relationship between workplace mistreatment and …
TRANSCRIPT
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WORKPLACE MISTREATMENT AND ON-
JOB BEHAVIOR (PSYCHOLOGICAL CAPITAL AS MODERATOR)
JAWWAD AHMAD
00-arid-33
University Institute of Management Sciences
Pir Mehr Ali Shah
Arid Agriculture University, Rawalpindi
Pakistan
2019
PIR M
EH
R A
LI S
HAH ARID AGRICULTU
RE U
NIV
ER
SITY
1994
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WORKPLACE MISTREATMENT AND ON-
JOB BEHAVIOR (PSYCHOLOGICAL CAPITAL AS MODERATOR)
by
JAWWAD AHMAD
(00-arid-33)
A thesis submitted in the partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
in
Management Sciences
University Institute of Management Sciences
Pir Mehr Ali Shah
Arid Agriculture University, Rawalpindi
Pakistan
2019
iv
DEDICATED
TO
MY LOVING PARENTS
v
CONTENTS
Page
List of Tables x
List of Figures xii
List of Appendices xiv
List of Acronyms xv
Acknowledgement xvi
ABSTRACT xvii
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION 15
1.2 RATIONALE OF STUDY 16
1.3 SIGNIFICANCE OF RESEARCH 18
1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS 19
1.5 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES 20
2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 21
2.1 WORKPLACE MISTREATMENT
22
2.2 WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 24
2.2.1 Antecedents of Workplace Incivility 26
2.2.2 Consequence of Workplace Incivility 26
2.3 ABUSIVE SUPERVISION 27
2.3.1 Antecedents of Abusive Supervision 28
2.3.2 Consequences of Abusive Supervision 30
2.4 WORKPLACE MOBBING 34
2.4.1 Antecedents of Workplace Mobbing 36
2.4.2 Consequences of Workplace Mobbing 38
2.5 ON-JOB BEHAVIOR-JOB PERFORMANCE 40
2.5.1 Antecedents of Performance 41
2.6 ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR 44
2.7 COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOR 46
vi
2.8 PSYCHOLOGICAL CAPITAL 49
2.8.1 Self Efficacy 52
2.8.2 Hope 53
2.8.3 Optimism 54
2.8.4 Resilience 54
2.9 THEORETICAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE
VARIABLES
55
2.9.1 Workplace Incivility with Job Performance, OCB and
CWB
59
2.9.2 Abusive Supervision with Job Performance, OCB and
CWB
60
2.9.3 Workplace Mobbing with Job Performance, OCB and
CWB
61
2.9.4 Psychological Capital as Moderator 63
3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 69
3.1 RESEARCH PHILOSOPHY 69
3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN 74
3.3 POPULATION OF STUDY 77
3.4 SAMPLE OF STUDY 78
3.5 DESCRIPTION OF INSTRUMENT 81
3.5.1 Workplace Incivility 81
3.5.2 Abusive Supervision 81
3.5.3 Workplace Mobbing 82
3.5.4 Organization Citizenship Behavior 82
3.5.5 Counterproductive Work Behavior 82
3.5.6 Job Performance 82
3.5.7 Psychological Capital 83
3.6 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 83
4 RESULTS 85
4.1 DEMOGRAPHIC DATA 86
4.2 Q-Q PLOT FOR VARIABLES 89
4.3 MEANS, SKEWNESS AND KURTOSIS 100
4.4 EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS 109
4.5 RELIABILITY OF VARIABLES 109
vii
4.5.1 Workplace Incivility 109
4.5.2 Abusive Supervision 110
4.5.3 Workplace Mobbing 110
4.5.4 Psychological Capital 110
4.5.5 Organizational Citizenship Behavior 111
4.5.6 Counter Productive Work Behavior 111
4.5.7 Job Performance 111
4.6 CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS 111
4.7 COMMON METHOD BIAS 117
4.8 CORRELATION 117
4.9 TESTING OF HYPOTHESES 120
5 DISCUSSION 147
5.1 EFFECT OF WORKPLACE MISTREATMENT ON JOB
BEHAVIOR 148
5.1.1 Relationship between Workplace Incivility and On-Job
Behavior 148
5.1.2 Relationship between Abusive Supervision and On-Job
Behavior 150
5.1.3 Relationship between Workplace Mobbing and On-Job
Behavior 151
5.2 PSYCHOLOGICAL CAPITAL AS MODERATOR 153
5.3 LIMITATIONS 165
5.4 FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTION 166
5.5 IMPLICATIONS 169
5.5.1 Managerial Implications 169
5.5.2 Implications for Universities 171
5.5.3 Theoretical Implications 175
5.6 CONCLUSION 176
SUMMARY 179
LITERATURE CITED
APPENDICES
181
226
viii
List of Tables
Table No. Page
3.1 Ontology of Different Research Philosophies 71
3.2 Differences between Qualitative and Quantitative Research 71
3.3 Summary of Research Philosophy and Design 76
3.4 Number of Faculty Members In Pakistan 76
4.1 Frequency Table: Gender 87
4.2 Frequency Table: Age Group 87
4.3 Frequency Table: Organization Type 88
4.4 Frequency Table: Experience 89
4.5 Q-Q plot values-Workplace incivility 90
4.6 Q-Q plot values-Abusive Supervision 91
4.7 Q-Q plot values-Workplace Mobbing 92
4.8 Q-Q plot values-Psychological Capital 94
4.9 Q-Q plot values-OCBO and OCBI 96
4.10 Q-Q plot values-CWBO and CWBI 98
4.11 Q-Q plot values-Job Performance 99
4.12 Descriptive Statistics-Item wise 101
4.13 Means, Skewness, Kurtosis 105
4.14 Extraction Values 107
4.15 Reliability Values of Variables 112
4.16 Correlation Matrix 119
4.17 Workplace Incivility and OCBO- PsyCap as Moderator 122
4.18 Workplace Incivility and OCBI- PsyCap as Moderator 122
4.19
Workplace Incivility and Job Performance - PsyCap as
Moderator
124
4.20 Workplace Incivility and CWBO- PsyCap as Moderator 124
4.21 Workplace Incivility and CWBI- PsyCap as Moderator 126
4.22 Abusive Supervision and OCBO-PsyCap as Moderator 126
4.23 Abusive Supervision and OCBI-PsyCap as Moderator 128
4.24 Abusive Supervision and Job Performance- PsyCap as 128
ix
Moderator
4.25 Abusive Supervision and CWBO-PsyCap as Moderator 130
4.26 Abusive Supervision and CWBI-PsyCap as Moderator 130
4.27 Workplace Mobbing and OCBO-PsyCap as Moderator 132
4.28 Workplace Mobbing and OCBI-PsyCap as Moderator 132
4.29 Workplace Mobbing and Job Performance - PsyCap as
Moderator
135
4.30 Workplace Mobbing and CWBO-PsyCap as Moderator 135
4.31 Workplace Mobbing and CWBI-PsyCap as Moderator 136
4.32 Results Summary 144
x
List of Figures
Fig. No. Page
1.1 Number of faculty in Pakistan 11
1.2 Number of students enrolled in universities – Pakistan 11
2.1 Research model 62
4.1 Frequency distribution: gender 87
4.2 Frequency distribution: age group 88
4.3 Frequency distribution: organization type 88
4.4 Frequency distribution: experience 89
4.5 Q-Q plot-workplace incivility 89
4.6 Q-Q plot-abusive supervision 90
4.7 Q-Q plot-workplace mobbing 92
4.8 Q-Q plot-psychological capital 93
4.9 Q-Q plot-organizational citizenship behavior-I 95
4.10 Q-Q plot-organizational citizenship behavior-O 95
4.11 Q-Q plot-CWBO 97
4.12 Q-Q plot-CWBI 97
4.13 Q-Q plot-job performance 98
4.14 CFA-complete model 114
4.15 CFA-on-job behaviors 115
4.16 CFA-psychological capital 116
4.17 CFA-workplace mistreatment 116
4.18 Common method bias 118
4.19 Workplace incivility, OCBO, PsyCap - two way
interaction
136
4.20 Workplace incivility, OCBI, PsyCap - two way
interaction
137
4.21 Workplace incivility, job performance, PsyCap - two way
interaction
137
4.22 Workplace incivility, CWBO, PsyCap - two way
interaction
138
xi
4.23 Workplace incivility, CWBI, PsyCap - two way
interaction
138
4.24 Abusive supervision, OCBO, PsyCap - two way
interaction
139
4.25 Abusive supervision, OCBI, PsyCap - two way interaction 139
4.26 Abusive supervision, job performance , PsyCap - two way
interaction
140
4.27 Abusive supervision, CWBO, PsyCap - two way
interaction
140
4.28 Abusive supervision, CWBI, PsyCap - two way
interaction
141
4.29 Workplace mobbing, OCBO, PsyCap - two way
interaction
141
4.30 Workplace mobbing, OCBI, PsyCap - two way
interaction
142
4.31 Workplace mobbing, job performance, PsyCap - two way
interaction
142
4.32 Workplace mobbing, CWBO, PsyCap - two way
interaction
143
4.33 Workplace mobbing, CWBI, PsyCap - two way
interaction
143
xii
List of Appendices
Appendix No. Page
I Questionnaire for Data Collection 226
II List of modules covered HEC Master’s Trainers –
Faculty Professional Development Program
234
III Workplace mistreatment in Pakistani Universities 235
IV Results-Individuals Facets of Psychological Capital i.e.,
Hope, Optimism, Resilience, Self-Efficacy as moderator
on relationship between workplace mistreatment and
on-job behaviors
247
xiii
LIST OF ACRONYMES
CWB Counterproductive Work Behavior
CWBI Counterproductive Work Behavior towards
Individuals
CWBO Counterproductive Work Behavior towards
Organization
HEC Higher Education Commission
ILO International Labour Organization
OCB Organization Citizenship Behavior
OCBI Organization Citizenship Behavior towards
Individuals
OCBO Organization Citizenship Behavior towards
Organization
PsyCap Psychological Capital
Freq Frequency
Cum% Cumulative Percentage
SMID Scale Mean if Item Deleted
SVID Scale Variance if Item Deleted
CI-TC Corrected Item – Total Correlation
Cron α ID Cronbach’s Alpha if Item Deleted
xiv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Beyond expression of my sincerest gratitude to the Almighty ALLAH and
his beloved Prophet Hazrat Muhammad (peace be upon him), I wish to give earnest
credit to those who shared their time, ideas, encouragement, prayers and moral
support that contributed, significantly and in various ways, to the successful
completion of my PhD studies.
I would like to begin by thanking my supervisor, Dr. Muhammad
Razzaq Athar, Associate Professor. I am extremely grateful for his scholastic and
sympathetic attitude as well as academic and moral support throughout my PhD
research. I am highly indebted for his cooperation and encouragement. I would like
to extend this gratitude to my teachers and mentors, Dr. Rauf I Azam and Dr. Rabia
Imran for their continued support to me. I am also grateful to Dr. Hassan Rasool
and Dr. Muhammad Abbass for their valuable scholastic input.
I would like to acknowledge the direct contribution made to this thesis by
Dr. Mohsin Zahid, Dr. Hafiz Muhammad Ishaq, Mazhar Hussain and Irfan Ullah
Munir and administrative staff of PMAS-UAAR. I am also thankful to the
Management of COMSATS University for their support throughout my study
period.
My parents deserve special mention for their inseparable support and
prayers. I pay my cordial thanks to my parents, wife, siblings, children and my
colleagues including without their help and support throughout my study period
Finally, I would like to thank everybody who was important to the
successful realization of this thesis.
(Jawwad Ahmad)
xv
ABSTRACT
Workplace mistreatment is a workplace stressor which has adverse effect
on work outcomes. Due to its inimical consequences, an ample of research has
been conducted during last few years to cope mistreatment at workplace. This
study investigates the moderating role of psychological capital on the relationship
between workplace mistreatment (workplace incivility, abusive supervision,
workplace mobbing) and on-job behaviors (job performance, organizational
citizenship behavior towards organization, organizational citizenship behavior
towards individuals and counterproductive work behavior towards organization,
counterproductive behavior towards individuals). Multisource data was collected
through questionnaires from faculty members serving in universities in Pakistan.
The data for independent variables i.e. workplace mistreatment and moderating
variable i.e. psychological capital was collected from 408 faculty members in first
step, the data for on-job behaviors (job performance, organizational citizenship
behavior towards organization, organization citizenship behavior towards
individuals) was collected from their supervisors and data for (counterproductive
work behavior towards organization, counterproductive behavior towards
individuals) was collected from their peers. The results of the study revealed that
workplace mistreatment (workplace incivility, abusive supervision, workplace
mobbing) has significant relationship with and job performance, organizational
citizenship behavior towards organization, organizational citizenship behavior
towards individuals. The results also revealed that psychological capital moderates
the relationship between workplace mistreatment (workplace incivility, abusive
supervision, workplace mobbing) and job performance, organizational citizenship
xvi
behavior towards organization, organizational citizenship behavior towards
individuals. However, in case of counterproductive work behavior towards
organization, counterproductive behavior towards individuals, diverse results are
revealed. Guidelines and recommendations are provided to Higher Education
Commission, Pakistan and university management to tackle workplace
mistreatment in the universities in Pakistan. Future research directions are
discussed.
Keywords: Workplace Mistreatment, Workplace Incivility, Workplace
Mobbing, Abusive Supervision, Psychological Capital, Organizational Citizenship
Behavior towards Organization, Organization Citizenship Behavior towards
Individuals, Counterproductive Work Behavior towards Organization,
Counterproductive Behavior towards Individuals.
