Impact of Workplace Bullying on Job Performance, Intention to Leave, OCB and Stress

Received 24 Aug, 2016

Accepted 07 May, 2018

Published 30 Jun, 2018

This research intends to examine the impact of workplace bullying (WPB) on task performance (TP), organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), psychological stress (stress) and intention to leave (IL); whereas two mediators job satisfaction (JS) and perceived organizational support (POS) were used to check the intensity of its impact on the relationship of the variables. The research adopted the random sampling method and collected data from 320 private bank employees in Karachi. An adapted survey questionnaire was utilized for the collection of employees’ responses. The questionnaire was adapted by utilizing Negative Act Questionnaire (NAQ-R) by Einarsen, Hoel & Notelaers (2009); Task Performance scale (Williams & Anderson, 1991); Depression Anxiety, Stress Scale (DASS) by Henry & Crawford (2005); Intention to Leave a Job measure by Jenkins (1993) and Krausz et al. (1995); perceived Organizational Support questionnaire by Eisenberger, Cummings, Armeli, and Lynch (1997); Job Satisfaction scale was adapted by previous studies (Pasework & Viator , 2006; Rusbult & Farrell , 1983). The data were analyzed through Smart PLS 3.1.The findings indicate that the WPB has significant relevant impact on OCB, IL, Stress and TP. However, JS and POS do not mediate the relationship between WPB and studied variables.

Workplace bullying refers to the situation in which the co- workers faced constant abuse, teasing and offensive marks. Bullying consist of the unpleasant, unnecessary behavior occurring on the regular basis in the organization. Bullying is also often thought to involve an abuse of power (McMahon, 2000). According to Townend (2016), bullying is a phenomenon which causes destruction and this is why its occurrence makes damages to the performance of an organization. Thus, most employees live in the state of fear during the job and are afraid to share up their problems with their co-workers & managers. Akar (2013) proposes that there has been an upward curiosity in the organizational psychology and with the emerging era, it has become a usual problem in the organizations whether it is a small arrangement or a large governing body with a number of employees. A workplace that is psychologically safe is the one which is absent of bullying, harassment and stigma around mental illness.

Although there have been numerous researches which have led the organizations towards better management of hazard and building the better culture which guides the organization towards improved management, but the workplace bullying still remains a substantial problem in several formations. Through workplace bullying there are several effects on employees, but one concern which have grabbed the attention of HR managers and top level management is the employee performance. The increase in job demand has also resulted in the psychological stress of employees, therefore an employee cannot provide with much productivity that is demanded by organization to fulfill their targets and goals.

Furthermore, with the passage of time the companies are interested in making the working environment better with knowing the factors associated with the working environment. The workplace efficiency is highly affected by bullying which results towards the low productivity. The performance effect can also lower down the chance of achieving the company goals and it can affect the overall performance of the organization as well. Fisher-Blando (2008) explained that bullying has a negative effect on workers’ self-esteem and on the performance of the organization. Faced with challenges of environment in the universal marketplace, there is a need to have more well-organized and creative workers (Griffiths & Sheehan, 2016). Moreover, the cases of bullying are not covered due to the fright of becoming isolated and leaving the job and being pushed around. It is an important aspect of today’s organization and there is a lack of research done in Pakistani industries. Few researches have been done in this area, but the effect of Workplace Bullying on Intention to Leave (IL), Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB), Psychological Stress (PS) and Task Performance (TP) has not been studied. Moreover, the mediating effect of Job Satisfaction (JS) and Perceived Organizational Support (POS) has also not been studied before. Therefore, this research intends to seek answer to the following research questions:

1.	What is the impact of Workplace Bullying on Intention to Leave (IL), Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB), Psychological Stress (PS) and Task Performance (TP)?
2.	How Job Satisfaction (JS) and Perceived Organizational Support (POS) mediate the relationship between the studied variables?

