies have given an
136 ARAB ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS JOURNAL 9 (2014) 133–143
experiential support for the supposition that some psychosocial factors at
work may promote bullying at the workplace (Einarsen, Raknes, &
Matthiesen, 1994; Vartia, 1996; Jennifer, Cowie & Ananiadou, 2003;
Hauge, Skogstad, & Einarsen, 2007; Skogstad, Matthiesen & Einarsen,
2007; Zapf, Knorz & Kulla, 1996). Therefore, according to the
organizational climate hypothesis of different studies, organizational
characteristics and the psychosocial work environment are considered to
be the most commonly predictable precursors of bullying (Agervold &
Mikkelsen, 2004; Hoel & Salin, 2003; Einarsen, 2000).
Past research describes workplace bullying as an intention or a
perceived intention to harm with the bully being predatory by nature
(Einarsen, 1999) as many organizations bullying might be
institutionalized as part of management and leadership practices (Ferris,
2004), or the target might be mistreated because he/she is unique in a
certain group, like a sole woman working in a male dominated society.
Parzefall & Salin (2010) revealed that the Social Exchange Theory might
be used to highlight the importance of exchange relationships in the
promotion of a “justice climate” within organizations. Perceptions of
injustice may lead to behaviours and attitudes being adjusted downwards,
that explains the negative effect of the work environment including
bystanders (Parzefall & Salin, 2010). Jenkins (2011) has highlighted
various factors that have been found to be contributors of bullying at the
workplace. According to him, organizational environment, particularly
leadership style, role ambiguity and conflict, poor job design,
unconducive industrial environment, stressful working environment and
job insecurity is one of the major factors that may contribute to the
existence and maintenance of bullying at the workplace.
2.4.2. Leadership
Empirical evidences and theoretical models indicated that organizational
leadership is a critical factor with regards to the occurrence of bullying at
workplace (Hershcovis, Turner, Barling et al., 2007; Hoel, Glasø, Hetland,
Cooper & Einarsen, 2009). According to Avolio, Bass & Jung (1999) and
Bass & Riggio (2006), leadership can be explained on the basis of a
continuum from ineffective leadership and very passive styles like Laissez
faire leadership to effective and active leadership styles such as
transformational and authentic leadership. Research findings indicated
that Laissez faire leadership is positively related to bullying at workplace
while transformational leadership is negatively related to bullying at
workplace (Birkel & Nielsen, 2010). This phenomenon is also repeated
within work groups. Leadership in organizations is measured to be an
essential predictor to psychosocial well-being in subordinates, and must
be a strong environmental interpreter of workplace bullying. Leadership
practices are probable to have an important effect on the presence of stress
at workplace, both directly and indirectly, i.e. directly as abusive
supervision might act as a powerful stressor in its own right (Tepper,
2007), and indirectly on the opportunity that workers should have to cope
with those strong stressors present. Theoretically, leadership must create
a good climate to promote interpersonal relationships and trust among
individuals as well in the working groups so as to reduce the risk of role
stress, aggression, frustration, and bullying at workplace. Additionally,
bad leadership, i.e. unfair and abusive management practices might
constitute occurrence of bullying (Hoel, Glasø, Hetland, Cooper, &
Einarsen, 2009).
Leadership styles play a significant and complex role in the
process of bullying. For instance, Laissez faire leadership emerged as an
interpreter of observed and self-reported bullying. As autocratic style of
leadership might not foster any aspirations of involvement, this sort of
style might be considered negative and can act as a cause of bullying
(O’Moore et al., 1998; Vartia, 1996). Furthermore, an autocratic style of
leadership may bring about aggression and frustration among subordinates
and possibly rises the likelihood of peer aggression within work groups
(Felson, 1992), thus acts as a precursor of bullying at workplace. Hoel et
al. (2010) research findings depicted that self-reported bullying is
positively associated with autocratic style of leadership.
2.4.3. Job description
Role ambiguity and conflict have long been associated with workplace
bullying. Both the observers and targets of workplace bullying are
probable to report very high levels of role ambiguity and conflict and a
perception of contradictory expectations, goals and demands (Einarsen,
Raknes, & Matthiesen, 1994). Likewise, workplace bullying has been
found to be closely associated with poorly organized environments of
work with unclear roles and structures of command (Leymann, 1996) as
well as high stress and conflict levels (Hauge, Stogstad & Einarsen,
2009).
2.4.4. Organizational dynamics
Organizational dynamics is considered to be another important
contributing factor in workplace bullying (Knorz & Kulla, 1996; Vartia,
1996; Zapf, 1999; Hoel & Salin, 2003), and different evidences suggested
that a stressful environment of work is one of the major factors in both the
escalation and development of the conflict into workplace bullying. Some
studies have also showed an association between bullying and
organizational changes/dynamics at the workplace (McCarthy, 1996;
Sheehan, 1998).
2.4.5. Norm and Culture
Bullying might originate from social factors related to perceived or real
treatment that individuals receive from others at place of work (Neuman
& Baron, 2003). Consequently, according to social interactions theory,
people who violate social norm and expectations are more likely to be at
the risk of being subjected to aggressive behaviour, particularly bullying
which occurs more repeatedly in social contexts where rules are often
violated (Felson, 1992; Tedeschi & Felson, 1994). Regarding to this
context, a study by Jime´nez et al. (2006) found that socio cultural
adaptation among immigrants, particularly being able to organize one’s
daily life in a new context such as cultural knowledge, language ability
and social relations plays a vital role in bullying. This shows that people
who are having low levels of socio cultural adaptation might violate social
norms more widely and then to some level, bring forth aggressive
behavior in others. Immigrants might violate social norms and
expectations in various ways. They may talk and look differently; they
have foreign names or might be unfamiliar with the culture in their new
place of work and new country. Or they might reluctantly violate
ARAB ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS JOURNAL 9 (2014) 133–146 137
unwritten rules and regulations for instance by misunderstanding
something because of language problems and so become bullying targets
more easily.
2.4.6. Working Conditions
Leymann (1993b) reported many cases depicting poor or bad working
conditions and leadership problems as bullying antecedents. Research
findings by other researchers, i.e., Einarsen et al. (1994), Vartia (1996)
and Osterwalder (1998) also support this point of view. All these
researchers have found that there is a significant relationship between the
frequency of bullying occurrences and working conditions of an
organization. It might be concluded that that negative working conditions
can lead towards occurrence of bullying, due to lack of communication,
particularly conscious miscommunication, which in itself affects
information flow and cooperation. Carnero et al. (2010) have studied
bullying and its problems, and found that during 2003, approximately 5%
of workers were identified as victims of bullying. Some of the working
conditions and job characteristics were considered to be very important
while explaining the possibility of being a victim of bullying.
2.4.7. Time Pressures
It seems credible that those workplaces that are low in control and are
high in organizational problems, particularly with regards to time
pressure, face uncertainty because of role ambiguities and unclear
responsibilities. The chances of conflict that may cause bullying in those
organizations are high because of the aforementioned organizational
problems.
2.5. Health of Workers (psychological and physiological)
It has been proved by some researchers that occupational stress may
generally contributes to stroke, heart attack, death and medical disorders
(Weiman, 1977). Additionally, it has been reported for nearly twenty
years that around 50% of cases are related to occupational stress reported
to industrial physicians (Fuller, 1977). With regards to the relationship
between health and stress and both the physical and psychological, Fuller
identified that higher stress on the job will lead to higher job
dissatisfaction, negative effect, psychological distress, anxiety,
depression, absence from work due to illness, doctor visits, and bad
physical health. Likewise, staff with high job stress has lower health as
compare to the staff with low levels of job stress (Christopher et al.,
1996).
Bullying at the workplace has recognized as a risk factor in
clinical depression (Niedhammeret et al., 2006), clinical levels of anxiety
(Quine, 1999), suicide attempts (O’Mooreet et al., 1998), post-traumatic
stress disorders (Mikkelsen & Einarsen 2002; Matthiesen & Einarsen
2004; Tehrani, 2004), higher levels of job induced stress, intention to
leave job, absenteeism, sick leave and lower levels of job satisfaction as
well (Quine 1999; Kivimaki et al., 2000). These associated and individual
organizational affects are not restricted to targets, with findings that
witnesses bullying at workplace can be affected almost all workplace as
rigorously as the actual target (Rayner 1999; Mayhew et al. 2004;
Niedhammer et al., 2006).
Studies found that bullying at workplace is a severe stressor which effects
the well-being and health of the targets and also has negative effects on
the work organization where it happens (Hogh et al., 2010).Bullying
behaviors might have serious consequences for the victims, it may affect
their psychological health and physical health (Parkins et al., 2006).
Physiological symptoms that are measured consist of headaches, shortness
of breath, indigestion, raise of blood pressure and exhaustion feelings.