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
The main concern of the organization and management throughout from the
industrial era to the knowledge era is on performance. For that reason, the study on
performance criteria has been a central theme in industrial/organizational
psychology. Katz and Kahn (1966) in their study categorized individual
performance behavior as ―in-role‖ and ―extra-role‖. The in-role performance
behaviors are classified as specific roles, responsibilities, tasks and duties
apportioned by the organization to achieve organizational goals and objectives such
as job performance, while extra-role behaviors are not prescribed by formal job
descriptions such as Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) (Borman and
Motowidlo, 1993; Campbell et al., 1993; Katz and Kahn, 1966). Research has
classified these behaviors as positive and negative work behaviors. Positive
behaviors ―such as volunteering for extra work, courtesy and timeliness‖
(Cropanzano et al., 1997) like Job Performance and Organizational Citizenship
Behavior (OCB). Negative or bad behaviors refer to ―any form of intentional (as
opposed to accidental) behavior that is potentially injurious to the organization
and/or to individuals within the organization such as organizations deviance,
aggression, antisocial behavior, and violence‖ (Griffin and Lopez, 2005) and
counterproductive work behavior.
Organizations look for seeking extra role behaviors which are discretionary
from their employees in addition to in-role behavior i.e. job roles and descriptions
(Bolino and Turnley, 2005). Due to this, the presence of discretionary behaviors
such as organizational citizenship behaviour in a worker/employee is greatly
1
2
appreciated by organizations (Bolino and Turnley, 2005). On contrary, the
presence of discretionary deviant behavior comprises when a worker/employee
tends in contradiction of organizational interest. Presence of this type of deviant
behaviors can be harmful for the organization and people working there. Due to
this, presence of counterproductive behaviors (CWB) in a worker/ employee is not
recognized by the organization.
OCB may trigger an extra step towards enhanced effectiveness of
organization, and these types of discretionary behaviors entails substantial
individual resources in the shape of time, energy and effort. To exhibit OCB
(attending office before time and leaving office after office time for completion of
tasks) the employees devote extra time, energy and effort which is beyond the
normal call of duty and not official needed (Bolino and Turnley, 2005). CWB on
contrary, are the actions which can damage or intended to damage the functioning
of organization and individuals there (Spector and Fox, 2005). To exhibit CWB
(willfully coming late to office or deliberately working sluggishly) the employees
utilize their effort to insurgent against the interest of organization. The CWB
therefore can results in reduction of organization performance and effectiveness
(Balducci et al., 2011).
Furthermore, Katz and Kahn (1966) were in opinion that the organizational
performance and well-functioning is dependent on employees extra role behaviors
in addition to employees in role behaviors and so employers must reinforce the
employees to do an extra mileage as of what is descripted. The importance of
discretionary behaviors has increased from past few years for several reasons. First,
the unequivocal, peculiar physical work jobs which were required in the 20th
3
century and accentuated on task performance beyond any other role are declining
swiftly. As there is a switch between industrial economies to knowledge based
economy which has resulted in extensively defined, tenuous job descriptions along
with huge requirement from workers to display self-initiative in completion of job
(Kim and Mauborgne, 2003). Due to lack of clarity in the job descriptions (in-role
behaviors), display of discretionary behaviors (extra-role behaviors) have emerged
critical to this knowledge based economy.
Likewise, the organizations have identified teamwork as more effectual
approach to accomplish organizational goals (McClurg, 2001). Involvement of
teamwork resulted in more and frequent dealings within employees and more
openings to exhibit OCB and CWB. Moreover, emergent studies related to
industrial and organizational psychology identified the worth of interpersonal
relations as an antecedent of quality of work life and also good for healthy
organization environment (Koys, 2001). These relationship and likelihoods of
mistreatment are linked with extra role behaviors, therefore there is need to
cultivate desirable extra role behaviors (OCB) among employees by decreasing
undesirable extra role behaviors (CWB). Finally, the augmented research interest
into extra role behaviors (OCB & CWB) is important due to emergence and
application of technology in today‘s work life.
On the other hand the prime concern for organizations is the understanding
of variables that can affect job performance. One key area of research has focused
on examining the relationship between individual differences and performance.
Barrick and Mount (1991) conducted a meta-analysis that examined the big five
personality traits and job performance. They found that personality differentially
4
predicted performance for different jobs. Results from Judge and Bono (2001)
revealed that core self-evaluators (―self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of
control, and emotional stability‖) were strong predictors of job performance.
Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) the other important criterion of
performance which has been examined in relation to individual differences. Results
from meta-analyses reveal that personal attributes trait,anger, negative affectivity,
and different types of gender are major pertinent prognosticator of CWB
(Hershcovis et al., 2007; Judge and Bono, 2001). Organization citizenship behavior
(OCB) is a third criterion of performance that has been examined in relation to
individual differences. Studies have derived that conscientiousness is also powerful
prognosticator of OCB than task performance (Borman et al., 2001; Organ and
Ryan, 1995).
Alternatively, another area of research has investigated the impact of
workplace stressors on performance. With regard to the connection amongst
occupational stressors-performance, former meta-analytic investigations have
primarily emphasized negative association of role stressors with in-role
performance (Gilboa et al., 2008). Recently, research has begun to investigate the
effects of role stressors on extra role behaviors such as OCB (Eatough et al., 2011).
Moreover, Williams and Anderson (1991) proposed the bi-dimensional
constructs of OCB, i.e. exhibit of desirable discretionary behavior (OCB) towards
individuals (OCBI) or exhibit of desirable discretionary behavior towards
organization (OCBO). The bi-dimensional constructs OCBI and OCBO were based
on Organ‘s five dimension taxonomy. OCBI includes courtesy and altruism
dimension and OCBO includes civic virtue, conscientiousness, and sportsmanship.
5
The bi-dimensional construct of OCB i.e. OCBI and OCBO is pertinent in present
research because occupational stressors such as workplace mistreatment
(workplace incivility, abusive supervision, workplace mobbing) might
individuately interconnected with bi-extents of desirable discretionary behavior i.e.
OCB.
On the other hand the most recent typology of CWB was proposed by
(Spector et al., 2006) which argued that the CWB items were differentially related
to different antecedents. Therefore, the behaviors comprising CWB are too diverse
to fall under a single construct. Thus, Spector et al. constructed a scale that also
distinguished between two dimensions of CWB: CWBO and CWBI. The bi-
dimensional construct of CWB i.e. CWBI and CWBO is pertinent in present
research because workplace stressors such as workplace mistreatment (workplace
incivility, abusive supervision, workplace mobbing) may have different
relationship with the two dimensions of CWB (CWBI and CWBO).
The concept of ―Positive organizational behavior (POB)‖ was evolved and
applied to workplace by instigating positive psychology (Luthans, 2002; Luthans
and Youssef, 2007; Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi, 2000a). It is defined as ―the
study and application of positively oriented human resource strengths and
psychological capacities that can be measured, developed, and effectively managed
for performance improvement‖ (Luthans, 2002). Using positive organizational
behavior theoretical foundation, the concept of Psychological Capital was
developed by (Luthans and Youssef, 2007; Luthans et al., 2007) which includes
(―Hope, Resilience, Optimism and Self Efficacy‖). Psychological capital has state-
like developmental potential and can be measured, developed and harnessed for
6
performance improvement (Luthans and Youssef, 2004). It results in alignment of
avocation of positivity, thriving, and self-attainment at workplace (Avey et al.,
2010).
Furthermore, personage with immense magnitude of PsyCap endowed with
imprudent credence in their capability to regulate consequences and outcomes,
form positive anticipations to deal challenging situations that motivates them in
pursuit of goal achievement, greater goal directed energy to develop alternative
pathways and have a tendency to acclimate and shape up unfavorable annulling
situations and changes in dynamic environment (Luthans et al., 2006). Due to this
positive effect, PsyCap has been found positively related to desired work attitudes
and behaviors like organization commitment (Larson and Luthans, 2006), job
satisfaction (Luthans et al., 2007), OCBs (Avey et al., 2010), job retention
intention and job performance (Sun et al., 2012). A lot of investigation carried out
recently emphaising connection between psychological capital with undesirable
work attitudes and behaviors like turnover intention, and CWB (Avey et al., 2010),
absenteeism (Avey et al., 2006) and job stress (Avey et al., 2009).
Workplace has been ascertained to be the key concernment as its
repercussion related to physiological, psychological, socioeconomic prospects of
employees. The exposure, understanding at workplace and specifically the
treatment they received there from their supervisors and colleagues is an important
integral of the work setting. The experience at workplace probably influences
physical, psychological health and well-being. The employees at workplace have
to interact with colleagues, supervisors and customers while interacting they can be
exhibited the treatment which is unsolicited, undesirable, deplorable and injurious
7
to health.
Workplace mistreatment represents an ―interpersonal situation under which
at least one member initiates counter normative negative actions or stops normative
positive actions toward another member in the same workplace‖ (Cortina and
Magley, 2003). Workplace Mistreatment has negative relationship between
positive on-behaviors i.e. Job Performance and OCB (Estes and Wang, 2008).
Workplace mistreatment has positive relationship with undesired behaviors i.e.
counter productive work behavior (Furnham and Taylor, 2011). Higher level of
workplace mistreatment resulted in lower level of positive behaviors and higher
level of negative behaviors.
Consequently, more and more business organizations have begun to offer
programs to educate workers about the dangers and consequences of mistreatment,
how to avoid being a victim of mistreatment, and how to recognize and stop others
from mistreatment (Yamada, 2004). Creating awareness about characteristics
associated with mistreatment may help researchers design preemptive interventions
that can be used to prevent these harmful behaviors in the workplace. Research has
identified different types of workplace mistreatment. This study will use three
forms of workplace mistreatment i.e. workplace incivility, abusive supervision and
workplace mobbing.
Workplace incivility is ―Low-intensity deviant behavior with ambiguous
intent to harm the target, in violation of workplace norms for mutual respect
(Andersson and Pearson, 1999). Uncivil behaviors are characteristically rude,
discourteous, displaying a lack of respect for others.‖ Research has shown that
workplace incivility has positive relationship with burnout, mental health, and
8
turnover intentions (Fida et al., 2016). Workplace incivility has negative
relationship with job attitudes i.e. job satisfaction (Cingöz and Kaplan, 2015),
organizational commitment (Kabat-Farr et al., 2016). Workplace incivility resulted
in enhancement of service employee‘s emotional exhaustion which resulted in low
level of intrinsic motivation at work and ultimately drops creativity (Hur et al.,
2016). Though Incivility at work has low intensity and unintentional attempt, but
previous research revealed that repetitive display of incivility may resulted in more
extreme conflicts and violence at workplace (Felblinger, 2008).
On contrary, mobbing involves individual, group, and organizational
dynamics and it is the intended attempt by a group to an employee for the sake of
eradicating the individual from any particular department or to the extent of
organization. Experiencing workplace mobbing at workplace resulted in lower job
satisfaction (Valentine et al., 2015) lower organizational commitment (Gülle and
Soyer, 2016). Mobbing is the severe form of mistreatment and its consequences
are more protracted (Sperry, 2009).
On the other hand, abusive supervision is a kind of mistreatment which is
perpetrated by supervisor (Keashly and Harvey, 2005). Abusive supervision refers to
―subordinates‘ perceptions of the extent to which supervisors engage in the sustained
display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors‖ (Tepper, 2000). It has negative
relationship with leader as well as organizational ethicality, job satisfaction and
organizational commitment (Ogunfowora, 2013). Abusive supervision is an intended
form of mistreatment sprouted to detriment the subordinate (Mitchell and Ambrose,
2007).
Higher education has immense significance in the advancement and
9
development of a country. For over a decade, developing countries have been
working to strengthen their educational system and the standard by providing
quality higher education to their future generation (Hina and Ajmal, 2017). Due to
the realization of the importance of Higher Education in the economic and social
development of countries, a significant shift of focus towards Higher Education has
been witnessed in the recent past (Khan, 2010).
Since the inception of Higher Education Commission (HEC), Pakistan in
2002, there has been a tremendous growth in higher education sector in Pakistan.
This resulted in increase in number of universities in Pakistan. Currently, 183
universities are operating in Pakistan including public and private sector
universities and degree awarding institutions.
Fig-1 shows the number of faculty currently serving in universities in
Pakistan including Ph.D faculty members. There is increase of 11 % in number of
faculty member from 2012-13 – 2013-14 and increase of 7% in faculty members
from 2013-14 – 2014-15 per year. Fig-2 shows the trend of enrolled students in
universities in Pakistan. There is significant increase of 15% in enrollment of
students between 2008-09 – 2009-10. In later years the growth is around 8%.
In higher educational context faculty is considered among the most
important stakeholders for the reforms to be successful. Campos, LaFerriere, and
LaPointe (2005) believe that ―without the participation of faculty, changes in
education are impossible‖. Due to this importance of faculty, universities see the
ideal faulty member who may display great performance achievements while
performing reposibilities in line with their job descriptions but further step forward
10
in discretionary behaviors over and above obligatory stated responsibilities (Bolino
and Turnley, 2005) for bringing changes in the education sector.
Due to the immense importance of faculty, a number of research has been
conducted on their work attitudes like job satisfaction (Ahmad et al., 2012; Malik
and Naeem, 2011) organizational commitment (Bushra et al., 2011; Jalees and
Ghauri, 2016; Munir and Sajid, 2010; Nawab and Bhatti, 2011; Rehman, 2012) job
involvement (Khan and Nemati, 2011; Shaheen and Farooqi, 2014) in Pakistan. A
number of researchers have studied the in-role behaviors of university faculty
members in Pakistan (Shahzad et al., 2008) in their research studied the
relationship between different HR practices on Job Performance of faculty. The
results of the study revealed that HR practices (compensation and, promotion) have
positive relationship with job performance. Chughtai and Zafar (2006) in their
research studied the impact of organizational commitment on turnover intention
and job performance of faculty members working in universities in Pakistan. The
results of study revealed that organizational commitment has positive relationship
with job performance while negative relationship with turnover intentions.