Theoretical Background
The concept of mobbing and nuisance at work was firstly founded in European countries and then it started to be the reported in other countries. From being a taboo in organizational life, the matter of bullying and harassment at work become the “research issue of the 1990s.The most influential model of studying about the relationship between the health and work is the Job-Demand Model (JDC) which is also known as the job strain model.

Fig. 1: The Job Demand Control Model (Adapted from Karsek (1979)

According to the Karsek (1979) job demand model postulates that psychological stress not only results from a single feature of the workplace, but from the multiple features regarding working demands and the freedom of making decisions.

The JDC model is controlled by the two factors that is the job control and psychological job demands. The first dimension, job control, refers’ to the workers' control over the performance of her own job. As stated by (Karasek, 1979) the second dimension, psychological job demands, measures the work pace, the work volume and the occurrence of conflicting demands.

In addition to this, the model proves that employees react expressively to things which takes place at work, therefore the reaction affects their job performance and satisfaction (Robbins, Judge, & Sanghai, 2009). Workplace bullying affects the workplace environment in certain ways that can be injurious and disturbing for employees and the organization; and is a strong social stressor that is negatively related to both individual and professional outcomes (Hauge, Skogstad & Einarsen, 2010).

Task Performance: The employee performance, which is affected by different factors and specially related to workplace bullying has attracted the attention of many scholars. Rooyen & McCormack (2013) examined the opinions of employees regarding workplace bullying and revealed that if workplace bullying is not managed well it will cause a negative effect on the workers’ performance. Ikanyon & Ucho (2013) investigated the impact of workplace bullying on job satisfaction and performance among workers in a hospital and concluded that employees who are experienced by the low level of bullying perform their best as compared to those who faced high levels of bullying. Yahya, Ing, Lee, Boon, Hashim & Jesus (2012) analyzed the effect of workplace place bullying on job performance and results revealed a significant relationship of workplace bullying with task performance. Moreover, the study revealed that workplace bullying was strongly related to the work performance. According to Eisenberger, Fasolo & Davis (1990) Raziq & Wiesner (2016), employees who perceive that they are supported by their firms show excellence in performing tasks; similarly, employees who are satisfied with their jobs are likely to give good performance, therefore it is expected that POS and job satisfaction mediate the relationship between workplace bullying and task performance and reduce the negative effect of workplace bullying on task performance.

Workplace bullying and intention to leave
Some of the studies have assessed the association of workplace bullying with intention to leave. Djurkovic, McCormack and Casimir (2004) studied the effects of workplace bullying and their relationship with intention to quit and found that workplace bullying is positively linked with the intention to leave. In another study of Hauge et al., (2010), workplace bullying was found to be a significant analyst of anxiety and depression, job satisfaction, turnover and nonattendance. In addition to this, Sims and Sun (2012) inspected workplace bullying among the Chinese employees and indicated the negative relationship between workplace bullying, satisfaction of workers and commitment. Hence, being bullied is positively correlated with higher intention to quit the organization that endures over time. According to Berthelsen, Skogstad, Lau and Einarsen, (2011), higher the employees are satisfied with their job; less is the intentions to leave the organization; similarly, if employees are supported by their organization, then they will be less intended to quit their job, therefore one can expect that job satisfaction and POS mediate the relationship between workplace bullying and intention to leave and reduce the positive effect of workplace bullying on intention to leave.

Psychological Stress
Devonish (2013) revealed that workplace bullying has a significant negative effect of the job demands of physical exhaustion, uncertified absenteeism and depression. Mathisen, Einarsen & Mykletun (2011) inspected the relationship between instructor’s behavior, supervisors’ perceived stress and workplace bullying and found a positive relationship of workplace bullying with the stress level of employee. Moreover, Finne, Knardahl and Lau (2011) investigated the relationship between the workplace bullying and mental suffering and results showed that mental distress was a predictor of bullying. The results gained from the studies revealed that workplace exploitation may lead to serious injurious consequences for the workers of the organization as well (Baron & Neuman, 1996; Hornstein, 1996; Keashly, 1998; Keashly et al., 1994). Furthermore, work stress results in psychosocial risks and causes psychological and societal destruction. Organizations who care about their workers try to lessen their burden and it can bring relief to the workers; similarly, when employees are satisfied with their job roles and tasks then their stress level will gradually decrease therefore; one can expect that POS and job satisfaction play a mediating role between bullying and stress level of employee and help in reducing the positive impact of workplace bullying on stress level of employee (Jawahar, Stone and Kisamore, 2007). Hence, from the above literature review the following hypothesis can be built:

Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Organizational Behavior Citizenship is that behavior which works in favor of the organization. Organizational Citizenship Behavior represents the special roles which are warranted to perform and are projected to facilitate either individual fellows or the entire organization (Devonish, 2013). Mourssi-Alfash (2014) establish a negative relationship of bullying on organizational citizenship behavior and reasoned that employees can behave proactively and benefit from using citizenship behaviors as a self-protective strategy (Verdasca, 2015). Likewise, the negative relationship was set up between the organizational citizenship behavior and victimization in the survey conducted in U.S manufacturing firm (Aquino & Bommer, 2003).

Qureshi et al., (2013) find that Job satisfaction is positively related to organizational citizenship behavior, psychological health, and work performance. Moreover, sufficient evidence shows that job satisfaction is expected to maximize OCB (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine & Bachrach, 2000). According to Gong and Chang (2008), when organizations offer career development prospects and play a supporting role, workers reply with maximum organizational assurance, firm performance, and OCB therefore; one can expect that POS and JS mediate the relationship between WPB and OCB and assist in cutting down the negative impact of workplace bullying on OCB. So, the following hypothesis can be suggested from the above literature review:

Research Model
From the above literature review, following model can be predicted:

Based on this model, following hypotheses are proposed:

1a.	Workplace bullying has a negative impact on task performance
1b.	Job satisfaction and POS mediate the relationship between Workplace bullying and Task Performance
2a.	Workplace bullying has a positive impact on intention to leave
2b.	Job satisfaction and POS mediate the relationship between Workplace bullying and intention to leave
3a.	Workplace bullying positively increases the stress level of employee
3b.	Job Satisfaction and POS mediate the relationship between workplace bullying and stress level of employee
4a.	Workplace bullying negatively affect the Organizational Citizenship Behavior
4b.	Job satisfaction and POS mediate the relationship between Workplace bullying and Organizational Citizenship Behavior

METHOD

The research was based on a quantitative approach and the data was collected from 320 private bank employees in Karachi through questionnaires. A questionnaire was distributed in person and non- probability convenience sampling method was adopted to record the respondents’ experience regarding workplace bullying on a five-point Likert scale that ranged from (1 = never; 5 = always). The variables which were used in the research were workplace bullying which was an independent variable whereas the dependent variables were task performance, organizational citizenship behavior, intention to leave job, psychological stress while job satisfaction and perceived organization support were used as mediators. Each item used for the survey instrument was adapted from past studies and measurements are given in next section.

Measures
The variables evaluated in this study (i.e. Workplace bullying, task performance, psychological stress, organizational citizenship behavior, intention to leave a job, perceived organizational support, job satisfaction) was derived from different studies.

Workplace Bullying: For workplace bullying, all items were measured through the Negative Act Questionnaire (NAQ-R) on the basis of five-point Likert scale drawn from the study of Einarsen, Hoel & Notelaers (2009). The NAQ-R measures self-reported workplace bullying practices and inspects how respondents have been exposed to a range of negative actions including coercion, destructive criticism and degradation.

Task Performance: All five items were measured by using item scale developed by Williams and Anderson (1991). This scale is recognized by the reward and management systems in the organizations, and is a natural part of employees’ job requirements. Respondents were asked to rate on the basis of five-point Likert scale (1 = never; 5 = always).

Psychological Stress: Stress was measured with seven items through the Depression Anxiety, Stress Scale (DASS) adapted from the study of Henry & Crawford (2005). Previously, similar items were used by (Brown, Korotitsch, Chorpita, & Barlow, 1997; Antony, Bieling, Cox, Enns, & Swinson, 1998; Cunningham, Brown, Brooks & Page, 2013) which shows strong reliability of this scale.