Psychological symptoms may include restless feelings an inability to think
clearly, irritability feelings. Behavioral symptoms might include changes
in eating, sleeping, drinking, and smoking as well. Roughly 5 to 30
percent of the European employees are exposed to various kind of
bullying behaviors at any time (Nielsen et al., 2009; Zapf, Escartin,
Einarsen, Hoel & Vartia, 2010), and it is also documented in literature that
exposure to bullying at work creates serious health problems (Høgh,
Mikkelsen & Hansen, 2010). Lots of studies have revealed strong
relationship between exposure to workplace bullying and psychosomatic,
psychological, and psychiatric health problems among the victims of
bullying. Victims of bullying usually report low job satisfaction level and
well-being (Zapf, Knorz & Kulla, 1996). Besides this, social
maladjustment, social isolation, low level of self-esteem, concentration
difficulties, sleep problems, fatigue, depression and burnout are
considered to be very common symptoms among this group (Høgh et al.,
2010). For better understanding about why bullying exposure have such
sort of health effects. Some researchers like Einarsen & Mikkelsen (2003)
have been suggested a cognitive trauma viewpoint to account for the
observed relationship. On the other hand, health relation of bullying can
also be explained by taking a biological perspective (Hansen et al., 2006).
The negative ramifications of bullying are common. Victims of bullying
suffer long term, or may be permanent, psychological and occupational
harm (Crawford, 2001; Leymann & Gustafsson, 1996). Substantial
evidence has suggested that bullying is a most crippling and disturbing
problem (Adams & Crawford, 1992, p. 13) with the possibility to damage
victim’s self-esteem, cognitive functioning, physical health, and emotional
health as well (Brodsky, 1976; Einarsen & Mikkelsen, 2003; Keashly &
Harvey, 2005). Abused employees are mostly at the greater risk of
depression (Namie, 2003), alcohol abuse (Richman et al., 2001;
Rospenda, 2002), prolonged duress stress disorder (Scott & Stradling,
2001), post-traumatic stress disorder (Leymann & Gustafsson, 1996), and
suicide as well (Leymann, 1990). Current medical research findings
showed that perceptions of injustice at workplace that are experienced by
targets of bullying are related to chronic stress, high blood pressure
problem and increased risk of coronary heart disease (Kivimäki et al.,
2005). Bullying may also can have devastating effects on interpersonal
relationships and family functioning (Rayner et al., 2002; Jennifer et al.,
2003; Tracy et al., 2006).Many victims of bullying seem to suffer from
symptoms under the domain of post-traumatic stress disorder (Leymann &
Gustafsson, 1996; Wilson, 1991). At a Finnish university in an interview
study among seventeen victims of bullying employed, BjoÈrkqvist et al.,
(1994a) has been depicted that insomnia, melancholy, various nervous
symptoms, apathy and lack of concentration were common among these
bullied employees. Though various concepts have been used in order to
describe this phenomenon such as ‘mobbing’ (Leymann, 1996; Zapf et al.,
1996), ‘emotional abuse’ (Keashly, 1998), ‘harassment’ (BjoÈrkqvist et
al., 1994a; Brodsky, 1976), ‘bullying’ (Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996;
Rayner, 1997; Vartia, 1996), ‘mistreatment’ (Spratlen, 1995) and
138 ARAB ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS JOURNAL 9 (2014) 133–143
‘victimisation’ (Einarsen & Raknes, 1997a; 1997b), they all refers to the
same phenomenon. That phenomenon is the systematic persecution of a
subordinate, peer or a superior, which if continued may cause severe
social, psychosomatic and psychological problems for the victim.
2.6. Smoking/Drug Abuse
In Australia, Tobacco smoking is responsible for the maximum disease
burden, providing around 7% of the total burden in females and 12% in
males (Mathers et al., 2001). Research findings show that in 2007 some
17.9% of the Australian population aged fourteen and over were daily or
weekly smokers (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW),
2007). The life changes and stress that usually occur might have a
considerable negative effect on emotional wellbeing of people and might
direct to the adoption of maladaptive or unhealthy behaviors. An
ineffective adjustment to these life changes might lead to psychological
distress. Several studies have found that university teachers experience
high psychological morbidity after the beginning of a university course
and that the problems begin with depression, stress, anxiety, and burnout
being common and that leads those adults toward smoking behaviors. The
occurrence of anxiety and depression among teachers is approximately
11% overall, and up to 14% for male staff (Grant et al., 2002). In both
adolescents and adults, stress is found to be positively linked with levels
of psychological distress (Wills & Shiffman, 1985). Stress and associated
distress/depression are significant factors in the adaptation of smoking
behavior (Naquin & Gilbert, 1996). Stress seems to be consistently related
to the smoking behavior and the Abuse of various other drugs
(Hemmingsson et al., 2008). Smoking has found to be a coping tool in
order to deal with stress as nicotine has pharmacological affects that
moderates stress level (Henningfield et al., 1995; Marlatt and Cordon,
1985; Shiffman et al., 2007). In addition, once smoker has adopted
smoking behavior as a strategy for coping after that they will be less
willing to see the need to try to develop active and healthier strategies for
coping.
2.7. Hours of sleeping
Barling (1996) have founded that depressive symptoms and negative
mood are directly linked with bullying. If these instant health problems
are not solved or alleviated, they may arouse the development of more
long term and wide effects like excessive alcohol use sleep problems.
Sequentially perceptions of being bullied might have association with
employee’s health in both the short and long term for example excessive
consumption of drugs, smoking and poor sleep quality. In fact, excessive
consumption of drugs may induce sleep disorders by disturbing the
duration and sequence of sleep states and by disrupting total sleeps time
(Roehrs & Roth, 2001).
3. Research Methodology
3.1. Conceptual Framework
Based on the above discussion a conceptual framework is developed.
Figure 1 shows hypothesized relationships between organizational
Climate, Workplace Bullying, Health and Hours of Sleeping.
Organization Climate
Workplace Bullying
Employee Health Disturbed Sleeping Hours
Drug Misuse
H1
H2 H4
H3
H6
H5
Mediation
Fig. 1- Conceptual Framework.
The following hypotheses are developed for the study on the basis of
research framework
H1. Organizational Climate negatively relates with workplace bullying.
H2. Organizational Climate negatively relates with Employee Health.
H3. Workplace bullying negatively relates with employee health.
H4. Employee Health Negatively relates with Disturbed Hours of
Sleeping.
H5. Workplace bullying mediates the relationship between organizational
climate and employee health.
H6. Drug Abuse acts as a moderator the relationship between health and
sleeping hours.
3.2. Sample and Data Collection
The population consisted of 80 Public and 64 private sector universities of
Pakistan. The universe selected for this study is Higher Education industry
or Universities of Pakistan. A proportionate random sample of 20
Universities (10 from each public and private sector and 10 private
sectors) is selected for the study. Further explanation regarding to
sampling is given in the Table 1 and 2 respectively. 400 Respondents
Participated consisting sample of 20 respondents from each university.
Table 1 –Sample of Public Sector Universities.
Public Sector Population % of
Population
Sample
Federal 22 28% 3
Punjab 18 22% 3
Sindh 15 18% 2
KPK 16 21% 2
Baluchistan 5 6% 0
AJK 4 5% 0
TOTAL 80 55% 10
Table 2 –Sample of Private Sector Universities.
Public
Sector
Population % of
Population
Sample
Federal 6 9% 1
Punjab 21 32% 3
Sindh 24 35% 4
ARAB ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS JOURNAL 9 (2014) 133–146 139
KPK 10 15% 2
Baluchistan 1 1% 0
AJK 2 3% 0
TOTAL
64 45% 10
The study used the standardised questionnaire used by the recent
researchers to measure the workplace bullying named Negative Acts
Questionnaire Revised NAQ-R) (Giorgi et al., 2006, Asakura et al.,
2008).): Organizational climate was assessed by a reduced version (17
items) of the MDOQ10 (D’Amato & Majer, 2005, Giorgi, 2009),
depression and anxiety measured by Center for Epidemiologic Study for
(Wada et al., 2006).
4. Results
Table 3 shows the detail of respondents who participated in this study.
The data describes gender, age, marital status, post, degree and
professional experience of the respondents. There are 231 respondents
who returned the questionnaire out of 400.
Table 3 - Demographic Data.
Demographic
Variables
Categories
Percentages
Gender
Male
Female
68%
32%
Age 20-29
30-40
Above 40
34%
57%
9%
Designation Lecturers
Assistant professors
Associate professors
Professors
49%
25%
11%
14%
Marital status Single
Married
43%
57%
Total professional
experience
1-3 years
4-6 years
7-9 years
More than 9 years
19%
35%
24%
22%
Qualification Masters
Ms/Mphil
PH.D
14%
49%
36%
As shown in the Table 3, male response rate is more then female. There
were about 68 percent of male respondents while remaining 32 percent
were females. One reason can be the general proportion in our country for
female workers is less as comparison to male members. Secondly it was
also difficult to approach female faculty members because of their home
commitments and teaching schedules. Major portion of ranging between
the ages of 30 to 40.Percentage demographic shows that the percentage of
the respondents between categories 20-29 is 34 percent. Respondents who
are between 30-40 are having the percentage of 57 percent. And
remaining 9 percent of the respondents were above the age of 40, 43
percent of the respondents were single while 57 percent were married
respondents of the study. The proportion of lecturer respondents is more
than other respondents. As the percentage demographic shows that 49
percent of the respondents were lecturers, 25 percent were assistant
professors, 11 percent were associate professors and remaining 14 percent
were professors. Work experience of the respondents is also considered as
a demographic variable, 19 percent of the respondents belong to the
category of 1-3years. 35 percent belongs to the category 4-6years. 24
percent lie between 7-9 years and 22 percent were of the respondents were
having the total professional experience of more than 9 years.