Ahmad et al. (2016) in their research studied the relationship between Big
Five Personality Traits on Job Performance mediated by organizational
commitment of faculty members in Pakistan. The results of the study revealed that
affective commitment mediates the relationship between (extraversion,
conscientiousness) and job performance. Moreover, the researchers have also
conducted a number of studies on extra role behaviors of university faculty
members in Pakistan. Chughtai (2008) in their research studied the relationship
between organizational commitment, job performance and OCB of faculty
11
Figure 1.1: Number of faculty in Pakistan
Figure 1.2: Number of students enrolled in universities - Pakistan
Source: ―Higher Education Commission, Government of Pakistan:
http://hec.gov.pk/english/universities/Pages/Full-time-Faculty.aspx‖
Source: ―Higher Education Commission, Government of Pakistan:
http://hec.gov.pk/english/universities/Pages/test-page.aspx‖
12
members. The results of the study revealed that work-involvement leads to job-
performance and OCB while organizational commitment partially mediates the
relationship between work-involvement and job-performance.
Shahzad et al. (2014) in their study analyzed the moderating role of
collectivism with organizational justice and OCB interrelationship of faculty
working in universities in Pakistan. The result of studies revealed that collectivism
moderates the relationship between organizational justice and OCB. Danish et al.
(2014) in their research examined the relationship between organizational learning
climate and justice on extra role behavior OCB. The results revealed that
organizational learning climate and justice has positive relationship with extra-role
behaviour OCB.
The significance of research efforts to address the problem by
understanding the insights and perceptions and occurrence of workplace
mistreatment in various circumstantial and professional environments settings is
very much revealed(Einarsen, 1999; Einarsen and Skogstad, 1996; Salin et al.,
2011). Hereof, an increasing quantity of research studies associates the prepotence
of mistreatment behavior amongst academicians e.g. (Giorgi, 2012; Keashly and
Neuman, 2010; Zabrodska and Kveton, 2013). Most of the research related to
mistreatment has been conducted in western work settings as compare to eastern
work settings (Nielsen et al., 2010; Zabrodska and Kveton, 2013; Zapf et al.,
2011). The International Labour Organization(ILO) (2006) has emphasized the key
significance of addressing mistreatment globally due to its adverse effect on
occupational and psychological health. Likewise, (Keashly and Neuman, 2010)
argues that ―academic settings are worthy and in need of concerted attention by
13
researchers in workplace aggression and mistreatment‖. Though, acuities and
insights of mistreatment amongst faculty and academicians have been analyzed and
studied in western work settings, there is lack of identical research studies in non-
western work settings such as south-Asian work settings (Keashly and Neuman,
2010; Zabrodska and Kveton, 2013).
Meanwhile, most of the research has explicitly conducted in non-western
work settings to discourse and handle this destructive social issue in global work
settings (Fox and Cowan, 2015; Giorgi, 2012; McCormack et al., 2009; Zapf et al.,
2011). Even though an ample of research has been conducted on workplace
mistreatment and its psychological and emotional consequences in western
perspectives, but research on workplace in academic settings is scarce (Ahmad et
al., 2017).
At the same time some researchers have also studied the deviance behavior
and workplace mistreatment of faculty members in universities in Pakistan.
Hussain et al.(2016) in their research studied the relationship between breach of
psychological contract, organizational deviance and task performance. The results
of the study revealed that breach of psychological capital results in lower
performance. On contrary, breach of psychological contract leads to deviant
behavior. Shahjehan and Yasir (2016) in their research revealed that organizational
silence and organizational identification moderates the relationship between
organizational voice on CWB.
Moreover, Bibi et al. (2013) in their research revealed that workplace
incivility has positive relationship with counter productive work behavior from the
data collected from faculty members of universities in Pakistan. High level of
14
Emotional intelligence diminishes the negative relationship incivility and CWB.
Manzoor et al. (2015) in their research studied relationship of psychological capital
on CWB and employee performance of faculty members working in universities in
Pakistan. The results revealed that psychological capital leads to faculty
performance and has negative relationship with CWB. Karim et al. (2015) in their
research studied the mediating role of workplace incivility between work attitudes
and deviant behavior of faculty members working in universities in Pakistan. The
results of the study revealed that workplace incivility mediates the relationship
between state like emotional-intelligence, job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, turnover intentions and counterproductive work behaviors.
Razzaghian and Ghani, (2014) in their research studied the positive relationship
between workplace mistreatment and turnover intention of faculty members
working in universities in Pakistan.
Likewise, Qureshi et al. (2015) in their research studied the relationship
between workplace mobbing with stress and employee behaviors at workplace of
faculty members. The results revealed that workplace mobbing has negative
relationship with employee‘s behavior and positive relationship with job stress. The
results further revealed that the positive relationship between mobbing and job
stress triggers negative employees behavior at workplace. Ismail and Ali, (2016)
in their research studied the relationship of workplace incivility on work attitudes
of faculty members working in universities in Pakistan. The result of the study
revealed that negative relationship exists between workplace incivility and
organizational commitment (affective & normative) and positive relationship exists
between incivility and continuance commitment. Javed et al. (2015) in their
15
research studied the relationship of workplace mobbing on organization
commitment and intention to leave of universities in Pakistan. The results revealed
that mobbing has negative relationship with commitment and positive relationship
with Intention to leave. Atta and Khan, (2015) in their research studied the
relationship between leadership styles on OCB. The results revealed positive
connection of perceived transformational and transactional leadership styles and
OCB. Iqbal et al. (2012) in their research revealed the impact of procedural and
distributive justice on discretionary behavior OCB. The results revealed that
positive influence exist between the relationship of procedural and distributive
justice with organizational citizenship behavior in the universities of Pakistan.
Ahmad et al. (2017) in their research revealed the prevalence of workplace
bullying/ mistreatment among the faculty members of universities in Pakistan. The
research further revealed that 72/% of the respondent faculty members were
mistreated by their seniors and peers.
1.1 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
Workplace mistreatment is a workplace stressor which has adverse effect
on employees‘ behaviors and organizational performance. Organizations intend to
develop extra role behaviors such as OCB that help organizations to achieve
objectives. Employees like a conducive work environment where they build up
support with each other to work beyond the formal assigned obligations for the
success or organization (Turnley et al., 2003). On the contrary, CWB is a deviant
behavior which hinders the organizations to achieve their objectives. Organizations
do not prefer to inculcate such type of behaviors in employees because of their
16
negative consequences for organization. Mistreatment has negative relationship
with Job Performance, OCB and positive relationship with CWB. Therefore, it is a
challenge for organization and managers working there to cope mistreatment so
that citizenship behavior may be developed and deviant behavior may be reduced.
To address the problem of mistreatment in work, interventions are required
at the level of the organization to deal with workplace mistreatment (Hodgins,
2014). An ample research has been conducted for different moderators on the
relationship between workplace mistreatment and on job behaviour which includes,
moral characters (Cohen et al., 2014), negative affectivity (Penney and Spector,
2005), personality (Spector and Zhou, 2014), locus of control (Wei and Si, 2013)
and management styles (Thau et al., 2009).
Considering the local need, the higher education sector of Pakistan is
discussed in the context of faculty‘s perception of mistreatment workplace
mistreatment (workplace Incivility, Abusive Supervision, Workplace mobbing),
and its relationship with on-job behavior (OCBO, OCBI, CWBO, CWBI) by
evaluating moderating role of psychological capital. This contextual base followed
by empirical assessment shall provide guidelines to university management and
higher education commission to cope mistreatment at workplace. This research also
differentiates from the other studies which are mainly conducted in the developed
countries which have very different social and contextual factors for the study
(Ahmad et al., 2017).
1.2 RATIONALE OF STUDY
Psychological capital is positively related with performance, organizational
17
related outcomes, organizational commitment (Luthans and Jensen, 2005), Job
satisfaction (Avey et al., 2011), behaviors such as absenteeism (Avey et al., 2006),
job performance (Luthans et al., 2005), OCB (Gooty et al., 2009), Job stress and
turnover intention (Avey et al., 2009) and wellbeing and health (Avey et al., 2010;
Avey et al. 2011). Psychological capital is suggested as a significant player in
managing the stress experienced by people (Luthans et al., 2008). Employees with
increased psychological capital have been found as presenting more positive,
supporting behavior and person‘s ability to deal with dysfunctional behaviors
(Avey et al., 2008). Therefore the study would use psychological capital as
moderator to cope the effect of mistreatment in organization on-job behaviors.
Although previous research in university academia has made significant
efforts to highlight and address the important factors and variables that may affect
the faculty work attitudes and performance but not a significant work has been
done to on the relationship of workplace mistreatment (workplace Incivility,
Abusive Supervision, Workplace mobbing) on-job behaviors in Pakistani context.
But the research on work stressors such as workplace mistreatment on in role and
extra role behavior of faculty members working in universities in Pakistan is
scarce. So as to persuade universities to take measures to lessen mistreatment,
there must be vibrant evidences that workplace mistreatment not only hamper in
role i.e. job performance and extra role desirable behaviors i.e. OCBO and OCBI,
but also resulted in high frequency of undesirable extra role behavior to
organization CWBO and to individuals CWBI. In response to this gap, the study
aims to extend the research conversation on workplace mistreatment through
empirical investigation of relationship between workplace mistreatment (workplace
18
incivility, abusive supervision, workplace mobbing) an on-job in-role and extra-
role behaviors (job performance, OCBO, OCBI, CWBO, CWBI). The study will
also empirically test the moderating effect of psychological capital on above
relationship among faculty members working in universities in Pakistan.
1.3 SIGNIFICANCE OF RESEARCH
The study would contribute to the existing literature of mistreatment, on-job
behaviors and psychological capital. The study would be helpful for the
practitioners to make strategies to cope workplace mistreatment in the organization.
The study would develop the understanding of workplace mistreatment as a
stressor in the workplace environment which needs the proper identification of the
phenomenon, and consequences by the employees, managers and the employers.
This understanding would help them to achieve their organizational goals
effectively and efficiently.
The study will also contribute in workplace mistreatment research on
faculty members serving in universities in Pakistan by analyzing the effect of
psychological capital as moderator between workplace mistreatment and on-job
behavior which would provide a ground for the universities to develop the
psychological capital among faculty to cope with the workplace mistreatment. The
findings may help the employees to understand the importance for development of
Psychological Capital in order to be more productive at work and in personal lives
also. In organizations workplace mistreatment also resulted in different disciplinary
issues and cases where organization spends a lot of resources and times. Through
19
proper training the psychological resource capacities of employees may be
enhanced and employees may refrain from pursuing these types of cases in their
organizations.
Workplace mistreatment has significant effect on-job behaviors and
researchers are conducting research to cope with workplace treatment. This study
will not only fill the theoretical gap by using psychological capital as moderator on
the relationship between workplace mistreatment and on-job behaviors but also the
results will be beneficial for mangers and practitioners to cope mistreatment at their
workplace.
1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Following research questions would be focused in the study:
i. What is the nature of relationship between Workplace Mistreatment
(Workplace Incivility, Workplace Mobbing and Abusive Supervision)
on-job behavior (Job Performance, OCB (OCBO,OCBI) and CWB
(CWBO,CWBI)?
ii. What is the effect of Psychological Capital on the relationship between
Workplace Mistreatment (Workplace Incivility, Workplace Mobbing and
Abusive Supervision) on job performance?
iii. What is the effect of Psychological Capital on the relationship between
Workplace Mistreatment (Workplace Incivility, Workplace Mobbing and
Abusive Supervision) on OCB (OCBO, OCBI)?
iv. What is the effect of Psychological Capital on the relationship between
20
Workplace Mistreatment (Workplace Incivility, Workplace Mobbing and
Abusive Supervision) on CWB (CWBO, CWBI)?
1.5 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
The research has following objectives:
i. To analyze the effect of Workplace Mistreatment (Workplace
Incivility, Abusive Supervision, Workplace Mobbing) on-job behavior
(Job Performance, OCBO, OCBI, CWBO and CWBI).
ii. To analyze the moderating role of Psychological Capital on the
relationship between Workplace Mistreatment (Workplace Incivility,
Workplace Mobbing and Abusive Supervision) on-job behavior (Job
Performance, OCBO, OCBI, CWBO and CWBI).
21
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The primary aim of the research is to examine the relationship between
workplace mistreatment (workplace incivility, abusive supervision, workplace
mobbing) and on-job behavior including in role behaviors (job performance) and
extra role behaviors (OCBO,OCBI,CWBO and CWBI). In addition, this research
aims to explore the moderating role of psychological capital on the relationship
between workplace mistreatment (workplace incivility, abusive supervision,
workplace mobbing) and on-job behavior including in role behaviors (job
performance) and extra role behaviors (OCBO,OCBI,CWBO and CWBI). After
formulating research questions and research objectives on the basis of gaps, this
chapter is aimed to provide detailed review and synthesis of literature that
elucidates acumen of the workplace mistreatment, psychological capital and on-job
behaviors.
The chapter establishes the bases on which research inquiry and analysis
will be conducted and it is divided into nine sections. Section one, two, three and
four elucidates the literature on workplace mistreatment, workplace incivility,
abusive supervision and workplace mobbing alongwith antecedents and outcomes
of these different types of mistreatment. Section five reviews the in role on job
behavior i.e. job performance, different antecedents and factors that affect job
performance. Section six and seven reviews the literature on extra role behaviors
i.e. Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Counterproductive Work Behavior.