Organizational Citizenship Behavior: OCB was measured by six items from William and Anderson (1991). The scale items were anchored on a five-point scale ranging from (1 = never; 5 = always).

Intention to Leave a Job: It was measured by adapting the work of Jenkins (1993) and Krausz et al. (1995). Respondents were asked to rate on the basis of five-point Likert scale (1 = never; 5 = always).

Perceived Organizational Support: All three items of POS were measured by using an item scale developed by Eisenberger, Cummings, Armeli, and Lynch (1997)’s article. Respondents were asked to rate on the basis of five-point Likert scale (1 = never; 5 = always).

Job Satisfaction: The items were adapted from Rusbult & Farrell (1983) and Pasework & Viator (2006) whereas previously used in other studies (Ketchand and Strawser 1998; Viator 2001). The scale comprised of items relating to the overall satisfaction of employees with their work.

Data and Sampling
The data were collected from the employees of the banking sector through the medium of the questionnaire. The questionnaire was distributed among 320 employees of the bank and simple random sampling method was adopted. Smart PLS 3.1was used to developed measurement model and SEM for hypothesis testing.

Table 1:	Demographic Characteristic of the Sample

Forty-two items in the survey questionnaire were used to measure seven latent variables WPB, IL, Stress, OCB, TP, POS and IL. Out of 320 useable responses from the bank employees representing different banks operating in Karachi (for descriptive see Table 1).

RESULTS

Before testing of the hypotheses, we tested the data for its validity. For this purpose, we used discriminant and convergent validity.

Convergent Validity
For the assessment of individual item reliability, the standardized factor loadings are examined. All items have loadings greater than 0.55 as recommended by Fornell & Larcker (1981). In PLS, the convergent validity of the measured items is validated by Cronbach's alpha composite reliability (CR) and Average variance extracted (AVE). Table 2 shows that for all measures Cronbach's α is greater than 0.70 which means that all the variables have good reliability and meets the suggested benchmark of 0.60 by Waldeck’s (2014). The composite reliability is measured through the Nunnally’s (1976) benchmark of 0.7 and Table 2 shows that the composite reliability is greater than 0.7. As all the constructs exceed the benchmark, the convergent validity is established for the constructs.

Table 2:	Main Statistics

Discriminant Validity
Discriminant validity indicates the capability of a scale to differentiate diverse groups. As shown in Table 3, the Average Variance Extracted (diagonal values in bold) is larger than its correlation constant with other factors and it is showing good discriminant validity. First, PLS was used to create the latent variable scores for all six variables and identical scores for each measurement item. The principle is that a latent variable should share more variance with its measures than it shares with other latent variables in the model and the square root of AVE of each latent variable should be greater than the correlation of two latent variables. The results show that there was no relationship between any two latent variables greater than or even equal to the square root AVEs of the two latent variables. Hence, discriminant validity test does not reveal any serious issue and this shows that all the latent variables are dissimilar from each other.

Table 3:	Discriminant Validity

Path coefficients (β) are the numerical estimates of the casual relationship between two variables. As listed in Table 5, Job Satisfaction (JS) has significant negative influence on Intentionto Leave (IL) and on Psychological Stress (PS) with (β = -0.208, p - value = 0.000) and (β - 0.145, p-value = 0.020)respectively; whereas, JS has a positive significant influence on OCB (β=0. 198, p - value = 0.006) and Performance (TP) (β=0. 220, p-value = 0.000). However, Percieved Organization Support (POS) has a significant positive influence on Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB), Psychological Stress (PS) and Task Performance (TP) with (β = 0.109, p - value = 0.176), (β = 0.050, p-value = 0.405) and (β = 0.347, p-value = 0.000) respectively, whereas, POS has a negative significant influence on Intention to Leave (IL) with (β = -0.329, p - value =0.000). Moreover, Workplace Bullying (WPB) has a positive significant influence on Intention to leave (IL) and Psychological Stress (PS) with (β = 0.138, p - value = 0.006) and (β = 0.320, p - value = 0.000) respectively;whereas, WPB has a negative significant influence on Job Satisfacton (JS), Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB), Perceived Organization Support (POS) and Task Performance (TP) with (β = - 0.021, p - value = 0.798), (β = -0.056, p - value = 0.540), (β = -0.054, p - value = 0.340) and (β = -0.114, p-value = 0.033) respectively.