Qualification was also considered as demographic, 14 percent of the
respondents were having qualification of Masters, 49 percent were
MS/Phil and 36 percent were PhD. Table 4 shows the descriptive data
and factor loading of the constructs for the ready reference.
4.1. Validity and Reliability of Constructs
Validity and reliability of the endogenous and exogenous variables in the
model is measured through the Convergent Validity, Discrimenent
validity. Convergent validity is assessed to determine the extent to which
measurement items for a given construct refer to only that construct and
no other. Table2 shows CFA results which were performed to determine
the factor loadings for each item, along with its reliability scales (i.e.
Cronbach’s alpha and co-efficient Rho). Factor loading above than 0.50
indicated fitness of the item to latent constructs (Fornell and Larcker,
1981). Further the construct have reliability indicators above than 0.70 are
considerably internally consistent (Hair et.al., 1995; Nunnally &
Bernstein, 1994; Nunnally, 1978). Constructs having Average variation
extraction above 0.50 are producing considerable variation (Hair
et.al.,1995).
Questionnaire consists of the five constructs including one
exogenous and four endogenous variables. Construct organizational
climate is measure through 19 items, ranging factor loadings 0.51 to 0.82,
Cronbach Aplha above 0.7 and Average variation extraction 0.57
indicates the variation is grater than the measurement error. Table 4 shows
the factor loading and reliability analysis.
Table 4- Factor Loading and Reliability Analysis.
Constructs Items
Alpha
Value
Factor
Loading
Range
AVE Composite
Reliability
Organizational
Climate
19 0.78
0.51-
0.82 0.59 0.81
Work
place bulling
17 0.86
0.49-
0.71 0.54 0.83
Employee
Health
28 0.86 0.55-
0.82 0.61 0.8
Disturbed
Hours of
sleeping
4 0.84
0.61-
0.86 0.63 0.81
Drug Abuse
5 0.86
0.53-
0.63 0.59 0.82
Overall 73 0.93
0.49-
0.86
Endogenous construct workplace bulling measured by the 17 items and
140 ARAB ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS JOURNAL 9 (2014) 133–143
has the reliability of o.86, factor loading range 0.49-0.71, AVE 00.54 and
composite reliability 0.81. Employee Health is measured through 28
items, ranging factor loading 0.55 to 0.82, Cronbach’s alpha 0.86, AVE
0.61 and composite reliability 0.80. Hours of sleeping has 4 items with
factor loading range 0.61-0.86, Cronbach’s alpha at 0.84 and AVE above
0.50 and drug Abuse measure through 5 items having factor loading range
above 0.50 and reliability above 0.70. This indicates that the
questionnaire has the sufficient internal consistency, factor loadings and
composite reliability.
4.2. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
Further multidimensional construct are treated with Exploratory Factor
analysis to analyze their dimensions and variation extraction through each
dimension. Exploratory factor analysis is a statistical method to
investigate linearity of number of variables of interest to a smaller number
of unobservable factors, parameters of linear functions are called factor
loadings. Exploratory factor analysis consists of two stages. First one
loading set is calculated that shows theoretical variances and covariance
which fit the observed ones as closely as possible. A method generally
used to determine a first set of loadings is called the principal component
method. These loadings might not agree with the prior expectations, or
might not have reasonable interpretation. so second stage consist of factor
rotation to find the point of loadings that fit equally well the observed
variances and covariance’s and interpreted more easily. There are a
number of methods in order to obtain first and rotated factor solutions,
and each solution might give rise to a different interpretation. Study used
Varimax rotation method that encourages the detection of factors each of
which is related to few variables and on the other hand it discourages the
detection of factors that are influencing all variables. There is substantial
subjectivity in the interpretation of factors and determining the number of
factors. The study employed Exploratory Factor analysis on three major
latent construct comprise of more than 10 items to reduce dimensions of
latent constructs Workplace Climate, Workplace Bullying and Employee
health, measured through 19, 17 and 28 questions respectively. Table 5
shows EFA results for the multidimensional construct organizational
climate measured through 19 items.
Table 5- EFA results for Organizational Climate.
Items
Fact
or1
Factor
2
Factor
3
Factor
4
Factor
5
Factor
6
Factor
7
CL1 0.52
CL2
0.67
CL3
0.74
CL4
0.71
CL5
0.52
CL6
0.21
CL7
0.56
CL8
0.66
CL9
0.81
CL10
0.61
CL11
0.63
CL12
0.66
CL13
0.61
CL14
0.72
CL15
0.5
CL16
0.53
CL17
0.55
CL18
0.54
CL19
0.41
Note: Rotated component matrix using Varimax rotation
All items having factor loading less than 0.5 has been dropped from the
further analysis as suggested by the Haier et al. (1995). EFA determined
seven dimensions which further reorganized into four major dimensions.
Factor 1 named management support and has 5 items. Factor 5 named
working condition with four items and factor 2, factor 3, and factor 7
combined for further analysis and named teamwork having 6 items with
two items having less than 0.50 loading and dropped from further
analysis. Dimension use four items in the further analysis. Factor 4 and
factor 6 mixed to form work life balance construct with four items (see,
Table 6).
Table 6- Dimensions of organization climate.
Construct Suggested name Items
Factor1 Management Support 5
Factor 2 + Factor 3+
Factor 7
Teamwork 4
Factor4 + Factor 6 Work life balance 4
Factor 5 Working Conditions 4
Work Place Bullying divided into two dimensions. Further these
dimensions named as personality related bullying and work related
bullying. Table 7 shows the results of EFA of workplace bullying.
Table 7- EFA results for Workplace Bullying.
Items Factor 1 Factor 2
B1 0.701
B2
0.686
B3 0.714
B4 0.797
B5 0.826
B6 0.743
B7 0.904
B8
0.86
B9 0.41
B10 0.891
B11
0.912
B12 0.698
B13 0.52
B14 0.67
B15 0.73
B16 0.77
B17
0.71
Note: Rotated component matrix using varimax rotation
Both, personality related and work related bullying has 8 items. One item
of personality related bullying has less factor loading then suggested value
of 0.50 and being omitted form the further analysis. Table 8 shows the
different dimensions of workplace bullying.
ARAB ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS JOURNAL 9 (2014) 133–146 141
Table 8- Dimensions of Work place bullying.
Construct Suggested name items
Factor1 Personality related 8
Factor 2 Work related 8
Table 9 shows different items of health which further classified in to two
dimensions i.e., Physical health and Psychological health.
Table 9- Dimensions of Employee health.
Items Factor 1 Factor 2
H1 0.797
H2
0.681
H3
0.78
H4
0.766
H5
0.747
H6
0.62
H7 0.765
H8
0.698
H9
0.736
H10
0.727
H11 0.707
H12
0.887
H13
0.894
H14
0.87
H15
0.885
H16
0.779
H17
0.842
H18
0.887
H19
0.894
H20
0.866
H21
0.885
H22
0.779
H23
0.844
H24
0.904
H25
0.86
H26 0.915
H27
0.891
H28 0.912
Note: Rotated component matrix using varimax rotation
EFA determined 21 items related to employee’s psychological health and
7 items related to the employee physical health in Table 10.
Table 10- Dimensions of Employee health.
Construct Suggested name items
Factor1 Psychological health 21
Factor 2 Work related 7
Before proceeding with analysis of structural model it is required to
discuss about the measurement of multi-dimensional constructs where
each observable variable has multi-items. Instead of using imputation
study used factor loading weighted average suggested by Qureshi M, I et
al 2013. Formula for the calculation of weighted average is given under
Source: Qureshi et al (2013).
Where
WAC = weighted average of construct
Fi = Factor loading of item i
Ri= Response of Respondent i
4.3. Model Fit Summary (Structural Analysis)
Concerning the criteria in order to evaluate model fit, the study is based
on the Bagozzi & Yi (1998)proposed preliminary fit criteria; overall
model fit, and fit of internal structure of the model. The model provides an
acceptable fit to the data, i.e. the values of NFI, CFI, RMSEA, GFI and
AGFI were found according to the cut points in both the measurement
models. Model fit can achieve by testing the modification indices. GFI i-e
Goodness of fit index, RMSEA i-e Root Mean Square Error
Approximation and chi-square statistic are the indices that are usually
used for measures that are called absolute fit measures. These measures
find out the degree to which the overall model predicts the observed
covariance or correlation matrix. NFI i-e Normal Fit Index, CFI i-e
confirmatory fit Index and AGFI i-e Adjusted Goodness-of-fit Index are
the indices of measures that are known as incremental fit measures. These
measures compares the proposed model to some baseline model, most
often referred to as the null model. The null model should be some
realistic model that all other models should be expected to exceed. The
evaluation of model fit covered in the study depends on scholars example
that are given as follow: Byrne (1998) proposed a goodness-of-fit model
as measured by the GFI, claiming that GFI index must exceed 0.80.