Section eight provides insight about the concept of psychological capital. Finally,
21
22
Section nine concludes the chapter by explaining the relationship between
workplace mistreatment (workplace incivility, abusive supervision, workplace
mobbing) and on-job behavior (job performance, OCB, CWB) and psychological
capital by using relevant theories. This section also presents a theoretical
framework to define the key components and boundaries of the research.
2.1 WORKPLACE MISTREATMENT
Mistreatment is defined as ‗unwanted and unsolicited offense in behaviors
that violates a right to respectful treatment‘ (Budd et al., 2010). Various terms are
found in literature to express the workplace mistreatment, few of them are
victimization, incivility, bullying, harassment, emotional abuse and social
undermining (Hershcovis, 2011). Workplace mistreatment is a wide-ranging term
apprehending variety of abuses and insults experienced by workers at workplaces.
Discriminations, uncivil and disrespectful treatment, personalized abuse or
irrational treatments are offensive managerial practices and processes.
A considerable advancement is made in the area in past two decades in
terms of conceptual clarity, frameworks and theoretical explanations, which is very
helpful not just in explaining but also addressing this phenomenon (Wheeler et al.,
2010). Undeniably due to this advancement not just the phenomenon of workplace
mistreatment is now better understood but also a considerable advancement of
research in this context supportive to analyze its impact of work related behaviors.
In addition to diverse terms encompassed in studies related to workplace
mistreatment stated above, while examining the literature regarding workplace
mistreatment numerous established constructs can be found including ―bullying‖
(Charlotte, 1997), ―incivility‖ (Andersson and Pearson, 1999), ―social
21
23
undermining‖ (Duffy et al., 2002), ―mobbing‖ (Leymann, 1990), ―aggression at
workplace‖ (Neuman and Baron, 1998), ―emotional abuse‖ (Keashly et al., 1997),
―victimization‖ (Aquino et al., 1999), ―interpersonal conflict‖ (Spector and Jex,
1998), and ―abusive supervision‖ (Tepper, 2000).
An ample research has been conducted on workplace mistreatment due to
its importance. The researchers have studied the impact of mistreatment on
employee attitudes (Di Martino et al., 2003; Pearson et al., 2001) behaviors (Kim
et al., 2015), employees wellbeing (Arenas et al., 2015), economic impact (Rovi et
al., 2009), physical and psychological health (Granö et al., 2004; Van de Vliert et
al., 2013).
Workplace mistreatment due to its destructive consequences is diagnosed as
emergent psychological risks in the workplace (Hodgins et al., 2014). The
phenomenon has been explored in intense way during last two decades and
research has found its negative impact on health along with consequential depletion
in work attitudes and productiveness (Di Martino et al., 2003). It resulted in
damaging outcomes like reduced organizational effectiveness, employee
performance, job satisfaction and increasing psychological distress more than that
physical health problems & reduced well-being (Cortina et al., 2001; Fox and
Stallworth, 2010; Hershcovis, 2011; Lim et al., 2008; Pearson et al., 2001; Salin,
2013). Certain bad Physical wellness implications like fibromyalgia (Elovainio et
al., 2004) and cardiac diseases (Kivimäki et al., 2003) are attendant of workplace
mistreatment. An economic impact of workplace mistreatment is studied by (Rovi
et al., 2009) concluding that exceeding illness absenteeism as outcome of
workplace mistreatment can lead to shortage of staffing and poor service delivery
24
to customers. Also victims of the mistreatment are more prospective towards
poorer mental health and related concerns like anxiety, stress/ related disorders,
depressions, negative emotionality (Cortina et al., 2001; Stale Einarsen, 2000;
Kivimäki et al., 2012; Lallukka et al., 2011; Nielsen et al., 2015; Quine, 1999;
Van de Vliert et al., 2013; Vartia, 2001). D'Cruz and Noronha, (2010) highlighted
the emotional strain in form of depression, anxiety, hopelessness and helplessness
resulting from prevalence and continuing negative events as a consequence of
workplace mistreatment. This study aims to discuss workplace incivility, abusive
supervision and workplace mobbing as workplace mistreatment.
2.2 WORKPLACE INCIVILITY
Incivility in the workplace is defined as ―low-intensity, deviant behavior
with ambiguous intent to harm the target, in violation of workplace norms for
mutual respect‖ (Andersson and Pearson, 1999). Workplace Incivility is
conceptualized as low-intensity mistreatment and is defined as unclear with regard
to intention of uncivil behaviors to harm. Uncivil behavior specifies rudeness,
insults, mockery, disparaging remarks and the patronizing or excluding of others
(Lim and Cortina, 2005; Pearson and Porath, 2005). Uncivil behaviors are being
rude and ill-mannered, and showing lack of regard for others‖ (Andersson and
Pearson, 1999). Such behaviors can be either slight personal and professional
etiquette breaching or harmful professional misconducts like: ―a nasty and
demeaning note or email; undermining a colleague‘s credibility; treating another
like a child; un rational criticizing /accusing; negative exclusive treatments;
publically admonishing; spreading gossip; disregarding requests etc‖ (Cortina et
al., 2001; Pearson et al., 2000). Workplace incivility is different as compare to
25
varied constructs of aggressive behaviors in terms of its twofold illustrative
aspects including ―ambiguous intent‖ & insignificant ―level of intensity‖
(Andersson and Pearson, 1999) while other acts of aggression like threats,
sabotage violence (such as physical assault) are usually clear intentions of someone
to harm or injure someone physically or psychologically. Victimizations of
incivility can be attributed as accidental rather than intentional due to ignorance, or
character.
Hence, the intent of an uncivil act being less clear distinguishes it from rest
of types of workplace aggressions such as abusive supervision (Tepper, 2000),
bullying (Charlotte Rayner, 1997), and social undermining (Duffy et al., 2002)
having clear damaging intentions towards victim. The less clear intentions of
agitator in causing harm for target create distinction between incivility and other
forms of aggression (Andersson and Pearson, 1999).
Incivility is also stated as a less intense workplace aggression (Pearson et
al., 2001). Uncivil actions can be in stated form (like nasty and demeaning email
and rude comments) or it nonverbal behaviors (e.g., staring colleagues); such
behaviors are comparatively less intense and harming than physical aggression. On
a continuum of severity or intensity would represent the lower end of continuum
(Schat and Kelloway, 2005) but it is more persistently predominant in the
workplace (Cortina, 2008), possible reasons could be perceived non-responsiveness
of employers to such complaints by the victims (Sakurai and Jex, 2012). Although
low in intensity but incivility contextualized within a long-term, relentless series of
aggressive acts can escalate into more violent events in the organization meaning‖
(Vickers, 2006).
26
2.2.1 Antecedents of Workplace Incivility
Workplace incivility causes unsuitable expression of anger, stress, job
insecurity, increased workload, and poor work in organization (Johnson and Indvik,
2001). Work overload, scarcity of resources and fear of job loss due to any
organizational change may become the probable reasons of workplace incivility
(Johnson and Indvik, 2001; Vickers, 2006). Neuman and Baron (1998) found that
organizational change seeming to be extremely upsetting for employees which
generates negative feelings in response (e.g., anxiety, frustration) that can escalate
workplace aggression. Therefore organizational change if inevitable, its
implementation should be fairest and should be done in most interpersonally
sensitive manner possible. Pay for performance in public sector organizations
contribute to an organizational culture of control and dominance instead of
cooperation which may activate workplace incivility and aggression (Lee, 2002).
Flat structure organizations enables employees interacting in informal and casual
way with low awareness related to expectations and norms for good interpersonal
conduct, which may unintentionally generate and rude behavior among employees.
In stressful work environments (Bowling and Beehr, 2006) employees react to
situations on instinct rather than to use restraints (Aquino et al., 2004; Mawritz et
al., 2014) which generally can cause incivility in organizations. Technological
facilitation can support incivility to spread more broadly and more quickly than in
the past, (Giumetti et al., 2013; Pearson et al., 2000).
2.2.2 Consequences of Workplace Incivility
Experiencing incivility at workplace has adverse effect on motivation,
morale, confidence and self-efficacy of employees (Bartlett II et al., 2008).
27
Incivility also has negative effect on employee experiences of job satisfaction,
intentions to quit as well as in their levels of engagement in their work and
experience of burnout (Cortina et al., 2001; Spence Laschinger et al., 2009).
Incivility in workplaces can lead to aggressive behaviors and focused efforts to
harm (Pearson and Porath, 2005). Incivility can affect employee experiences of job
satisfaction, quitting intentions, organizational citizenship behaviors workplace
engagement negatively and burnouts positively (Cortina et al., 2001; Spence
Laschinger et al., 2009). Incivility is also explored having negative impact on
career salience, motivation, morale, confidence and self-efficacy for employees in
many studies (Bartlett II et al., 2008). Penney and Spector (2008) found positive
association between Incivility and CWB, while it relates negatively to OCB as per
studies conducted by (Taylor et al., 2012).
2.3 ABUSIVE SUPERVISION
Abusive supervision is a subcategory of destructive leadership and refers to
―subordinates‘ perceptions of the extent to which their supervisors engage in the
sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical
contact‖ (Tepper, 2000). Other definition of abusive supervision is sustained
emotional or psychological mistreatment of someone (Harvey et al., 2007).
Vigoda-Gadot (2007) recommends inclusion of exploitive behaviors like undue
requests of managers that cannot be refused. Employees being victimized of
abusive supervision face behaviors like mockery, yelling, or other practices of
interpersonal mistreatment by a supervisor (Tepper, 2000). Abusive behaviors are
characterized as public mock, invasion of privacy, wrong blame, rudeness, breach
of promises, selfishness, discrimination in information sharing procedures but no
28
physical contact which is among violent behaviors (Harris et al., 2007). Abusive
supervision is not one time act and holds regularly sustained pattern over an
extended period of time (Harvey et al., 2007).
2.3.1 Antecedents of Abusive Supervision
Literature regarding the antecedents of abusive supervision provokes a need
to understanding the reasons underlying abusing their subordinates in order to
reduce it (Yam et al., 2016). Studies have revealed that hostile organizational
climates and traits like high levels of Machiavellianism provide strong bases for
abusive supervision (Kemper, 2016) little emotional intelligence can also be reason
for it (Xiaqi et al., 2012). Highly centralized and mechanistic organizations are on
stronger side of having abusive supervisions rather than organic structures (Aryee
et al., 2008) like armed and healthcare sector appear to be predominantly inclined
towards abusive behaviors due to unjustified work demands and important costs
related with not fulfilling these demands (Tepper, 2007).
Abusive supervision may arise due to resource depletion, because resources
are required to control behavior and emotions (Byrne et al., 2014). Lost self-
control can produce aggressive reactions and destructive conflict resolutions
(Baumeister et al., 1998; Finkel and Campbell, 2001; Hedgcock et al., 2012;
Stucke and Baumeister, 2006). Incapacity towards stoicism can leads improper
social interactions, and the reduced operative personal capabilities envisage
destructive actions (DeWall et al., 2007; Kahn-Greene et al., 2006; von Hippel and
Gonsalkorale, 2005).
Psychological contracts are unspoken contracts between the employees and
employers which can be violated if any of promises made by the employer are not
29
confirmed and thus can cause abusive supervisory behavior (Hoobler and Brass,
2006). Psychological contract violations can result destruction perception and
emotional abrasion (Rousseau, 1995). Instead of terminating their relationship with
an employer in case of these violations employees may have different
repercussions (Hoobler and Brass, 2006). Abusive supervision can be one of these
repercussions. In such situations due to demotions or disciplinary actions
employees may become unable to retaliate against their superior and they might
become aggressive toward their subordinates, having less power (Hampton, 1988).
Supervisors may consider that abusing their subordinates is substantiated (Tedeschi
and Norman, 1985). Generally nonhostile and complaisant people might justify
their aggression due to them being targeted with aggression (Hoobler and Brass,
2006).
Climate of mistreatment based upon individual or common perceptions of
organizational policies, and processes encouraging intensive mistreatment can also
considered as an antecedent to abusive supervision (Yang et al., 2014). Supervisor-
targeted aggression is relatively recent phenomenon (Barling, 1996). Research has
established the that employees‘ interpersonal treatment by their supervisors
predicts attempted aggression or invasion (Folger and Baron, 1996; Tepper, 2000).
Working relational experiences and individual features can leads to show
aggression toward their supervisors (Inness et al., 2005). Employees perceptions of
treated unfairly lead to establish aggressive retaliation (Aquino et al., 2001;
Cropanzano and Folger, 1989; Greenberg, 1993; Skarlicki and Folger, 1997),
possibly form can be abusive supervision.
A meta-analysis regarding relationship of destructive leadership i.e.
30
abusive-supervison alongwith several precursor/antecedents (Zhang and Bednall,
2016) found four types of precursor/antecedents are connected to, supervisor,
organization, subordinate and demographical attributes of managers/supervisors
and their underling employees. Result found common support for the all of these
four categories as abusive antecedents (Zhang and Bednall, 2016). It was found
that abusive supervision and supervisor connected antecedents are positively
associated to negative experiences of supervisor while negatively associated with
to supervisor/manager‘s judgement about interactional/procedural organizational
justice (Zhang and Bednall, 2016).