Table 4:	Path coefficients and significances

Multi Collinearity (VIF)
If within a set of variables, one or more linear relation exists then the variables are multi-collinear. From the below Table 5, all the values are lesser than p<10 therefore multi-collinearity does not exist.

Table 5:	Collinearity Statistics (VIF)
All values have p-value <0.10

As shown in Table 6, the direct effect of WPB with IL (0.138) is proved to be significant and supported whereas the indirect effect of WPB with IL (0.022) and JS & POS as mediators are not supported. Moreover, the direct effect of WPB with OCB (-0.056) is proved to be insignificant and not supported similarly, the indirect effect of WPB with OCB (-0.013) and JS & POS as mediators are also not supported. The direct effect of WPB with PS (0.320) is proved to be significant and supported whereas the indirect effect of WPB with PS (0.004) and JS & POS as mediators are not supported. Lastly, the direct effect of WPB with TP (-0.114) is supported whereas the indirect effect of WPB with TP (-0.023) and JS & POS as mediators are not supported. Both the mediators JS and POS have no effect on the relationship between the variables. Hence, the hypotheses proposed for the mediators are rejected.

Table 6:	Direct and indirect effect POS and JS are two mediators Source: Authors’

Fig. 2: Standard Coefficient and significance level

DISCUSSION

The overall results of regression analysis reveal that job satisfaction has significant negative influence on intention to leave and on stress whereas positive significant influence on OCB and task performance (Ikanyon & Ucho, 2013) which shows that increase in job satisfaction will bring better organizational citizenship behavior and task performance whereas, decrease in job satisfaction will cause higher intention to leave and more stress. The statistical results reveal that intention to leave is the most crucial effect of workplace bullying. However, percieved organization support has a significant positive influence on organizational citizenship behavior, stress and task performance similar to the past studies of Qureshi et al (2013), whereas negative significant influence on intention to leave. This result shows that increase in organizational support will bring better performance and behavior expectations from employees whereas, decrease in organizational support will cause higher intention to leave and more stress.

Moreover, the findings showed up that increase in workplace bullying will cause higher intention to leave and more stress whereas, decrease in workplace bullying will bring maximum job satisfaction, citizenship behavior, organizational support and better task performance. In total, H1a, H2a, H3a, and H4a are proven while the mediators job satisfaction has the insignificant relationship with workplace bullying and effects the relationship of workplace bullying with other variable i.e. stress, intention to leave, organization citizenship behavior and task performance. Workplace bullying can affect the way of performing in the organization with reducing the task performance and also affecting the health of employees.

CONCLUSION

The data was collected by random sampling from the private banking sector employees through questionnaire. The data was run on the software Smart PLS to check the effect of variables. The study was conducted to check the impact of Workplace Bullying on the Intention to Leave (IL), Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB), Psychological Stress (PS) and Task Performance (TP) with the mediator Job satisfaction (JS) and Perceived Organizational Support (POS).