According to Gefen et al.(1998), it is a basic criterion that both indices of
NFI and IFI exceed 0.90 for acceptable model fitness, while the
recommended fit values for CFI should be more than 0.90 and AGFI more
than 0.80. In general, if the value of ?2/df is smaller than 5, it is
considered to be a good fit. Conversely, a RMSEA of less than 0.08
suggests a good fit. Table 11 indicates the values of Fit indices are well
above or equal to the standards. This shows that the model exhibits
complete fitness of its variables. That supports our H1 that a mediation
model which allows for both direct and indirect relationships of climate
with health will best fit the data.
Table 11- Model fit summary.
Fitness Indices Standard Values Achieved Values
GFI Greater or equal to 0.90 .910
NFI Greater or equal to 0.90 .861
RMSEA p
Organizational Climate is a driving force in the organization behavior which provides foundations to
many physical and psychological phenomena to the employees. Bullying is one of the major under
considered phenomenon, usually caused by the organizational climate. The objective of the study is to
examine the relationship between organizational climates, workplace bullying and workers’ health in
selected higher education institutes of Pakistan.
2214-4625/$ – see front matter © 2014 Holy Spirit University of Kaslik. Hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aebj.2014.05.009
ARAB ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS JOURNAL 9 (2014) 133–146
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er. com/ l ocat e/ aebj
* Muhammad Imran Qureshi. Tel.: +92-331-5017887; fax: +92-992-383441.
E-mail address: [email protected]
Peer review under responsibility of Holy Spirit University of Kaslik.
Conference Title
A New Trilogy to Understand the Relationship among Organizational
Climate, Workplace Bullying and Employee Health
Muhammad Imran Qureshi
* a
, Amran Md. Rasli
a
, Khalid Zaman
b
a
Faculty of Management, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 UTM Skudai, Malaysia.
b
Department of Management Sciences, COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Abbottabad, 20060, Pakistan.
A R T I C L E I N F O
Article history:
Received 24 January 14
Received in revised form 05 March 14
Accepted 09 May 14
Keywords:
Organizational climate
Workplace bullying
Employee health
Pakistan
A B S T R A C T
Organizational Climate is a driving force in the organization behavior which provides foundations to
many physical and psychological phenomena to the employees. Bullying is one of the major under
considered phenomenon, usually caused by the organizational climate. The objective of the study is to
examine the relationship between organizational climates, workplace bullying and workers’ health in
selected higher education institutes of Pakistan. A proportionate random sample of 20 Universities
comprising of 10 from public sector and 10 from private sector was selected for the study. The model of
workplace bullying, organizational climate and worker’s health was estimated by Structural Equation
Modeling using AMOS software. The study found a negative relationship between organizational climate
and bullying on one hand, while on the other hand, an increased workplace bullying effects employees’
health negatively due to affected sleeping hours. Drug abuse was treated as a moderator between health
and affected sleeping hours. The study suggested that organizations should control workplace bullying
which may cause physical and psychological effects on employee’s health.
© 2013 Holy Spirit University of Kaslik. Hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Workplace bullying reflects negative workplace behaviour when an
employee continuously exposed by the mistreatment from others at
workplace (Adams & Crawford, 1992), Workplace bullying often named
workplace mobbing (Leymann, 1990, Qureshi, Iftikhar, Janjua, Zaman,
Raja, & Javed, 2013). Mobbing is psychological aggression that often
involves a group of ‘mobbers’ instead of a single person. In theory,
mobbing is considered to be an extreme type of social stressor at
workplace (Qureshi et al. 2013).
Workplace bullying needs to be explored in a sustained and
systematic way because organizations have a responsibility to protect their
employees from the psychological harassment of a workplace bully
(Georgakopoulos, Wilkin, & Kent, 2011). In addition, bullying is related
to the development of sleep disorders (Einarsen, 2000) as bullying victims
© 2014 Holy Spirit University of Kaslik. Hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
134 ARAB ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS JOURNAL 9 (2014) 133–143
use sleep-inducing drugs more than those who are not being the victims of
bullying (Vartia, 2003). A huge sample of French employees revealed that
bullying in the workplace was associated with sleep disturbances
(Niedhammer, David, & Degioanni, 2006). Negative work environment
may have serious effects on health of employees, i.e. employees might
suffer from psychological effects, such as impaired judgment, anxiety,
irritability, anger, memory loss and an inability to concentrate
(Appelbaum & Girard, 2007). Barling (1996) found that depressive
symptoms and negative mood are directly linked with bullying.
Employee’s health plays a vital role in the productivity of any
organization. It is very important for organizations to develop strategies
that can promote their employees’ health or at least can eliminate health-
related problems. The organizations must be aware of those organizational
risk factors that might have negative association with employee’s health
particularly bullying at workplace which can be one of the major factors.
Few studies have been conducted on bullying behaviours in non-western
societies and focused solely on bullying occurrence and frequencies of
negative acts. The present study is initiated with an objective to sort out
the root causes, nature and the extent of bullying behaviours at workplace
of higher educational institutes of Pakistan and to investigate its
relationship with organizational climate and health.
The study has the following key objectives i.e. (i) to
investigate the relationship between organizational climate and
workplace bullying; (ii) to investigate the relationship between
workplace bullying and employees’ health; and (iii) to assess the
moderating effect of drug use between employee health and affected
sleeping hours.
The study is divided into the following sections after the
introduction which is presented in Section 1. Section 2 describes the
review of literature, methodology is explained in Section 3, results are
discussed in Section 4 and the final section concludes the study.
2. Literature Review
Bullying has progressively become an essential area of debate in the last
15 years, mainly among researchers who are adopting a psychological
aspect of the work (Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf & Cooper (2003). Einarsen et al.
2003; Hoel, Rayner, & Cooper 1999; Lewis & Sheehan 2003). The
findings of various UK surveys indicated that bullying in about 3 out of 4
cases is a downward process that is directed by someone in a supervisory
or managerial position at a subordinate (Hoel & Cooper 2000; Unison
1997, 2000). While, roughly a third of incidents, victims of bullying have
identified their peers/colleagues as the perpetrators, even though some
bullying by colleagues/peers is also interlinked with bullying by managers
of the organization.
Bullying is the term that is preferably used in most of the
English speaking countries, including Ireland, UK and Australia. In
Southern European countries other terminologies have been used like
‘moral harassment’ in France and Spain, ‘emotional abuse’ and ‘work
mistreatment’ are used in America, and most remarkably in German-
speaking countries and Scandinavia the English-derived term ‘mobbing’
has been usually adopted. Though the terms are being used
interchangeably and a common understanding is rising within the
community of an international research, significant differences have been
recognized between both the terms mobbing and bullying and their
practical application as well (Hoel et al. 1999; Di Martino, Hoel, &
Cooper, 2003; Einarsen et al. 2003). This distinction is mainly associated
with the choice of focus with UK researchers tending to focus their
attention to the perpetrator and bully behaviour, whereas German and
Scandinavian researchers are putting emphasis to the experience of
victims (Zapf & Einarsen, 2005).
2.1. The nature of bullying at work
The concept of bullying may be used in various situations in common
language, describing a variety of behaviours (Crawford, 1998). It can be
used in a joking manner, i.e. describing good natured horseplay, or
referring to the negligible events of aggressive behaviour that are inclined
to be easily tolerated and accepted (Munthe, 1989). On the other hand, in
the scientific studies reviewed, this concept refers to a rather specific
phenomenon where physical or non-physical aggressive and hostile
behaviours are analytically directed at a subordinate or one or more
colleagues that leads toward victimization and stigmatization of the
recipient (Leymann, 1996; BjoÈrkqvist, ésterman, K. & Hjelt-Back,
1994). While considering both theoretical and empirical evidence, Zapf
(in press) categorizes 5 types of bullying behaviours as follow: (i) work
related bullying that includes changing your work tasks or making the
tasks more difficult to perform; (ii) social isolation; (iii) personal attacks
i.e. attacks on your private life by gossips, ridicule and giving insulting
remarks; (iv) verbal threats where you are humiliated in public or
criticized; and (v) physical violence or threats of such violence.
In descriptions and definitions of workplace bullying, multiple
negative behaviours have been described, that includes insulting remarks,
physical assaults, the unjust removal of responsibilities and work tasks,
rumors spreading and social exclusion (Zapf, & Cooper, 2003; Bowling &
Beehr, 2006; Einarsen, Hoel, Harvey & Treadway, 2006). Therefore,
workplace bullying consists of different varieties of negative acts whether
these acts are physical or verbal and acts intended directly at the target
personally or at the target’s work environment or tasks.