Specifically authoritarian/autocratic and destructive-leadership traits have
significant positive relationship with abusive supervision, while constructive
orientation leadership styles such as ethical, sympathetic, and transformational are
negatively related to abusive supervision, also emotional intelligence and abusive
supervision are negatively associated (Zhang and Bednall, 2016). For organization
connected antecedents for positive norms and culture, abusive supervision is
having negative link and vice versa, as of relationship between subordinates
attributes and abusive-supervision. The research has revealed direct positive
relationship between underlings‘s undesireable it is positively related to
underlings‘ undesirable peculiarities such as (political skill, pessimism, power-
distance) on contrary inverse relationship with underlings‘ steadiness and
fundamentalism (Zhang and Bednall, 2016). Only the underlings‘ age has adverse
relationship with abusive supervision demographically (Zhang and Bednall, 2016).
2.3.2 Consequences of Abusive Supervision
Abusive supervision not only has unfavourable consequences to
31
underlings/subordinates but also influence‘s supervisors/managers, and the
organization/institution as a whole. This might results exorbitant towards both
individual and the organizational level. Even due to having spillover effect
members in organizations that are not part of it as instigator or sufferer can be
influenced through abusive supervisions and resulting in a general productivity
decline and poor working environment. To analyze the abusive supervisions and
related organizational cost and desire to avoid these costs initiates desire to
understand the phenomenon more comprehensive. Abusive supervision can be
linked to ―systems theory‖ view (Bronfenbrenner and Morris, 1998) which not only
explains the negative affection between supervisor-underling worker but can also
be harmful due to having potential to affect others in the work sphere as well as the
personal lives of employees.
Abuse is general examined from the target or subordinates perspective in
research (Mitchell et al., 2015). Declined job satisfaction, physical and
psychological issues, work- family misbalances, inclination towards job quitting,
burnout, reduced organizational commitment; declined self- efficacy, amplified
work deviance and aggression behaviors, and lower overall performance are few of
the many negative effects of abusive supervisions. (Martinko et al., 2013).
Job value can enable individuals to fight against the negative impacts of
abusive supervision to a certain degree due to interest and pride of the work they
are doing, but ultimately abusive supervision will have negative impact on
employees as well and thus with passage of time they become less resilient
experiencing a cumulative loss of psychological resources and more susceptible to
stressors (Carlson et al., 2012). Abusive supervision often leads to enhanced
32
deviant work performances and reduced organizational citizenship behaviors
(Martinko et al., 2013). Destructive relational engagements at workplace are allied
towards exalted levels of workers affliction incline to deduce consequent dealings
further destructively (Mikkelsen and Einarsen, 2002). Underling‘s employees when
perceive and face abusive supervision it characerizes them deried, derogated and
exiles in the workplace (Michel and Herbeck, 2015). Employees being victim of
abusive supervision for reinstating sense of self-esteem can harm the abusing
supervisor and also organization where abuse is permitted (Bowling and Michel,
2011). Abusive supervision and workplace mistreatments can lead to deviant
behaviors from victims (Hershcovis and Barling, 2010). Abusive supervision may
spread from one level to other; top tier bosses/supervisors experiencing abuse can
stimulate offensive conduct amongst the junior colleagues (Mary Bardes Mawritz
et al., 2012).
There exists a spillover effect of work interactions and experiences non-
work interactions and experiences due to abusive supervision it is recognized as
family undermining where negative workplace encounters negative home
encounters (Tedeschi and Norman, 1985). Employees mistreated supervisors may
like to mistreat their families in reaction (Hoobler and Brass, 2006). Subordinates
may redirect their anger of mistreatment to a secondary target, because of being
unable to oppose the actual source of their work connected stress. It is evident
from the literature that tension of one spouse disturbs the other like husbands‘ job
stressors are linked to have affliction with wives (Rook et al., 1991). These
redirected behaviors are increased arguing, negative moods and disrespectful
interactions (Hoobler and Brass, 2006). Less powerful people targeted by
33
aggression may relocate their aggression which results in a vicious cycle of office
hostility having damaging effects on employee‘s families and their personal lives.
An abusive supervision can also influence employees‘ perceptions of the
workplace that can lead to negative behavioral tendencies of those employees
(Mackey et al., 2015).
Employees who are not actually abused however are the witnesses of these
situations prompts different reactions from third parties as per their views regarding
abused employees (Mitchell et al., 2015). These witnesses can stimulate employees
for harmful and counterproductive behavior to coworkers (Harris et al., 2013).
These witnesses tend to intend to support the effectee of mistreatment (Priesemuth,
2013). Employees who come across abusive supervision may intensively abuse
other employees in reaction; even without being abused they can show same
behavior (Harris et al., 2013; Mitchell et al., 2015). Abusive supervision can cause
various problems like innumerable health-care expenses, extraction, & low
productiveness (Tepper et al., 2006). Deviant performance and behavior are
common expression of subordinates in case they are victimized of abused by their
supervisors (Bennett and Robinson, 2000). These behaviors can be thefts related to
organizational resources and negative interpersonal interactions (Mitchell et al.,
2015). Such retaliations at times can be felt appropriate in response to prolonged
mistreatment as organizational norms (Mitchell et al., 2015).
Nonconforming workplace behaviors pose economic cost for organizations
including lost productivity and litigation issues. To avoid these undesirable costs
and situations urgent response to associated causes are required. One of such
causes ignored so far is these possible consequences faced due to abusive
34
supervision. Supervisors who prefer aggression or abusive treatment for employees
may experience negative effects of their choice. The abused subordinates may
express their retaliation through their responsive behavior in the shape of deviant
(Inness et al., 2005).
2.4 WORKPLACE MOBBING
The terms ―bullying‖ and ―mobbing‖ have been used interchangeably
(Westhues, 2003) but specific conceptualization clarity is required. Bullying can be
execution of an individual while mobbing is a behavior of ―mob‖ or group of
individuals. Both of these behaviors pose serious concerns for the victims and
surroundings. Bullying is possible without a mob, but mobbing fundamentally
cannot occur in absence of bullying. Mobbing is accomplished when an individual
or small group of individuals select a target person for their bullying efforts and
then recruit others to participate in a pattern of aggressive or dismissive actions
directed toward that individual.
The term Mobbing was first time tossed by (Leymann, 1990) in order to
describe offensive workplace behavior as a malevolent effort intended to force a
person out of the workplace using unfair accusations, humiliation, general
harassment, emotional abuse, and/or terror is called ―Mobbing‖ (Noa et al., 2002).
The term was borrowed from the ethologist (Lorenz, 1963). Evolutionary
psychology regards mobbing, as did Lorenz, as a Darwinian struggle to survive -
attempting to annihilate one who is seen as a threat. In the work world, (Davenport
et al., 2003) describe mobbing as a malevolent endeavor to force someone out of
the workplace by accusing, humiliating, generally harassing, and/or emotionally
abusing that person. Consequence of the situations is always damage either
35
physical or mental which can be often, expulsion from the workplace.
Leyman‘s behaviors typology was the term of ―mobbing‖ comes from the
root of ―mob‖ in English. ―Mob‖ is defined as hesitant crowd and community
tended towards violence. ―Mobbing‖ lexically means siege, attacking all together
or gripping. ―Mobbing‖ as a term is related to the following words, such as
emotional outrage/harassment, psychological violence, intimidating, pressure,
siege, unauthenticated psychological terror. It is a ―ganging up‖ by the leader(s)-
organization, superior, co-worker, or subordinate- who rallies others into
systematic and frequent ―mob-like behaviors‖ (Noa et al., 2002). Workplace
mobbing can also be defined as recurrent conduct of individuals or groups intended
to harm others at workplace (Vandekerckhove and Commers, 2003). ―Harassment,
bullying, and mobbing‘ can be used interchangeably (Einarsen et al., 2011).
Mobbing is a particular type of mistreatment and refers to a combined effort
by colleagues in a work setting to isolate, chastise and demean a particular
employee (Westhues, 2003). Although each of these types of bullying behaviors
may be important to study in its own right, mobbing is of particular interest as it is
indicative of communicative behaviors used to collectively bully in the workplace.
The sufferers of mobbing mostly include individuals demonstrating exceptional
achievements, committed to work, honest, innovative, and competence. Mobbing is
being recognized as frequent behavior in the organizational world, and is termed
with diverse names in different countries.
International Labour Organization (ILO) expands the explanation of
violence/disapprobation at organization in a report published in 2000 to canvas so
that it would cover nonviolent and psychological behaviours alongwith physical
36
behavioral outcomes which includes ―bullying‖. ―Mobbing‖ is the expeditive
flourishing formation of violence in workplace.
There are number of definitions of the term mobbing after the initial
definition by (Leymann, 1990). Liefooghe (2004) describes it as intentional
infliction of emotional distress. Hornstein (2003) defined mobbing as office
rudeness, Keashly (2001) defined it as emotive misuse, and Wornham (2003)
defined it as victimization. Mobbing is also defined as the activity of an employee
or group of employees to force someone out of the workplace via rumor, innuendo,
bullying, humiliation, discrediting, and isolation (Davenport et al., 2003). Some
researchers have defined the term as emotional/psychological violence in
workplace(Çobanoğlu, 2005). Tınaz (2006) explains ―mobbing‖ as impediment,
denigration and agitating. Mobbing is ―nonsexual harassment of a peer by peer or
coworker‘s group planned to towards the removal of target from the organization
with containment of financial and career advancement attaining the health and
psychosocial disorders (Duffy and Sperry, 2007). The mobbing depicts the
systematic maltreatment by subordinates,coworkers towards worker or a group of
workers through menace and intrusion (Alparslan and Hakan, 2009).
2.4.1. Antecedents of Workplace Mobbing
Researchers have studied several categories of variables in their attempts to
understand the phenomenon of mobbing. For example, one previous analysis
suggests that certain personality traits may serve as antecedents to the phenomenon
(Lane, 2013). Persson et al. (2009) found that targets of mobbing are highly
neurotic and extravert. Similarly, Glasø et al. (2007) reported that mobbing can
produce higher levels of neuroticism in targeted people and they can be at lower
37
levels of extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Targets of mobbing
can be often at higher levels of negative affect (Aquino and Lamertz, 2004; Coyne
et al., 2000; Coyne et al., 2003; Glasø et al., 2007; Vartia, 1996). Negativity can be
experiences like anxiety, fear, sadness, and anger (Watson and Clark, 1984). In
comparison of impact on various genders it is found that women are mobbed more
often than males (Lewis and Gunn, 2007; Salin, 2001, 2003).
Other studies have focused on power differentials among individuals within
organizations in an attempt to understand the onset of mobbing and the reasons
some individuals engage in mobbing behaviors. Understanding that chaotic and
unorganized work places create an environment that promotes power struggles may
help explain the types of conditions that are ripe for a mobbing episode to occur
(Johan Hauge et al., 2007). The competitiveness to be on top at the workplace
discounts the qualities of targeted individuals and enhances a negative image that
seems to become a generalization held by employees about a certain individual
(Johan Hauge et al., 2007).
Understanding the quest for power in the workplace leads to a discussion of
Dyadic Power Theory (DPT) in order to apply the tenants of the theory to mobbing
behaviors (Dunbar, 2004). Dyadic Power Theory was developed to examine power
relationships in families and has been expanded to consider interpersonal and
organizational relationships generally. Dunbar discusses Dyadic Power Theory
(DPT) in relation to ―manifest‖ and ―latent‖ power. Manifest power is defined as
overt displays of power and latent power is defined as covert displays of power
(Dunbar, 2004).
Control attempts may be latent displays of power due to the indirect nature
38
of the strategies being discussed. DPT predicts individuals will engage in control
attempts when they perceive a balance in ―relative power‖ (Dunbar and Abra,
2010). The conceptualization of relative power refers to undefined power
relationships. Those who do not engage in clearly defined superior/subordinate
power relationships are more apt to try to gain power of the individuals with whom
they are interacting (Dunbar, 2004; Dunbar and Abra, 2010).
Yıldırım and Yıldırım, (2010) highlighted the following causes of mobbing
in Universities: there is a competition for the share of sources within or out of the
university, there is an over hierarchical structure, lack of enough advancement
opportunities triggers the competitive structure, having a lot of formality increases
the risk, achievements are treated unfairly, excessive and unfair workload
distribution may exist and there may be targets difficult to reach.
2.4.2 Consequences of Workplace Mobbing
Both individuals and work organizations experience severe consequences as
a result of mobbing behavior in the adult working world (Ståle Einarsen, 2000). In
professional settings, the consequences of mobbing range from individual suffering
to lost productivity (Westhues, 2003; Yamada, 2004).For example, some research
suggests that the only alternative for victims of mobbing in the workplace is to
leave their place of employment entirely (Stale Einarsen, 2000; Yamada, 2004). In
addition to negative consequences for individual workers, research also suggests
that organizations suffer negative consequences, such as tarnished reputations, lack
of production, and high-turnover rates (Stale Einarsen, 2000; Escartín et al., 2009;
Westhues, 2003; Yamada, 2004). The adverse effect of mobbing might cause
deficiencies in organizational commitment and organizational performance such as
39
lack of efficiency and effectiveness. According to Tengilimoğlu et al. (2010)
mobbing may affect the organizational commitment, motivation and efficiency of
staff, employee job satisfaction, and potential burnout of the employees.
Researchers have found that mobbing can generate intent to leave (Djurkovic et al.,
2008), absenteeism (Hoel and Cooper, 2000), and job dissatisfaction (Lutgen‐
Sandvik et al., 2007).
An employee facing mobbing will have low job satisfaction and more
absence from work (Hoel and Cooper, 2000), that can affect group performance
(Ramsay et al., 2011). Performance of group whose member is facing mobbing will
be badly affected because of all members being close bystanders of such behaviors
(Einarsen et al., 1994; Lutgen‐Sandvik et al., 2007). These behaviors may create
norms that perpetuate such behaviors within the group (Robinson and O'Leary-
Kelly, 1998). Groups, or its members being incidentally target of mobbing can
redefine prevailing group norms as a consequence (Heames and Harvey, 2006).