However, the significant relationship of Workplace bullying and stress can make up the situation alarming to the managers because if the health of the employee will be worse than he will be unable to perform the task adequately. Workplace bullying also effect the environment unbearable by the employees which can also increase up the Stress level and decrease the OCB and task performance. Therefore, the manager should keenly look into the environment and help employees get out of the stressful situations.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Firstly, the managers should make the environment free from aggressive bullying. It could be done through making up the anti- bullying policies by HR department and it could be make sure by the HR managers that all the policies are implemented in the organization. The strict policies and regular check and balance can maintain up the environment. Secondly, to control the stress there should be proper training and counseling of the employees. The satisfactory environment can make the workers contented and they can perform better and can concentrate on their work performance. Moreover, they can focus on promoting the positive work environment and harmony among the employees through team work and cooperative behavior. The managers should provide a framework to staff for treating each other and customers. Policies to report bullying should be incorporated in the standard health and safety mechanism to benefit the workplace run efficiently. It should be permitted by top level management to signal their guarantee in preventing bullying. Lastly, the educational health program can also help the individuals to increase their knowledge related to this topic. The HR department should be active in taking actions against the bullying complaints that can increase the positive behavior among the employees.

There are certain ways in which we can focus on future research and the variables can be included in further research related to workplace bullying. Furthermore, the training and HR policies can be added in the model in order to find the extent to control the bullying and checking the difference through the research.