It is reported that harassment and bullying both happened on a
regular basis in most of the work organizations (e.g. Einarsen &
Skogstad, 1996; Keashly & Jagatic, 2000; Hoel, Cooper & Faragher,
2001); and is also reported to happen at all the levels of organization
(Hoel, Cooper & Faragher, 2001). Up till now, managers of the
organization are seen as the most usual perpetrators in most of the
bullying cases (Rayner, Hoel & Cooper, 2002). In this regard, a
Norwegian study has shown that more than 50 percent of those
considering themselves as targets reported having been bullied by
someone in a managerial capacity (Einarsen, Raknes, & Matthiesen,
1994). In countries such as UK and Ireland this ratio is rising to more than
75 percent (Hoel, Cooper & Faragher, 2001; Unison, 1997; O’Moore,
Seigne, McGuire, & Smith, 1998). Employees can be bullied by both
managers and co-workers (Hogh, Carneiro, Giver, & Rugulies, 2011); is
repeated over longer periods of time (Einarsen & Mikkelsen, 2003); is
linked with a low level of self-esteem (Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2007); and
loss of self-confidence of the targets.
2.2. Intensity
As a distinctive phenomenon, adult bullying at work has 4 specific
features i.e. repetition, intensity, power disparity and duration. Firstly,
bullying involves a pattern of various negative acts (Mikkelsen &
Einarsen, 2001), and most of the targets are subjected to several forms of
ARAB ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS JOURNAL 9 (2014) 133–146 135
abuse (Einarsen, 1999; Keashly & Harvey, 2005). The word ‘intensity’ is
used in order to specify the number of several negative acts that are
reported by the targets. Researchers make estimation of bullying by
counting these negative acts that include humiliation, isolation, and
intimidation among others. Leymann (1990) operationalized bullying as a
negative act, while others belief that a minimum of 2 negative acts is a
more accurate measure (Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2001; Salin, 2001).
Second, to be comprised as bullying, these negative acts should occur
frequently, typically weekly or more often. Since bullying is considered as
a recurring ‘hammering away’ at targets (Tracy et al., 2006), various
researchers openly disregard one time incidents as a bullying instances
(Rayner, Hoel, & Cooper, 2002; Einarsen & Hoel, 2001; Leymann, 1990;
Salin, 2001). Thirdly, they must occur over a duration or period of time. It
must be 2 or more negative acts that occur weekly. Researchers typically
apply a 6-month duration criterion in order to differentiate bullying from
lower level negativity (Hoel, Cooper, & Faragher, 2001; Leymann, 1990;
Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2001; Zapf, Knorz & Kulla, 1996).
2.3. Degree of Bullying
Previous researchers suggested that bullying may occur in gradations,
which we call degrees that depends on intensity, frequency, and duration
(Davenport, Schwartz, & Elliott, 2002; Sandvik, 2003a). Bullying degree
is conceptualized as a cumulative score that reflects the frequency,
intensity and duration of negative acts that add up to bullying at
workplace. The bullying intensity is most often a collection of hostile
strategies instead of a single negative act. In a study of a Danish
organization, all self-reported victims also reported experience to a large
range of bullying behaviours (Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2001). Furthermore,
duration and frequency appears to be associated, i.e. targets ‘who are
bullied frequently also report a longer duration of their problem’ (Einarsen
& Skogstad, 1996:192). The sheer number of different negative acts
linked to bullying and the effect of duration and frequency on targets
pointed out that bullying is not a dichotomous (yes or no) experience,
victims may need to express this negative experience.
2.4. Causes of workplace bullying
Researchers have taken an incorporated perspective concerning the
contributions of both person and working environment variables in
relationship with workplace bullying (Einarsen, 2000; Einarsen et al.,
2003). It is more likely that people with poor social competencies or
having particular personality traits will easily become victims of bullying
(Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2002) though, studies paying attention towards
individual antecedents have founded inconsistent results. Individuals have
grater internal locus of control are less likely to victim of workplace
bullying, some other personality traits have proven effects on the
victimisation of bullying (Giorgi & Majer, 2008).
2.4.1. Organizational climate
The organizational environment/climate has been defined “as how work is
organized, the culture or climate of the organization, and the nature of the
leadership within the organization” (Zapf, 1999 p162; Hoel & Salin, 2003
p 619). The framework of our study is based on the proposal that
workplace bullying is mainly related to the characteristics of the
organization that include seven components i.e. organizational leadership,
job description, working conditions, team, dynamisms, time pressures and
cultural norms. The relationship between the role of the organization and
the existence of bullying has been stated clearly since the initial studies by
Leymann (1990). Current empirical studies have provided additional
support related to the relationship between organization and workplace
bullying, specially job design and working conditions (Giorgi & Majer,
2008), Laissez-faire leadership (Skogstad, Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2007a,
b), organizational climate and violence (Giorgi, 2009) and organizational
change, (Skogstad et al., 2007a, b). On the basis of interviews with the
victims of bullying, Leymann (1993) claims that the following four
factors are prominent as the cause of bullying at work: (i) deficiencies in
work design; (ii) deficiencies in leadership behaviour; (iii) a socially
exposed position of the victim; and (iv) a low moral standard in the
department.
From a number of studies, the influence of psychosocial
factors on the occurrence of bullying has gained much support. Thirty
Irish bullying victims considered their workplace to be a highly
competitive and stressful environment, overwhelmed with interpersonal
conflicts and a lack of supportive, directive and friendly atmosphere while
undergoing organizational changes and having an authoritarian style of
leadership (Seigne, 1998). A Norwegian study shows that out of 2,200
members of 6 labor unions, both the observers and victims of workplace
bullying reported about their dissatisfaction with their work environment
as compared to others. Respondents observed a lack of constructive
leadership, lack of possibilities to control and monitor their own work
tasks and particularly a high level of role conflict (Einarsen, Raknes, &
Mattheisen, 1994a). It is argued that incompatible expectations and
demands around tasks, roles, and responsibilities can produce stress and
frustration within a group of worker, particularly in connection to
obligations, rights, positions and privileges. This sort of situation might
act as a contributor to poor inter-work relationships, conflicts, and a
requirement for an appropriate scapegoat. On the basis of an individual
level analysis, a diversity of work environment factors are recognized as
antecedents of bullying at the workplace (Zapf & Einarsen, 2003; Hoel &
Salin, 2003). Different studies (Hoel, Glasø, Hetland, Cooper, & Einarsen,
2009) indicated that relationship oriented factors such as interpersonal
conflict, leadership behaviour, role conflict, and social climate are
considered to be very strong independent predictors of bullying at
workplace, while task oriented factors in the form of decision authority
and job demands shows weaker but significant relationships with
workplace bullying.
Findings of the studies by Berkowitz (1989) and Fox &
Spector (1999) show that a stressful work environment may result in
aggressive behaviour due to the individual’s negative effect, thus
encouraging perpetrators to be engaged in bullying behaviours. Therefore
the environmental factors may create inter-group conflict and may results
in negative social climate that may cause bullying at the workplace
(Einarsen, 2000). Different studies of bullying at workplace depicted that
psychosocial work environment characteristics may act as precursors of
bullying (Einarsen, 2000; Agervold & Mikkelsen, 2004; Hoel & Salin,
2003). For example, studies conducted by Leymann (1990, 1992, 1996)
have founded out that poorly organized working conditions, inadequacies
in leadership practices, as well as low morale levels in departments are the
major causes of workplace bullying. Various studies have given an
136 ARAB ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS JOURNAL 9 (2014) 133–143
experiential support for the supposition that some psychosocial factors at
work may promote bullying at the workplace (Einarsen, Raknes, &
Matthiesen, 1994; Vartia, 1996; Jennifer, Cowie & Ananiadou, 2003;
Hauge, Skogstad, & Einarsen, 2007; Skogstad, Matthiesen & Einarsen,
2007; Zapf, Knorz & Kulla, 1996). Therefore, according to the
organizational climate hypothesis of different studies, organizational
characteristics and the psychosocial work environment are considered to
be the most commonly predictable precursors of bullying (Agervold &
Mikkelsen, 2004; Hoel & Salin, 2003; Einarsen, 2000).
Past research describes workplace bullying as an intention or a
perceived intention to harm with the bully being predatory by nature
(Einarsen, 1999) as many organizations bullying might be
institutionalized as part of management and leadership practices (Ferris,
2004), or the target might be mistreated because he/she is unique in a
certain group, like a sole woman working in a male dominated society.