Employees witnessing aggressive colleagues can also become aggressive (Aquino
and Douglas, 2003; Glomb and Liao, 2003).
Mobbing can adversely affect physical and mental health (Cooper et al.,
2004), including hopelessness and stress (Birkqvist et al., 1994; Mikkelsen and
Einarsen, 2002), sleep disorders (Strandmark and Hallberg, 2007), and suicide
(Rayner et al., 2002). Few of these mentioned health related and other issues for
targeted individuals include loss of income due to being dismissed or exiting the
job, severe anxiety, low concentrate, sleeplessness, depression, (Leymann, 1997;
Namie, 2000; Neuman, 2000; Quine, 1999), while organizations suffer from
declining productivity resulting from increasing demands of sick leave and poorer
40
motivation (Neuman, 2000; Rayner, 1998).
2.5 ON JOB BEHAVIOR-JOB PERFORMANCE
Job performance is among most widely studied constructs in organizational
behavior, it is defined as ―the total expected value to the organization of the
discrete behavioral episodes that an individual carries out over a standard period of
time‖ (Borman et al., 2003). Conflicting to the firm behavioral definitions of job
performance, (Motowildo et al., 1997) express it as behaviors having evaluative
characteristic thus making it consistent with evaluation procedures being used by
various evaluators to measure job performance (Newman et al., 2004). Although
Motowildo et al. (1997) emphasizing evaluation of behavior job performance still
is emphasized as behaviors not results. For performance the behaviors must be
pertinent to the organizational goals (Campbell et al., 1993).
Apparent behaviors of people to do their jobs which are related to the goals
of the organization mark the job performance (Campbell et al., 1990). Importance
high productivity and its desire in organizations create the interests in job
performance (Hunter and Hunter, 1984). Performance definitions are required to be
highlighting behaviors rather than outcomes (Murphy, 1989); reason being
focusing outcomes may lead employees to accomplish the desired goals in easiest
possible way and thus becoming disadvantageous for organization for not showing
behaviors important for organization. Campbell et al. (1993) explained
performance as behavior rather than consequence of the behaviors, meaning so
performance involves the observable behaviors employees are actually engaged in.
Viswesvaran and Ones, (2000) defines job performance as ―scalable actions,
41
behavior, and outcomes that employees engage in or bring about that are linked
with and contribute to organizational goals.‖ Many different criteria can be used as
indicators of job performance ranging from objective indicators (i.e. sales output)
to subjective ratings of performance by supervisors.
Literature restated to the performance distinct in role and extra-role
performance (Katz and Kahn, 1978). Extra-role performance is conceptualized as
organizational citizenship behaviors (Smith et al., 1983). Borman and Motowidlo
(1993) suggested division of performance in two parts one as task and other as
contextual performance, where task performance is effectiveness of employees to
perform the formal activities of their job while contextual performance
encompasses organizational activities not prescribed as and also are not
fundamental part of job (Organ, 1997). Activities such as helping, cooperating with
others, and volunteering, are the contextual performances. Although this
distinction does exist, the current study focuses on task, or in-role, performance.
Job performance is the outcome of workplace behaviors rather than
intentions for behaving in certain ways. Earlier studies identified diverse
performance behaviors (e.g., in-role versus extra-role behaviors or contextual
performance versus task performance), therefore performance sometimes is stated
to as a general factor (Viswesvaran and Ones, 2000; Viswesvaran et al., 2005).
There exists the incremental and unique contribution of both task based and
behaviors and contextual behaviors to overall job performance (Van Scotter et al.,
2000).
2.5.1 Antecedents of Performance
A plethora of literature is available in the organizational settings to unfold
42
the different antecedents to predict job performance. The research has revealed that
individual difference such as cerebral capacity (Schmidt and Hunter, 1998);
personality traits (Barrick and Mount, 1991) have a significant effect on job
performance. The research has further uncoverd that work attitudes like job
statifaction (Judge et al., 2001), organizational commitment (Meyer and Allen,
1993) also effect the job peformance.
The individual differences vaticinate many kinds of criteria. Individuals
who have traits such as (thoroughness, meticulousness, conscientiousness) have
positive significant relationship with performance (Chiaburu et al., 2011; Barrick
and Mount, 1991). As stated above that cognitive and cerebral capacities are firm
prognosticator of job performance (Schmidt and Hunter, 1998), but not in case of
extra role performance behavior. Therefore, a single antecedent may either
prognosticate in-role performance or extra-role performance but of course it may
not envisage all performance measures.
The researchers also stated that task performance was positively affected by
the perceived human resource management practices of a fair selection process,
training opportunities, a reward system, career management, development
opportunities, and feedback mechanisms (Alfes et al., 2013). Rich et al. (2010)
found that value congruence, perceived organizational support, and core self-
evaluations all have an outcome of task performance. Research has defined
different dimensions of job performance such as standalone dimension that also
refers as Task performance, the later refers to expertise in official tasks mentioned
in job descriptions (Motowidlo, 2000). The literature has further revealed a number
of theoretical models that conceptualizes different types of performance.
43
Campbell‘s (1990) proposed a theoretical model of job performance
contains eight performance dimensions: ―job-specific task proficiency, non-job-
specific task proficiency, written and oral communication, demonstrating effort,
maintaining personal discipline, facilitating peer and team performance,
supervision, and management or administration‖. He further revealed the
association between the different dimensions are low enough to cogitate them as
distinct. He further urges in contrast to the exercise overall performance and
propose to study the eight dimensions separately as the ―general factor cannot
possibly represent the best fit‖ (Campbell et al., 1993).
Another popular theoretical model of job performance was proposed by
(Viswesvaran, 1993) by using the lexical approach. This model proposed the ten
dimensions of performance: ―overall job performance, job performance or
productivity, effort, job knowledge, interpersonal competence, quality,
communication, competence, leadership, and compliance with rules‖. Murphy
(1990) proposed another theoretical model of job performance which reveals four
dimensions of performance: ―downtime behaviors, task performance, interpersonal
behaviors, and destructive behaviors‖.
Although the detailed theoretical background of the framework is
discussed separately, but, recently, Griffin et al. (2007) in model designed for
integrating major performance demarcated proficiency, adaptively, and pro activity
at person, group and organization as fundamental performance dimensions. Study
clarified the proficiency as role success, adaptivity is taken as degree of
organizational change adaptation and proactivity is self-direction essential to adapt
to changes, though these behavior are not measured as if they are mutually
44
exclusive rather uncertainty of environment vary their importance.
2.6 ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR
The constructs of organizational citizenship behavior were developed by
Organ and colleagues (Bateman and Organ, 1983). Task performance and OCB
primarily are distinct from one another in a way that task performance is functional
cognitive ability and experience whereas OCB is product of motivation not ability
(Borman and Motowidlo, 1993). From theoretical perspective, Organ (1988)
originally conceptualized OCB as specific behavior of individual which is effective
and discretionary for organization and is not enforced outcome of formal reward
system or job description as per employment contract. As per this definition,
certain conditional requirements must be met for considering and behavior as
OCBs, behaviors should be discretionary not formally required and must not be
officially rewarded or documented by the organization (Organ, 1988). Lastly, these
behaviors must contribute to the effective functioning of the organization.
Furthermore, OCB contains five dimensions: altruism, civic virtue,
conscientiousness, courtesy, and sportsmanship (Organ, 1988). Altruism refers to
voluntary behaviors that are deliberately directed to support a coworker (e.g.,
assisting a coworker with a heavy workload, teaching a coworker how to use
equipment). Civic virtue involves attending and taking part in organizational
attending meetings, expressing one‘s opinions, and keeping up to date on
organizational issues. Conscientiousness refers to behavior that goes above and
beyond what is expected in terms of punctuality, attendance, conserving resources,
and housekeeping. Courtesy involves taking the initiative to prevent the creation of
problems for others and engaging in discussion with employees before committing
45
to actions that will impact them.
Lastly, sportsmanship refers to uncomplainingly bearing the unavoidable
inconveniences of work. However, the relevance of Organ‘s five dimension
conceptualization of OCB remains under contention. For instance, a two-
dimensional conceptualization of OCB developed by (Williams and Anderson,
1991) is regarded as actions directed towards individual (OCBI) or toward the
organization (OCBO). Williams and Anderson (1991) based their two-dimension
conceptualization of OCB on Organ‘s five dimension taxonomy. OCBI is included
courtesy and altruism while OCBO is civic virtue, conscientiousness, and
sportsmanship. The conceptual difference between OCBI and OCBO is relates to
the existing study in way that different types of workplace mistreatment may be
varyingly related to the two dimensions of OCB.
Previous meta-analytic research has explored the antecedents and
consequences of OCB. For instance, Organ and Ryan (1995) meta-analytic results
reveal that job attitudes (e.g., job satisfaction, perceived fairness, organizational
commitment, leader supportiveness) are fairly strong predictors of OCB. In
addition, job satisfaction was differentially related to OCB and task performance
are much strongly associated than association between job satisfaction and job
performance. Hoffman et al. (2007) meta-analytic results also support the
conclusion that OCB is more strongly associated with job attitudes than task
performance. Through confirmatory factor analysis showed backing for a single
factor model of OCB that is different from in-role performance.
In terms of OCB related outcomes, (Podsakoff et al., 2009) discovered that
46
OCBs were positively associated with individual related effects like manager‘s
evaluations about employee performance and remuneration allocations. Moreover,
they found that OCBs and withdrawal behaviors (e.g., turnover intentions, actual
turnover, and absenteeism) were negatively related. At the unit level, OCBs,
organizational effectiveness and customer satisfaction were having positive
association.
Such behaviors are expressed in variety of ways from work related support
to workers, not grumpy insignificant problems, to portraying good image of
organization to outsiders. Relating to social exchange theory, the cumulative
citizenship behaviors not only improve group performance but also lead to overall
organizational performance (Podsakoff et al., 1997).
2.7 COUNTER PRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOR
Theoretically, CWB is a behavior that intentionally harms an organization
or its employees (e.g., sabotage, theft, violence, interpersonal conflict), or run
counter to organizational goals (e.g., withholding effort, wasting time/materials,
daydreaming). These behaviors have been also referred to as deviance, (Robinson
and Bennett, 1995), aggression (Douglas and Martinko, 2001), revenge (Bies et al.,
1997), and retaliation (Skarlicki and Folger, 1997). Because CWB is volitional and
is characterized by harmful intentions, accidents and non-volitional behavior are
not considered CWB. For instance, an employee absence attributed to illness would
not be considered as CWB, whereas in employee absence due to a desire to spite
one‘s supervisor would be classified as CWB. Moreover, an employee‘s poor
performance would only be considered as CWB if the employee purposefully
performs poorly to harm the organization.
47
Hollinger and Clark (1983) were the first to present a typology of CWB.
Their typology consisted of two behavioral dimensions: production deviance and
property deviance. Production deviance is defined as actions that violate standards
for the minimal quality and quantity of work to be finished. Examples include
surfing the Internet during work hours and taking unnecessary breaks. Property
deviance refers to organizationally harmful acts such as theft and sabotaging
equipment. The main drawback of their CWB taxonomy was that it was not
comprehensive enough to capture all deviant behaviors into the two dimensions.
For example, their categorization did not include deviant behaviors directed toward
individuals.
Robinson and Bennett (1995) expanded Hollinger and Clark (1983)
typology by proposing four quadrants of counterproductive/deviant behavior:
property deviance, production deviance, political deviance, and personal
aggression. Political deviance refers to participating in social interactions that put
other employees at a political disadvantage. Examples include being rude to
coworkers and showing favoritism. Personal aggression is serious and
interpersonally harmful behavior in which an individual exhibits aggression or
hostility towards others. Examples include engaging in verbal abuse. Robinson and
Bennett (1995) categorization was a significant advancement in the field because
their taxonomy made a distinction between behaviors directed toward other people
(CWBI) and behaviors directed toward the organization (CWBO). Based on their
typology, CWBI is composed of political deviance and personal aggression,
whereas CWBO consists of property and production deviance. Bennett and
Robinson (2000) found empirical support for their model, demonstrating through
48
factor analysis that there were two separate scales within the construct of CWB.
The most recent theoretical explanation of CWB was proposed by (Spector
et al., 2006). Spector et al. (2006) argued that the CWB items were differentially
related to different antecedents. Therefore, the behaviors comprising CWB are too
diverse to fall under a single construct. Thus, Spector et al. (2006) constructed a
scale that also distinguished between two dimensions of CWB: CWBO and CWBI.
Furthermore, the researchers divided CWB into five sub-dimensions: sabotage
(destruction or vandalism of company property), abuse (malicious verbal or
nonverbal behaviors directed at others), theft (stealing company or personal
property), withdrawal (working fewer hours and required), and production
deviance (intentionally performing poorly or slowly). CWBI mostly consists of
items related to the abuse subscale, whereas CWBO consists of items from the
other four subscales.
Previous meta-analytic research has explored the antecedents and
consequences of CWB. For example, Hershcovis et al. (2007) meta-analytically
investigated individual and situational predictors of aggression. They found that the
strongest predictors of interpersonal aggression were trait anger and interpersonal
conflict. On the other hand, interpersonal conflict, organizational constraints, and
job dissatisfaction were strongest predictors of organizational aggression.