REFERENCES

1. Akar, N. (2013). The Relationships among Perceived Job Stressors, Workplace Bullying and Job Stress in the Health Care Services in Turkey: A Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) Approach. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 3(14), 248-257.
2. Antony, M. M., Bieling, P. J., Cox, B. J., Enns, M. W., & Swinson, R. P. (1998). Psychometric properties of the 42-item and 21-item versions of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales in clinical groups and a community sample. Psychological Assessment, 10(2), 176-181.
3. Aquino, K., & Bommer, W. H. (2003). Preferential mistreatment: How victim status moderates the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and workplace victimization. Organization Science, 14(4), 374-385.
4. Baron, R. A., & Neuman, J. H. (1996). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence on their relative frequency and potential causes. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 161-173.
5. Berthelsen, M., Skogstad, A., Lau, B., & Einarsen, S. (2011). Do they stay or do they go? A longitudinal study of intentions to leave and exclusion from working life among targets of workplace bullying. International Journal of Manpower, 32(2), 178-193.
6. Brown, T. A., Chorpita, B. F., Korotitsch, W., & Barlow, D. H. (1997). Psychometric properties of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) in clinical samples. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 35(1), 79-89.
7. Cunningham, N. K., Brown, P. M., Brooks J., & Page, A. C. (2013). The structure of emotional symptoms in the postpartum period: Is it unique? Journal of Affective Disorders, 151, 686-694.
8. Devonish, D. (2013). Workplace bullying, employee performance and behaviors. Employee Relations, 35(6), 630-647.
9. Djurkovic, N., McCormack, D., & Casimir, G. (2004). The physical and psychological effects of workplace bullying and their relationship to intention to leave: A test of the psychosomatic and disability hypotheses. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 7(4), 469-497.
10. Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Notelaers, G. (2009). Measuring bullying and harassment at work: Validity, factor structure, and psychometric properties of the Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised. Work Stress, 18, 81-101.
11. Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Perceived organizational support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(1), 51-59.
12. Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S., & Lynch, P. (1997). Perceived organizational support, discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 812-820.
13. Finne, L. B., Knardahl, S., & Lau, B. (2011). Workplace bullying and mental distress-prospective study of Norwegian employees. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 37(4), 276-287.
14. Fisher-Blando, J. L. (2008). Workplace bullying: aggressive behavior and its effect on job satisfaction and productivity. Diss. University of Phoenix.
15. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 382-388.
16. Gong, Y., & Chang, S. (2008). Institutional antecedents and performance consequences of employment security and career advancement practices: Evidence from the People's Republic of China. Human Resource Management, 47(1), 33-48.
17. Griffiths, J., & Sheehan, M. (2016). Understanding the context of workplace health management as it relates to workplace bullying. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 4(1), 5-12.
18. Hauge, L. J., Skogstad, A., & Einarsen, S. (2010). The relative impact of workplace bullying as a social stressor at work. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 51(5), 426-433.
19. Henry, J. D., Crawford, J. R. (2005). The shortform version of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS21): Construct validity and normative data in a large nonclinical sample. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44(2), 227-239.
20. Hornstein, H. A. (1996). Brutal bosses and their prey. New York: Riverhead Books.
21. Ikanyon, D. N., & Ucho, A. (2013). Workplace bullying, job satisfaction and Job performance among employees in a federal hospital in Nigeria. European Journal of Business and Management, 5(23), 116-123.
22. Jawahar, I. M., Stone, T. H., & Kisamore, J. L. (2007). Role conflict and burnout: The direct and moderating effects of political skill and perceived organizational support on burnout dimensions. International Journal of Stress Management, 14(2), 142-159.
23. Jenkins, J. M. (1993). Self-monitoring and turnover: the impact of personality on intent to leave. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 83-91.
24. Karsek Jr, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(2), 285-308.
25. Keashly, L. (1998). Emotional abuse in the workplace: Conceptual and empirical issues. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 1(1), 85-117.
26. Keashly, L., Trott, V., & MacLean, L. M. (1994). Abusive behavior in the workplace: A preliminary investigation. Violence and Victims, 9(4), 341-357.
27. Ketchand, A. A., & Strawser, J. R. (1998). The existence of multiple measures of organizational commitment and experience-related differences in a public accounting setting. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 10, 109-137.
28. Krausz, M., Koslowsky, M., Shalom, N., & Elyakim, N. (1995). Predictors of intentions to leave the ward, the hospital, and the nursing profession: A longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16(3), 277-288.
29. Mathisen, G. E., Einarsen, S., & Mykletun, R. (2011). The relationship between supervisor personality, supervisors’ perceived stress and workplace bullying. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(4), 637-651.
30. McMahon, L. (2000). Bullying and harassment in the workplace. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 12(6), 384-387.
31. Mourssi-Alfash, M. F. (2014). Workplace bullying and its influence on the perception of organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior among faculty and staff in the public higher education in minnesota system (Doctoral dissertation, Capella University).
32. Nunnally, J. C. (1976). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill: New York. Pasewark, W. R., & Viator, R. E. (2006). Sources of work-family conflict in the accounting profession. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 18(1), 147-165.
33. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513-563.
34. Qureshi, M. I., Bashir, S., Saleem, A., Javed, A., Saadat, U. R., & Safdar, M. Z. (2013). Analysis of various determinants which affect on job performance: (a case study on private and public universities employees of DJ khan). Gomal University Journal of Research, 29(1), 62-70.
35. Raziq, A., & Wiesner, R. (2016). High Performance Management Practices and Sustainability of SMEs. Evidence from Manufacturing and Services- based Industries in Pakistan. Journal of Management Sciences, 3(2), 83-107.
36. Robbins, S. P., Judge, T. A., & Sanghai, S. (2009). Organizational Behavior. India: Chennai Microprint.
37. Rusbult, C., & Farrell, D. (1983). A Longitudinal test of the investment model: The impact on job satisfaction, job commitment, and turnover of variations in rewards, costs, alternatives, and investments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(3), 429-438.
38. Sims, R. L., & Sun, P. (2012). Witnessing workplace bullying and the Chinese manufacturing employee. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27(1), 9-26.
39. Townend, A. (2016). Understanding and addressing bullying in the workplace. Industrial and Commercial Training, 40(5), 270-273.
40. Van Rooyen, J., & McCormack, D. (2013). Employee perceptions of workplace bullying and their implications. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 6(2), 92-103.
41. Verdasca, T, A. (2015). Organizational Changes, Workplace Bullying and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour. International Journal on Working Conditions, 9, 83-98.
42. Viator, R. E. (2001). The association of formal and informal public accounting mentoring with role stress and related job outcomes. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26(1), 73-93.
43. Waldeck, N. E. (2014). Advanced manufacturing technologies and workforce development. Routledge: United Kingdom.
44. Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. L. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3), 601-617.
45. Yahaya, A., Ing, T. C., Lee, G. M., Yahaya, N., Boon, Y., Hashim, S., & Jesus, S. K. C. I. (2012). The impact of workplace bullying on work performance. Archives Des Sciences, 65(4), 18-28.