Parzefall & Salin (2010) revealed that the Social Exchange Theory might
be used to highlight the importance of exchange relationships in the
promotion of a “justice climate” within organizations. Perceptions of
injustice may lead to behaviours and attitudes being adjusted downwards,
that explains the negative effect of the work environment including
bystanders (Parzefall & Salin, 2010). Jenkins (2011) has highlighted
various factors that have been found to be contributors of bullying at the
workplace. According to him, organizational environment, particularly
leadership style, role ambiguity and conflict, poor job design,
unconducive industrial environment, stressful working environment and
job insecurity is one of the major factors that may contribute to the
existence and maintenance of bullying at the workplace.
2.4.2. Leadership
Empirical evidences and theoretical models indicated that organizational
leadership is a critical factor with regards to the occurrence of bullying at
workplace (Hershcovis, Turner, Barling et al., 2007; Hoel, Glasø, Hetland,
Cooper & Einarsen, 2009). According to Avolio, Bass & Jung (1999) and
Bass & Riggio (2006), leadership can be explained on the basis of a
continuum from ineffective leadership and very passive styles like Laissez
faire leadership to effective and active leadership styles such as
transformational and authentic leadership. Research findings indicated
that Laissez faire leadership is positively related to bullying at workplace
while transformational leadership is negatively related to bullying at
workplace (Birkel & Nielsen, 2010). This phenomenon is also repeated
within work groups. Leadership in organizations is measured to be an
essential predictor to psychosocial well-being in subordinates, and must
be a strong environmental interpreter of workplace bullying. Leadership
practices are probable to have an important effect on the presence of stress
at workplace, both directly and indirectly, i.e. directly as abusive
supervision might act as a powerful stressor in its own right (Tepper,
2007), and indirectly on the opportunity that workers should have to cope
with those strong stressors present. Theoretically, leadership must create
a good climate to promote interpersonal relationships and trust among
individuals as well in the working groups so as to reduce the risk of role
stress, aggression, frustration, and bullying at workplace. Additionally,
bad leadership, i.e. unfair and abusive management practices might
constitute occurrence of bullying (Hoel, Glasø, Hetland, Cooper, &
Einarsen, 2009).
Leadership styles play a significant and complex role in the
process of bullying. For instance, Laissez faire leadership emerged as an
interpreter of observed and self-reported bullying. As autocratic style of
leadership might not foster any aspirations of involvement, this sort of
style might be considered negative and can act as a cause of bullying
(O’Moore et al., 1998; Vartia, 1996). Furthermore, an autocratic style of
leadership may bring about aggression and frustration among subordinates
and possibly rises the likelihood of peer aggression within work groups
(Felson, 1992), thus acts as a precursor of bullying at workplace. Hoel et
al. (2010) research findings depicted that self-reported bullying is
positively associated with autocratic style of leadership.
2.4.3. Job description
Role ambiguity and conflict have long been associated with workplace
bullying. Both the observers and targets of workplace bullying are
probable to report very high levels of role ambiguity and conflict and a
perception of contradictory expectations, goals and demands (Einarsen,
Raknes, & Matthiesen, 1994). Likewise, workplace bullying has been
found to be closely associated with poorly organized environments of
work with unclear roles and structures of command (Leymann, 1996) as
well as high stress and conflict levels (Hauge, Stogstad & Einarsen,
2009).
2.4.4. Organizational dynamics
Organizational dynamics is considered to be another important
contributing factor in workplace bullying (Knorz & Kulla, 1996; Vartia,
1996; Zapf, 1999; Hoel & Salin, 2003), and different evidences suggested
that a stressful environment of work is one of the major factors in both the
escalation and development of the conflict into workplace bullying. Some
studies have also showed an association between bullying and
organizational changes/dynamics at the workplace (McCarthy, 1996;
Sheehan, 1998).
2.4.5. Norm and Culture
Bullying might originate from social factors related to perceived or real
treatment that individuals receive from others at place of work (Neuman
& Baron, 2003). Consequently, according to social interactions theory,
people who violate social norm and expectations are more likely to be at
the risk of being subjected to aggressive behaviour, particularly bullying
which occurs more repeatedly in social contexts where rules are often
violated (Felson, 1992; Tedeschi & Felson, 1994). Regarding to this
context, a study by Jime´nez et al. (2006) found that socio cultural
adaptation among immigrants, particularly being able to organize one’s
daily life in a new context such as cultural knowledge, language ability
and social relations plays a vital role in bullying. This shows that people
who are having low levels of socio cultural adaptation might violate social
norms more widely and then to some level, bring forth aggressive
behavior in others. Immigrants might violate social norms and
expectations in various ways. They may talk and look differently; they
have foreign names or might be unfamiliar with the culture in their new
place of work and new country. Or they might reluctantly violate
ARAB ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS JOURNAL 9 (2014) 133–146 137
unwritten rules and regulations for instance by misunderstanding
something because of language problems and so become bullying targets
more easily.
2.4.6. Working Conditions
Leymann (1993b) reported many cases depicting poor or bad working
conditions and leadership problems as bullying antecedents. Research
findings by other researchers, i.e., Einarsen et al. (1994), Vartia (1996)
and Osterwalder (1998) also support this point of view. All these
researchers have found that there is a significant relationship between the
frequency of bullying occurrences and working conditions of an
organization. It might be concluded that that negative working conditions
can lead towards occurrence of bullying, due to lack of communication,
particularly conscious miscommunication, which in itself affects
information flow and cooperation. Carnero et al. (2010) have studied
bullying and its problems, and found that during 2003, approximately 5%
of workers were identified as victims of bullying. Some of the working
conditions and job characteristics were considered to be very important
while explaining the possibility of being a victim of bullying.
2.4.7. Time Pressures
It seems credible that those workplaces that are low in control and are
high in organizational problems, particularly with regards to time
pressure, face uncertainty because of role ambiguities and unclear
responsibilities. The chances of conflict that may cause bullying in those
organizations are high because of the aforementioned organizational
problems.
2.5. Health of Workers (psychological and physiological)
It has been proved by some researchers that occupational stress may
generally contributes to stroke, heart attack, death and medical disorders
(Weiman, 1977). Additionally, it has been reported for nearly twenty
years that around 50% of cases are related to occupational stress reported
to industrial physicians (Fuller, 1977). With regards to the relationship
between health and stress and both the physical and psychological, Fuller
identified that higher stress on the job will lead to higher job
dissatisfaction, negative effect, psychological distress, anxiety,
depression, absence from work due to illness, doctor visits, and bad
physical health. Likewise, staff with high job stress has lower health as
compare to the staff with low levels of job stress (Christopher et al.,
1996).
Bullying at the workplace has recognized as a risk factor in
clinical depression (Niedhammeret et al., 2006), clinical levels of anxiety
(Quine, 1999), suicide attempts (O’Mooreet et al., 1998), post-traumatic
stress disorders (Mikkelsen & Einarsen 2002; Matthiesen & Einarsen
2004; Tehrani, 2004), higher levels of job induced stress, intention to
leave job, absenteeism, sick leave and lower levels of job satisfaction as
well (Quine 1999; Kivimaki et al., 2000). These associated and individual
organizational affects are not restricted to targets, with findings that
witnesses bullying at workplace can be affected almost all workplace as
rigorously as the actual target (Rayner 1999; Mayhew et al. 2004;
Niedhammer et al., 2006).
Studies found that bullying at workplace is a severe stressor which effects
the well-being and health of the targets and also has negative effects on
the work organization where it happens (Hogh et al., 2010).Bullying
behaviors might have serious consequences for the victims, it may affect
their psychological health and physical health (Parkins et al., 2006).
Physiological symptoms that are measured consist of headaches, shortness
of breath, indigestion, raise of blood pressure and exhaustion feelings.
Psychological symptoms may include restless feelings an inability to think
clearly, irritability feelings. Behavioral symptoms might include changes
in eating, sleeping, drinking, and smoking as well. Roughly 5 to 30
percent of the European employees are exposed to various kind of
bullying behaviors at any time (Nielsen et al., 2009; Zapf, Escartin,
Einarsen, Hoel & Vartia, 2010), and it is also documented in literature that
exposure to bullying at work creates serious health problems (Høgh,
Mikkelsen & Hansen, 2010). Lots of studies have revealed strong
relationship between exposure to workplace bullying and psychosomatic,
psychological, and psychiatric health problems among the victims of
bullying. Victims of bullying usually report low job satisfaction level and
well-being (Zapf, Knorz & Kulla, 1996). Besides this, social
maladjustment, social isolation, low level of self-esteem, concentration
difficulties, sleep problems, fatigue, depression and burnout are
considered to be very common symptoms among this group (Høgh et al.,
2010). For better understanding about why bullying exposure have such
sort of health effects. Some researchers like Einarsen & Mikkelsen (2003)
have been suggested a cognitive trauma viewpoint to account for the
observed relationship. On the other hand, health relation of bullying can
also be explained by taking a biological perspective (Hansen et al., 2006).