Furthermore, the results showed that poor leadership and interpersonal
injustice were stronger predictors of supervisor-targeted aggression than coworker-
targeted aggression. In another meta-analytic study, Bowling and Beehr (2006)
explored the antecedents and consequences of workplace harassment. They found
49
that role conflict, role ambiguity, work constraints, and role overload are positively
related to workplace harassment. In terms of consequences, workplace harassment
was positively related to strain, anxiety, frustration, negative emotions, physical
symptoms, and depression. Berry et al. (2012) in a meta-analysis investigated the
issue of whether other-reports of CWB provide an incremental contribution over
self-reports. They found that other-report of CWB provided little incremental
variance beyond self-report CWB. In addition, self-report and other report of CWB
were robustly correlated with each other and correlated with other variables in a
similar pattern and magnitude.
Lastly, Dalal (2005) meta-analysis showed that the negative connection
between counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior
was due to a methodological artifact. More specifically, his meta-analysis revealed
that stronger negative correlations between CWB & OCB were revealed for
supervisor perception and judgement than for self-judement. Dalal (2005) argued
that supervisor ratings may have resulted in inflated correlations because of halo
effect and other biases. Counterproductive work behaviors can lead to greater
psychological distress and employer dissatisfaction thus resulting in decreased
productivity (Dunlop and Lee, 2004; Tepper, 2000) which is not desired by the
organizations.
2.8 PSYCHOLOGICAL CAPITAL
Psychological capital is defined as ―An individual‘s positive psychological
state of development that is characterized by: (1) having confidence (self-efficacy)
to take on and put in the necessary effort to succeed at challenging tasks; (2)
50
making a positive attribution (optimism) about succeeding now and in the future;
(3) persevering towards goals and, when necessary, redirecting paths to goals
(hope) in order to succeed; and (4) when beset by problems and adversity,
sustaining and bouncing back and even beyond (resiliency) to attain success‖
(Luthans et al., 2007).
Several theoretical bases can be suggested for the psychological capital, but
the commonly cited theory is the resource based theory. The resource-based theory
of the firm explains the resources of sustainable competitive advantage (Acedo et
al., 2006; Newbert, 2007), the concept is vindicated by looking at positive
relationship between rare inimitable strategic resources and organizational
performance as evidence (Crook et al., 2008). Among these, human capital has
been universally declared utmost valuable and imperfectly imitable resource
(Crook et al., 2011). Psychological capital is strategic resources gaining increasing
attention for its influence on human performance (Ardichvili, 2011b). Based on
positive psychology (Peterson, 2006; Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi, 2000b), and
positive organizational behavior (Wright, 2003). The construct of psychological
capital, to apprehend an individual‘s psychological capabilities that can be
measured, developed and enhanced to improve performance was developed by
Luthans and colleagues (Luthans and Youssef, 2004). Since past decade, studies in
an enormous number have explored employee attitudes, behavior and performance
in relation to PsyCap at individual and team level (Avey et al., 2010; McKenny et
al., 2013; Walumbwa et al., 2011). Literature deliberated psychological capital as
blend of four constructs such as optimism, self-efficacy, resilience and hope
(Luthans et al., 2007; Luthans and Youssef, 2004).
51
Psychological capital is attaining attention due to it being positively related
with financial performance as well as other organizational outcomes, like
organizational commitment, job satisfaction (Avey et al., 2011; Luthans et al.,
2007; Luthans and Jensen, 2005), job performance (Luthans et al., 2005), OCB
(Gooty et al., 2009) job stress, turnover intention, wellbeing and health (Avey et
al., 2010; Avey et al., 2011). Psychological capital also helps in controlling
absenteeism, job stress and turnover intentions (Avey et al., 2009; Avey et al.,
2006).
Meta-analytic research has explored the antecedents and consequences of
Psychological Capital, for example, Avey et al. (2011) showed the significantly
positive connection between PsyCap and required employee attitudes (job
satisfaction, organizational commitment, psychological well-being), desirable
employee behaviors, and multiple performance measures. Significant negative
relationship between PsyCap and undesirable attitudes of employees including
cynicism, turnover intentions, stress, and anxiety was found by same study.
In another meta analytic study, (Newman et al., 2014) meta-analytically
investigated the antecedents, moderators, mediators and outcomes of Psychological
Capital. They found that the strongest predictors of psychological capital were
leadership behavior, supportive organizational environment, negative work and life
experiences, gender, perceived external prestige and dispositional factors at
individual level. Furthermore, leadership behavior is predictor of Psychological
Capital at team level.
52
In terms of consequences, psychological capital relates to employees‘
attitude (Job Satisfaction, Organization Commitment, Job Involvement, Turnover
Intention and Cynicism), employees‘ behaviors (OCB, Counterproductive work
behavior, absenteeism, job search behavior), employee performance (Innovative
behavior, problem solving, job performance) at individual level. The researcher
also proposed that future research may be conducted to see the impact of
psychological capital on team performance, team satisfaction, team engagement,
team creativity/ innovation at team level and firm performance, firm innovation
and firm growth at organizational level. In addition, future research should also
explore the abusive supervision which can interact with psychological capital to
influence outcomes.
2.8.1 Self Efficacy
Bandura (1977) introduced the concept of Self efficacy as ―beliefs in one‘s
capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given
attainments‖ (Bandura, 1977). Social cognitive theory suggests that self-efficacy
can be enhanced through, ―mastery experiences, social persuasion, modeling and
judge of psychological status‖ (Bandura, 1997). Positive organizational behavior
defines self-efficacy as ―an individual‘s convictions (or confidence) about his or
her own abilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of
action needed to successfully executive a specific task within a given context‖
(Brown et al., 1998; Stajkovic and Luthans, 1998).
Self-efficacy significantly intensifies human motivation (Bandura, 1997)
Self-efficacy provides goal clarity (Arnetz and Blomkvist, 2007) also it helps in
53
lessening stress (Jimmieson et al., 2004). Self-efficacy significantly generates
positive emotions, and escalates job performance and commitment (Jex and Bliese,
1999).
2.8.2 Hope
The pioneer of Positive psychology Snyder (1989) established the cognitive
theory of Hope. Hope is defined as ―overall perception that goals can be met‖
(French, 1952; Lewin, 1935; Stotland, 1969). Snyder et al. (1991) define hope as
―a positive motivational state that is based on an interactively derived sense of
successful (a) agency (goal directed energy), and (b) pathways (planning to meet
goals)‖. Person‘s willpower or agency is a mental power, while pathways is the
mental ability guided by the hopeful thought, these two together help people
toward realizing objectives (Snyder, 1994; Snyder et al., 1991). The blend of
agency and way makes a person capable to plans and reach goal in one way or
other. Both agency and pathway although are independent of one another relating
to hope, but still are inseparable and collectively form hope (Snyder, 1994).
Hope is among the vital constituents of psychological capital, it enhances
performance of employee at workplace (Peterson and Byron, 2008) as well as is
related with meaningful of life (Tetly, 2010). Thoughts based on hope create
positive environment and decline stress (Adams et al., 2002). ―An employee who
has higher levels of hope and is able to muster not only the agency but also
envision alternative pathways will be better equipped to achieve the increasingly
demanding workplace requirements‖ (Luthans and Jensen, 2005).
54
2.8.3 Optimism
Phenomenon of reflection of individual‘s expectation is nurtured as
―Optimism‖ in the in the psychological literature (Scheier and Carver, 1985).
Optimism is also rooted in Seligman‘s theory of explanatory style, proposing that
how individuals‘ influence, perception and reactions towards any external events
(Abramson et al., 1978). According to Reivich et al. (1995) explanatory style
optimism is ingrained with attribution theory, stating it as ―one‘s tendency to offer
similar sorts of explanation for different events‖ (Reivich et al., 1995). Occurrence
of negative event are explained as externally caused while internal cause is
considered for happening of any positive events and individual and the situation are
main bases of these attributions (Reivich et al., 1995).
The association of optimistic expectation with effects was first time
explored by (Tiger, 1979), defining optimism as ―mood or attitude associated with
an expectation about the social or material future one which the evaluator regards
as socially desirable, to his advantage, or for his pleasure‖. Role of optimism to
enhance the productivity and its contribution to decrease the turnover intention at
workplace was also discussed by Seligman in his study. Optimism and job
performance were found to have positive relationship (Luthans and Jensen,
2005).Optimism and stress are negatively related, an optimistic approach can
reduce negative emotions (Hooker et al., 1992).
2.8.4 Resilience
Resilience the fourth component of psychological capital is rooted in
clinical and developmental psychology (Siu et al., 2009). Resilience is one‘s
55
ability, to rebound or ―bounce back‖ from a hindrance or failure when challenged
with adversity, (Masten et al., 2002; Masten, 2001). Luthans (2002) defines
resilience as ―the capacity to rebound or bounce back from adversity, conflict,
failure, or even positive events, progress, and increased responsibility.‖ Resilience
means attending risks and creating strategies to cope with difficult situations
(Luthans et al., 2006; Masten et al., 2002). High resiliency makes persons highly
flexible and open to novel experiences (Tugade and Fredrickson, 2004). In its
reactionary nature resilience is more intensive as compare to hope and optimism,
with three important factors of assets, risks and adaptation (Masten, 2001).
Individual using cognitive and external (networks) resources recalibrate and
balance reinstatement in order to alleviate any negative occurrence (Coutu, 2002;
Masten et al., 2002). Resilience is positively related with work life balance, job
satisfaction and quality of life (Siu et al., 2009).
2.9 THEORETICAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE VARIABLES
Social exchange theory is an extensive conceptual model which
encompasses social psychology and anthropology. Apart from its nomenclature, it
does not cover a single theory but is widely considered and thought to be an
agglomerate of theories (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005). In this context, all social
exchange theories represent many common features which depict social life as a
chain of subsequential contracts between two or more parties (Mitchell et al.,
2012). Resources are recompensed based on the fundamental principle expressing
mutuality, whereby one party contemplates to repay the other party in good terms
or otherwise (Gergen, 1969; Gouldner, 1960). The quality of these exchanges is
invariably influenced by the relationship existing between the actor and the target
56
(Blau, 1964). Although many variants of social exchange or available yet many of
the most contemporary models in organizational behavior share a few common
features: (a) an actor‘s initial conduct towards an individual target, (b) a target‘s
reflexive or complementary responses, both attitudinal and behavioral, to the
action, and (c) relationship relation makeup (Cropanzano et al., 2016).
Blau‘s (1964) asserted in his social exchange theory that people establish
and maintain relationships in prospective exchange for socio-economic affiliated
benefits with their employers. (Lavelle et al., 2007) further dilates on Blau‘s (1964)
statement that social exchange relationships can nurture cordial and productive
feelings among all organizational members. Consequently ,in order to monitor and
ensure fair treatment or otherwise social relationship can suffer setback due to
mistreatment of employs emanating from their negative behavioral response (i.e.,
OCB or CWB) other members in the joining the relationship. According to the
social exchange theory Blau (1964), OCB and CWB are anticipated to be aimed at
the envisaged source of an occurrence so as to maintain positive relationships. May
be some support for this expectation i.e. (Jones, 2009) such because such an
approach is also consonant with the idea that CWB is mostly directed towards the
perceived cause of the mistreatment (Hershcovis et al., 2007; Robinson and
Bennett, 1995).
In addition to SET, considerable recent conceptual advances have emerged
in the area of workplace mistreatment thereby causing adverse consequences
relating to employee welfare juxtaposed with their performance. These
opportunities supports ample of theoretic rationalization.
57
The model proposed by (Nielsen and Einarsen, 2012) provides detail
explanation of distinct and varied types of mistreatment at workplace individual
faces at workplace. Specifically, this theoretical explanation, postulates that
exposition to mistreatment might actuate professional and physical eventualities
which is harmful for the employees at one end and for the institution on the other
hand. Their study exhibits vigorous foundation that workplace mistreatment was
connated to concentrated psychological and physical wellness, high level of
burnout. The study further revealed that mistreatment has negative relationship
with work attitudes.
Another model that has gained a lot of attention from industrial and
organizational psychologists is the ―stressor-strain model‖ which is advocated to
elucidate the aftershocks of workplace mistreatment (Finnee et al., 2011). This
theoretic model presupposes that employees/workers indictment to strained
circumstances and purlieus during job which probably resulted montance
intensities of strain in the form of physical, psychological and behavioral.
Despite the fact that this model is putative as a conventional theoretic
credentials yet the solicitation of this model in the relativity of mistreatment as
social-stressor is current (Jex and Beehr, 1991). By expending this in undesirable
workplace stressors such as mistreatment the research has revealed its affiliation
with psychomatic strain(stress, job dis-satisfaction), work attitudes (lower
commitment) and behaviors (Hauge et al., 2010).
Another identical latter and well defined theoretic concept is
―attributional model‖ of mistreatment. This theoretic concept précises that the
58
concussion of workplace-mistreatment over target‘s contrivance diverges in
accordance with target‘s characteristics practices (Samnani, 2013). This model
embodies further précised shapes of on-job behavior including discretionary
behaviors (job performance,OCB,CWB) and deflects with other theoretic concepts
that ponder overall job-performance. According to this a target‘s performance
behavior regarding improvement or otherwise depends on perception of target on
offender‘s proclivity or desideratum as favorable or unfavorable. If an employee
who is the target of mistreatment resorts to unacceptable proclivity or desideratum
attributes negatively, which as a result probably leads to rise the undesirable on-job
behavior i.e.CWB and declines the desirable on-job behavior i.e.OCB and
performance.
Hoel and Einarsen (1999) hinted to the possible chances that victims of
mistreatment may show reaction to mistreatment behavior. Moreover, either the
organization or the offender (involved in unacceptable proclivity) is liable for
mistreatment, the target will aim his rebuttal towards organization or individual
(OCBO/CWBO vis-a-vis OCBI/CWBI).