The negative ramifications of bullying are common. Victims of bullying
suffer long term, or may be permanent, psychological and occupational
harm (Crawford, 2001; Leymann & Gustafsson, 1996). Substantial
evidence has suggested that bullying is a most crippling and disturbing
problem (Adams & Crawford, 1992, p. 13) with the possibility to damage
victim’s self-esteem, cognitive functioning, physical health, and emotional
health as well (Brodsky, 1976; Einarsen & Mikkelsen, 2003; Keashly &
Harvey, 2005). Abused employees are mostly at the greater risk of
depression (Namie, 2003), alcohol abuse (Richman et al., 2001;
Rospenda, 2002), prolonged duress stress disorder (Scott & Stradling,
2001), post-traumatic stress disorder (Leymann & Gustafsson, 1996), and
suicide as well (Leymann, 1990). Current medical research findings
showed that perceptions of injustice at workplace that are experienced by
targets of bullying are related to chronic stress, high blood pressure
problem and increased risk of coronary heart disease (Kivimäki et al.,
2005). Bullying may also can have devastating effects on interpersonal
relationships and family functioning (Rayner et al., 2002; Jennifer et al.,
2003; Tracy et al., 2006).Many victims of bullying seem to suffer from
symptoms under the domain of post-traumatic stress disorder (Leymann &
Gustafsson, 1996; Wilson, 1991). At a Finnish university in an interview
study among seventeen victims of bullying employed, BjoÈrkqvist et al.,
(1994a) has been depicted that insomnia, melancholy, various nervous
symptoms, apathy and lack of concentration were common among these
bullied employees. Though various concepts have been used in order to
describe this phenomenon such as ‘mobbing’ (Leymann, 1996; Zapf et al.,
1996), ‘emotional abuse’ (Keashly, 1998), ‘harassment’ (BjoÈrkqvist et
al., 1994a; Brodsky, 1976), ‘bullying’ (Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996;
Rayner, 1997; Vartia, 1996), ‘mistreatment’ (Spratlen, 1995) and
138 ARAB ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS JOURNAL 9 (2014) 133–143
‘victimisation’ (Einarsen & Raknes, 1997a; 1997b), they all refers to the
same phenomenon. That phenomenon is the systematic persecution of a
subordinate, peer or a superior, which if continued may cause severe
social, psychosomatic and psychological problems for the victim.
2.6. Smoking/Drug Abuse
In Australia, Tobacco smoking is responsible for the maximum disease
burden, providing around 7% of the total burden in females and 12% in
males (Mathers et al., 2001). Research findings show that in 2007 some
17.9% of the Australian population aged fourteen and over were daily or
weekly smokers (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW),
2007). The life changes and stress that usually occur might have a
considerable negative effect on emotional wellbeing of people and might
direct to the adoption of maladaptive or unhealthy behaviors. An
ineffective adjustment to these life changes might lead to psychological
distress. Several studies have found that university teachers experience
high psychological morbidity after the beginning of a university course
and that the problems begin with depression, stress, anxiety, and burnout
being common and that leads those adults toward smoking behaviors. The
occurrence of anxiety and depression among teachers is approximately
11% overall, and up to 14% for male staff (Grant et al., 2002). In both
adolescents and adults, stress is found to be positively linked with levels
of psychological distress (Wills & Shiffman, 1985). Stress and associated
distress/depression are significant factors in the adaptation of smoking
behavior (Naquin & Gilbert, 1996). Stress seems to be consistently related
to the smoking behavior and the Abuse of various other drugs
(Hemmingsson et al., 2008). Smoking has found to be a coping tool in
order to deal with stress as nicotine has pharmacological affects that
moderates stress level (Henningfield et al., 1995; Marlatt and Cordon,
1985; Shiffman et al., 2007). In addition, once smoker has adopted
smoking behavior as a strategy for coping after that they will be less
willing to see the need to try to develop active and healthier strategies for
coping.
2.7. Hours of sleeping
Barling (1996) have founded that depressive symptoms and negative
mood are directly linked with bullying. If these instant health problems
are not solved or alleviated, they may arouse the development of more
long term and wide effects like excessive alcohol use sleep problems.
Sequentially perceptions of being bullied might have association with
employee’s health in both the short and long term for example excessive
consumption of drugs, smoking and poor sleep quality. In fact, excessive
consumption of drugs may induce sleep disorders by disturbing the
duration and sequence of sleep states and by disrupting total sleeps time
(Roehrs & Roth, 2001).
3. Research Methodology
3.1. Conceptual Framework
Based on the above discussion a conceptual framework is developed.
Figure 1 shows hypothesized relationships between organizational
Climate, Workplace Bullying, Health and Hours of Sleeping.
Organization Climate
Workplace Bullying
Employee Health Disturbed Sleeping Hours
Drug Misuse
H1
H2 H4
H3
H6
H5
Mediation
Fig. 1- Conceptual Framework.
The following hypotheses are developed for the study on the basis of
research framework
H1. Organizational Climate negatively relates with workplace bullying.
H2. Organizational Climate negatively relates with Employee Health.
H3. Workplace bullying negatively relates with employee health.
H4. Employee Health Negatively relates with Disturbed Hours of
Sleeping.
H5. Workplace bullying mediates the relationship between organizational
climate and employee health.
H6. Drug Abuse acts as a moderator the relationship between health and
sleeping hours.
3.2. Sample and Data Collection
The population consisted of 80 Public and 64 private sector universities of
Pakistan. The universe selected for this study is Higher Education industry
or Universities of Pakistan. A proportionate random sample of 20
Universities (10 from each public and private sector and 10 private
sectors) is selected for the study. Further explanation regarding to
sampling is given in the Table 1 and 2 respectively. 400 Respondents
Participated consisting sample of 20 respondents from each university.
Table 1 –Sample of Public Sector Universities.
Public Sector Population % of
Population
Sample
Federal 22 28% 3
Punjab 18 22% 3
Sindh 15 18% 2
KPK 16 21% 2
Baluchistan 5 6% 0
AJK 4 5% 0
TOTAL 80 55% 10
Table 2 –Sample of Private Sector Universities.
Public
Sector
Population % of
Population
Sample
Federal 6 9% 1
Punjab 21 32% 3
Sindh 24 35% 4
ARAB ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS JOURNAL 9 (2014) 133–146 139
KPK 10 15% 2
Baluchistan 1 1% 0
AJK 2 3% 0
TOTAL
64 45% 10
The study used the standardised questionnaire used by the recent
researchers to measure the workplace bullying named Negative Acts
Questionnaire Revised NAQ-R) (Giorgi et al., 2006, Asakura et al.,
2008).): Organizational climate was assessed by a reduced version (17
items) of the MDOQ10 (D’Amato & Majer, 2005, Giorgi, 2009),
depression and anxiety measured by Center for Epidemiologic Study for
(Wada et al., 2006).
4. Results
Table 3 shows the detail of respondents who participated in this study.
The data describes gender, age, marital status, post, degree and
professional experience of the respondents. There are 231 respondents
who returned the questionnaire out of 400.
Table 3 - Demographic Data.
Demographic
Variables
Categories
Percentages
Gender
Male
Female
68%
32%
Age 20-29
30-40
Above 40
34%
57%
9%
Designation Lecturers
Assistant professors
Associate professors
Professors
49%
25%
11%
14%
Marital status Single
Married
43%
57%
Total professional
experience
1-3 years
4-6 years
7-9 years
More than 9 years
19%
35%
24%
22%
Qualification Masters
Ms/Mphil
PH.D
14%
49%
36%
As shown in the Table 3, male response rate is more then female. There
were about 68 percent of male respondents while remaining 32 percent
were females. One reason can be the general proportion in our country for
female workers is less as comparison to male members. Secondly it was
also difficult to approach female faculty members because of their home
commitments and teaching schedules. Major portion of ranging between
the ages of 30 to 40.Percentage demographic shows that the percentage of
the respondents between categories 20-29 is 34 percent. Respondents who
are between 30-40 are having the percentage of 57 percent. And
remaining 9 percent of the respondents were above the age of 40, 43
percent of the respondents were single while 57 percent were married
respondents of the study. The proportion of lecturer respondents is more
than other respondents. As the percentage demographic shows that 49
percent of the respondents were lecturers, 25 percent were assistant
professors, 11 percent were associate professors and remaining 14 percent
were professors. Work experience of the respondents is also considered as
a demographic variable, 19 percent of the respondents belong to the
category of 1-3years. 35 percent belongs to the category 4-6years. 24
percent lie between 7-9 years and 22 percent were of the respondents were
having the total professional experience of more than 9 years.
Qualification was also considered as demographic, 14 percent of the
respondents were having qualification of Masters, 49 percent were
MS/Phil and 36 percent were PhD. Table 4 shows the descriptive data
and factor loading of the constructs for the ready reference.
4.1. Validity and Reliability of Constructs
Validity and reliability of the endogenous and exogenous variables in the
model is measured through the Convergent Validity, Discrimenent
validity. Convergent validity is assessed to determine the extent to which
measurement items for a given construct refer to only that construct and
no other. Table2 shows CFA results which were performed to determine
the factor loadings for each item, along with its reliability scales (i.e.
Cronbach’s alpha and co-efficient Rho). Factor loading above than 0.50
indicated fitness of the item to latent constructs (Fornell and Larcker,
1981). Further the construct have reliability indicators above than 0.70 are
considerably internally consistent (Hair et.al., 1995; Nunnally &
Bernstein, 1994; Nunnally, 1978). Constructs having Average variation
extraction above 0.50 are producing considerable variation (Hair
et.al.,1995).
Questionnaire consists of the five constructs including one
exogenous and four endogenous variables. Construct organizational
climate is measure through 19 items, ranging factor loadings 0.51 to 0.82,
Cronbach Aplha above 0.7 and Average variation extraction 0.57
indicates the variation is grater than the measurement error. Table 4 shows
the factor loading and reliability analysis.
Table 4- Factor Loading and Reliability Analysis.
Constructs Items
Alpha
Value
Factor
Loading
Range
AVE Composite
Reliability
Organizational
Climate
19 0.78
0.51-
0.82 0.59 0.81
Work
place bulling
17 0.86
0.49-
0.71 0.54 0.83
Employee
Health
28 0.86 0.55-
0.82 0.61 0.8
Disturbed
Hours of
sleeping
4 0.84
0.61-
0.86 0.63 0.81
Drug Abuse
5 0.86
0.53-
0.63 0.59 0.82
Overall 73 0.93
0.49-
0.86
Endogenous construct workplace bulling measured by the 17 items and
140 ARAB ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS JOURNAL 9 (2014) 133–143
has the reliability of o.86, factor loading range 0.49-0.71, AVE 00.54 and
composite reliability 0.81. Employee Health is measured through 28
items, ranging factor loading 0.55 to 0.82, Cronbach’s alpha 0.86, AVE
0.61 and composite reliability 0.80. Hours of sleeping has 4 items with
factor loading range 0.61-0.86, Cronbach’s alpha at 0.84 and AVE above
0.50 and drug Abuse measure through 5 items having factor loading range
above 0.50 and reliability above 0.70. This indicates that the
questionnaire has the sufficient internal consistency, factor loadings and
composite reliability.
4.2. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
Further multidimensional construct are treated with Exploratory Factor
analysis to analyze their dimensions and variation extraction through each
dimension. Exploratory factor analysis is a statistical method to
investigate linearity of number of variables of interest to a smaller number
of unobservable factors, parameters of linear functions are called factor
loadings. Exploratory factor analysis consists of two stages. First one
loading set is calculated that shows theoretical variances and covariance
which fit the observed ones as closely as possible. A method generally
used to determine a first set of loadings is called the principal component
method. These loadings might not agree with the prior expectations, or
might not have reasonable interpretation. so second stage consist of factor
rotation to find the point of loadings that fit equally well the observed
variances and covariance’s and interpreted more easily. There are a
number of methods in order to obtain first and rotated factor solutions,
and each solution might give rise to a different interpretation. Study used
Varimax rotation method that encourages the detection of factors each of
which is related to few variables and on the other hand it discourages the
detection of factors that are influencing all variables. There is substantial
subjectivity in the interpretation of factors and determining the number of
factors. The study employed Exploratory Factor analysis on three major
latent construct comprise of more than 10 items to reduce dimensions of
latent constructs Workplace Climate, Workplace Bullying and Employee
health, measured through 19, 17 and 28 questions respectively. Table 5
shows EFA results for the multidimensional construct organizational
climate measured through 19 items.
Table 5- EFA results for Organizational Climate.
Items
Fact
or1
Factor
2
Factor
3
Factor
4
Factor
5
Factor
6
Factor
7
CL1 0.52
CL2
0.67
CL3
0.74
CL4
0.71
CL5
0.52
CL6
0.21
CL7
0.56
CL8
0.66
CL9
0.81
CL10
0.61
CL11
0.63
CL12
0.66
CL13
0.61
CL14
0.72
CL15
0.5
CL16
0.53
CL17
0.55
CL18
0.54
CL19
0.41
Note: Rotated component matrix using Varimax rotation
All items having factor loading less than 0.5 has been dropped from the
further analysis as suggested by the Haier et al. (1995). EFA determined
seven dimensions which further reorganized into four major dimensions.
Factor 1 named management support and has 5 items. Factor 5 named
working condition with four items and factor 2, factor 3, and factor 7
combined for further analysis and named teamwork having 6 items with
two items having less than 0.50 loading and dropped from further
analysis. Dimension use four items in the further analysis. Factor 4 and
factor 6 mixed to form work life balance construct with four items (see,
Table 6).
Table 6- Dimensions of organization climate.
Construct Suggested name Items
Factor1 Management Support 5
Factor 2 + Factor 3+
Factor 7
Teamwork 4
Factor4 + Factor 6 Work life balance 4
Factor 5 Working Conditions 4
Work Place Bullying divided into two dimensions. Further these
dimensions named as personality related bullying and work related
bullying. Table 7 shows the results of EFA of workplace bullying.
Table 7- EFA results for Workplace Bullying.
Items Factor 1 Factor 2
B1 0.701
B2
0.686
B3 0.714
B4 0.797
B5 0.826
B6 0.743
B7 0.904
B8
0.86
B9 0.41
B10 0.891
B11
0.912
B12 0.698
B13 0.52
B14 0.67
B15 0.73
B16 0.77
B17
0.71
Note: Rotated component matrix using varimax rotation
Both, personality related and work related bullying has 8 items. One item
of personality related bullying has less factor loading then suggested value
of 0.50 and being omitted form the further analysis. Table 8 shows the
different dimensions of workplace bullying.
ARAB ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS JOURNAL 9 (2014) 133–146 141
Table 8- Dimensions of Work place bullying.
Construct Suggested name items
Factor1 Personality related 8
Factor 2 Work related 8
Table 9 shows different items of health which further classified in to two
dimensions i.e., Physical health and Psychological health.
Table 9- Dimensions of Employee health.
Items Factor 1 Factor 2
H1 0.797
H2
0.681
H3
0.78
H4
0.766
H5
0.747
H6
0.62
H7 0.765
H8
0.698
H9
0.736
H10
0.727
H11 0.707
H12
0.887
H13
0.894
H14
0.87
H15
0.885
H16
0.779
H17
0.842
H18
0.887
H19
0.894
H20
0.866
H21
0.885
H22
0.779
H23
0.844
H24
0.904
H25
0.86
H26 0.915
H27
0.891
H28 0.912
Note: Rotated component matrix using varimax rotation
EFA determined 21 items related to employee’s psychological health and
7 items related to the employee physical health in Table 10.
Table 10- Dimensions of Employee health.
Construct Suggested name items
Factor1 Psychological health 21
Factor 2 Work related 7
Before proceeding with analysis of structural model it is required to
discuss about the measurement of multi-dimensional constructs where
each observable variable has multi-items. Instead of using imputation
study used factor loading weighted average suggested by Qureshi M, I et
al 2013. Formula for the calculation of weighted average is given under
Source: Qureshi et al (2013).
Where
WAC = weighted average of construct
Fi = Factor loading of item i
Ri= Response of Respondent i
4.3. Model Fit Summary (Structural Analysis)
Concerning the criteria in order to evaluate model fit, the study is based
on the Bagozzi & Yi (1998)proposed preliminary fit criteria; overall
model fit, and fit of internal structure of the model. The model provides an
acceptable fit to the data, i.e. the values of NFI, CFI, RMSEA, GFI and
AGFI were found according to the cut points in both the measurement
models. Model fit can achieve by testing the modification indices. GFI i-e
Goodness of fit index, RMSEA i-e Root Mean Square Error
Approximation and chi-square statistic are the indices that are usually
used for measures that are called absolute fit measures. These measures
find out the degree to which the overall model predicts the observed
covariance or correlation matrix. NFI i-e Normal Fit Index, CFI i-e
confirmatory fit Index and AGFI i-e Adjusted Goodness-of-fit Index are
the indices of measures that are known as incremental fit measures. These
measures compares the proposed model to some baseline model, most
often referred to as the null model. The null model should be some
realistic model that all other models should be expected to exceed. The
evaluation of model fit covered in the study depends on scholars example
that are given as follow: Byrne (1998) proposed a goodness-of-fit model
as measured by the GFI, claiming that GFI index must exceed 0.80.
According to Gefen et al.(1998), it is a basic criterion that both indices of
NFI and IFI exceed 0.90 for acceptable model fitness, while the
recommended fit values for CFI should be more than 0.90 and AGFI more
than 0.80. In general, if the value of ?2/df is smaller than 5, it is
considered to be a good fit. Conversely, a RMSEA of less than 0.08
suggests a good fit. Table 11 indicates the values of Fit indices are well
above or equal to the standards. This shows that the model exhibits
complete fitness of its variables. That supports our H1 that a mediation
model which allows for both direct and indirect relationships of climate
with health will best fit the data.
Table 11- Model fit summary.
Fitness Indices Standard Values Achieved Values
GFI Greater or equal to 0.90 .910
NFI Greater or equal to 0.90 .861
RMSEA p