Likewise, the assumption and understanding of victims about the direct
guilty of offender without organizational involvement, the victim will bounce back
to individual instead of the organization. Therefore, this theoretical concept of
workplace mistreatment imparts two key supports i.e. a victim‘s behavior is
adjudged divergently, desirable or undesirable based on attributional mechanisms
and on-job behavior as a consequence of mistreatment might ascertained in explicit
types i.e. (OCB,CWB, and job-performance) instead of universal job performance
(Samnani, 2013).
59
2.9.1 Workplace Incivility with Job Performance, OCB and CWB
Employees who face unfavorable exchange relationships are vulnerable to
unwillingness exceed minimal performance level or exert effort beyond their
specified role requirements (Lynch et al., 1999). Further, employees who confront
hostility in dealing with others in their work environment have been cognized to be
more inclined to withhold extra-role behaviors (Zellars et al., 2002). At the same
time, incidents at workplace incivility have also been scrutinized as a form of
negative reciprocity that produces an mental or emotional effect on individual‘s
actions toward others (Andersson and Pearson, 1999). Previous studies have
extensively elaborated social exchange theory to explain the effects of negative
workplace interactions on citizenship behavior (Aryee et al., 2007; Parzefall and
Salin, 2010). Unfavorable treatment from organization members can arouse
counteractive feelings in the employs towards the organization adversely affecting
their performance (Eisenberger et al., 2010). As such, workplace incivility can
permeate throughout an organization thereby generating an overall bad impact and
hostile negative environment (Andersson and Pearson, 1999; Lim et al., 2008).
Andersson and Pearson (1999) recognized the social nature of workplace incivility
and argued that acts of incivility potentially create unpleasant exchanges or even
lead to more serious conduct such as lower OCBI and higher CWBI.
It has been observed that when employees experience workplace incivility
emanating from their employing organization, they are likely to restrict their
contributions to the organization as a whole (Pearson et al., 2000) ultimately
lowering the job performance, OCBO and enhancing CWBO formulating the
following hypothesis:
60
Hypothesis 1 (a): Workplace incivility has negative relationship with OCBO
(b) Workplace incivility has negative relationship with OCBI
(c). Workplace incivility has negative relationship with Job
Performance
(d) Workplace incivility has positive relationship with CWBO
(e). Workplace incivility has positive relationship with CWBI
2.9.2 Abusive Supervision with Job Performance, OCB and CWB
According to social exchange theory, individuals may be guided by
negative reciprocity beliefs whereby they understand that in case of mistreatment,
it is justified on their part to retaliate in return (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005).
Abused employees may reciprocate their supervisors‘ mistreatment by resorting to
aggressive retaliation straight away against the organization and individuals.
Nevertheless, the power and the divergent positions of the supervisor and
subordinate suggest that an abusive confrontation may not be expected because
individuals do not normally reciprocate unfriendly actions of a powerful abuser
(Lord, 1998).Such a contributory retaliation cannot helps stop the power abuse and
may even trigger more astringent hostility on the instigator‘s part (Tepper et al.,
2001; Zellars et al., 2002).
The experience of abusive supervision may require subordinates to confirm
and attune their resources and converge their faculties to manage such abuse.
Subordinates having limited resources on job tasks (Muraven and Baumeister,
2000) based on the mutuality principle react weakly to the treatment they receive
61
(Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005) resulting in lower job performance. In addition to
that, researchers opine that abused subordinates often hold their employer more or
less responsible for their supervisor‘s authoritative behavior (Tepper, 2000).
Based on the theory of displeased aggression (Dollard et al., 1939; Miller,
1941; Mitchell and Ambrose, 2007) enunciated an explanation for individuals
shifting their aggressive or displaced behavior towards weaker or more available
targets, such as their organization or coworkers. Abused subordinates may go out
their hostility against their organization in the shape of OCBO and higher CWBO,
and towards their colleagues in the form of lower OCBI and higher CWBI.
Integrating these theoretical assumptions, it is hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 2 (a): Abusive Supervision has negative relationship with OCBO
(b) Abusive Supervision has negative relationship with OCBI
(c). Abusive Supervision has negative relationship with Job
Performance
(d) Abusive Supervision has positive relationship with CWBO
(e). Abusive Supervision has positive relationship with CWBI
2.9.3 Workplace Mobbing with Job Performance, OCB and CWB
Workplace Mobbing is the individual or collective attempt directed towards
an employee in the form of degradation, devaluing, discrediting, deprivation, loss
of professional reputation which may cause psychological distress and negative
emotions among employees leading to detrimental on-job behavior. In line with the
62
Work Place Mistreatment
o Workplace Mobbing
o Abusive Supervision
o Workplace Incivility
Psychological Capital
o Hope
o Optimism
o Self-Efficacy
o Resilience
On-Job Behavior
o Organizational
Citizenship Behavior (OCBO,
OCBI)
o Counter Productive
Work Behavior (CWBO,
CWBI)
Figure 2.1: Research model
63
social exchange theory, when employees apprehend mobbing at workplace, they
reciprocate by interplaying with aggressive demeanor to retaliate directly against
the organization and individuals assuming CWBO and CWBI and stand aloof from
desirable on-job behaviors including performance, OCBO and OCBI. Hence, it is
hypothesized:
Hypothesis 3 (a) Workplace mobbing has negative relationship with OCBO
(b) Workplace mobbing has negative relationship with OCBI
(c). Workplace mobbing has negative relationship with Job
Performance
(d) Workplace mobbing has positive relationship with CWBO
(e). Workplace mobbing has positive relationship with CWBI
2.9.4 Psychological Capital as Moderator
Psychological Capital is one of the key psychological resources accured
persistent cognition in industrial and organizational researc due to its inducement
over individual behavior (Ardichvili, 2011a). An ample portion of literature has
been utilized this psychological resource as a moderator in the research pertaining
to industrial and organizational psychology. The result shows that PsyCap
moderates the relationship between independent and dependent variables such as:
HR Practices and work engagement (Aybas and Acar, 2017), organizational
politics and both job performance and satisfaction (Abbas et al., 2014), stress and
bullying (Roberts et al., 2011), emotional labor and job satisfaction/burnout
64
(Cheung et al., 2011), identified resource impulsions on threat approvals and
continuous improvement behaviors (Chadwick and Raver, 2013), authentic
leadership and followers‘ job performance through leader–member exchange
(Wang et al., 2014), abusive supervision and subordinate‘s psychological distress
(Li et al., 2016)
High level of psychological capital helps deal negative behaviors and
emotions generated from straining work or worldly circumstances (Avey et al.,
2008). All above studied were based on psychological capital applied as moderator
by using Conservation of resource theory (Hobfoll, 2002) as conceptual
foundation. Conservation of resource theory conceptualizes that resources are
described as ―those entities that either are centrally valued in their own right (e.g.,
self-esteem, close attachments, health, and inner peace) or act as a means to obtain
centrally valued ends (e.g., money, social support, and credit)‖ (Hobfoll, 2002).
Conservation of resource theory (COR) has also been defined as ―seek to
obtain, retain, and protect resources, and stress occurs when resources face
impending danger of privation or perish when individuals fail to gain resources
after substantive resource investment‖ (Hobfoll, 2002). The conservation of
resource theory is the theory of effective utilization of resources; (Hobfoll and
Freedy, 1993). COR explains as an individual‘s entire efforts to grasp the resource
he/she values. As an interpersonal stressor, workplace mistreatment i-e workplace
incivility, abusive supervision, workplace mobbing, threatens the social resources
of the target, and invariably trouble-shouters which must be resolved, in order to
cope with a challenging event (Greenhaus and Powell, 2006) and also to enhance
the resources which the individual possesses. Notwithstanding, personage need to
65
muster their resources to cope workplace mistreatment, and on the other hand, they
are less likely to get their resources redressed by other people leading to a situation
wherein resources are exhausted without fruitful results.
These stressors also result in loosing certain resources, and based on
conservation of resources model, individuals would resort to efforts so as to gain
protection against such bad experiences. In such situations employees are
apprehended to be involved in counterproductive behaviors towards other
individuals and organization for avoiding risk of losing opportunities thus less
likely to implicate in other behaviors, such as citizenship behaviors towards
individuals and organizations which can lead to gaining future resources.
Motivation to work is reduced by the social stressors which afflicts individuals not
only suffering from personal goals but also individual job performance (LePine et
al., 2005).
COR helps in demarcating the way by which resource-like individuals in
coping with such social stressors can be best addressed through psychological
mitigation. Stressful issues can be encountered by choosing, altering and
implementing their other resources by using the crucial resources (psychological
capital) borne by individuals (Hobfoll, 2002). When faced by Social stressor,
individuals strive hard to end up successfully maintain a balance (Hobfoll, 2011)
where success solely relies upon psychological resource of the individual (Ferris et
al., 2007). The psychological resources are main persuasions in attribution of
resource loss for individuals, and therefore perceived loss due to workplace
mistreatment is referred to lose this resource. Those who possess more positive
resources (e.g. hope, optimism, resilience, efficacy) are more likely to cope against
66
the social stressors. In contrast, individual who possess fewer of these resources are
likely to be harmfully affected by these social stressors.
Based on these arguments, when individuals perceive mistreatment at
workplace (workplace incivility, abusive supervision, workplace mobbing), their
psychological capital may help them to minimize the importance of resource loss
associated with mistreatment, allowing them to cope better with these stressors,
thereby reducing the influence of workplace mistreatment (workplace incivility,
abusive supervision, workplace mobbing) on-job behaviors (Job Performance,
OCBO, OCBI, CWBO, CWBI). Consequently, it is hypothesized:
Hypothesis 4 (a) Psychological Capital will moderate workplace incivility and
job performance relationship.
(b) Psychological Capital will moderate workplace incivility and
OCBI relationship.
(c) Psychological Capital will moderate workplace incivility and
OCBO relationship.
(d) Psychological Capital will moderate workplace incivility and
CWBI relationship.
(e) Psychological Capital will moderate workplace incivility and
CWBO relationship.
Hypothesis 5 (a) Psychological Capital will moderate abusive supervision and job
performance relationship.
(b) Psychological Capital will moderate abusive supervision and
OCBI relationship.
67
(c) Psychological Capital will moderate abusive supervision and
OCBO relationship.
(d) Psychological Capital will moderate abusive supervision and
CWBI relationship.
(e) Psychological Capital will moderate abusive supervision and
CWBO relationship.
Hypothesis 6 (a) Psychological Capital will moderate workplace mobbing and job
performance relationship.
(b) Psychological Capital will moderate workplace mobbing and
OCBI relationship.
(c) Psychological Capital will moderate workplace mobbing and
OCBO relationship.
(d) Psychological Capital will moderate workplace mobbing and
CWBI relationship.
(e) Psychological Capital will moderate workplace mobbing
and CWBO relationship.
The primary objective of the literature review was to study the workplace
mistreatment (workplace incivility, abusive supervision, workplace mobbing) and
on-job behavior (job performance, OCB and CWB). The relationship between
these variables has been elaborated with the support of social exchange theory,
attributional theory and stress stain model. Based on theoretical arguments,
negative relationship between different forms of workplace mistreatment i.e.
workplace incivility, abusive supervision, workplace mobbing with job
68
performance, OCB and positive relationship with CWB is discussed. Based on
these arguments the hypothesis for the negative relationship between workplace
mistreatment with job performance and OCB and positive relationship with CWB
are developed.
Moreover, by using conservation of resource theory, the arguments and
hypothesis on moderating role of psychological capital on the relationship between
workplace mistreatment (workplace incivility, abusive supervision, workplace
mobbing) an on-job behaviors ( job performance , OCB, CWB) are discussed. The
theoretical frame work was also formulated. Based on this theoretical framework,
research methodology to address the research questions is presented in chapter 3.
69
Chapter 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research objectives, questions and literature review provide the bases for
the methodology to be adopted. This research is aimed to examine the relationship
between workplace mistreatment (workplace incivility, abusive supervision,
workplace mobbing) and on-job behavior (job performance, OCB, CWB).
Furthermore, it is sought to examine the moderating role of psychological capital
on the relationship between workplace mistreatment (workplace incivility, abusive
supervision, workplace mobbing) and on-job behavior (job performance, OCB,
CWB). After thorough literature review, a theoretical frame work and research
hypotheses have been established based on the theoretical arguments.
The objective of this chapter is to discuss the methodology adapted to
collect, analyze and report data in this research. This chapter is divided into six
sections; the first section discusses the research philosophy. The second, third and
fourth sections discuss the research design, population and sample of study. Section
five describes the various instruments used for data collection. Section six
describes the statistical analysis used to test the hypothesis.
3.1 RESEARCH PHILOSOPHY
A research philosophy is an over-arching credence about the manner and
procedure which guides the way the research question is going to be approached.
Ontology refers to the nature of reality, while epistemology refers to the sources
and approaches to gain knowelege about that reality. The discussion on research
69
70
philosophy is important because it reflects the research and its methodology along
with the role of researcher in it.
Fundamental question to research philosophy can be attributed to the nature
of reality i.e. ontology. In the words of Blaikie (2000), ontology is ―the science or
study of being‖ and it deals with the type of realism. From the perspective of social
science, it can be defined as ―claims about what exists, what it looks like, what
units make it up and how these units interact with each other‖ (Blaikie, 1993). It
refers to belief system that indicates explanation of an individual about what forms
a fact. Ontology distinguishes realism on the following basis; either it is
objectivism or positivism (what really exists) and subjective (output of mind)
reality. Objectivism ―portrays the position that social entities exist in reality
external to social actors concerned with their existence‖ (Saunders et al., 2012).
Alternatively, objectivism ―is an ontological position that asserts that social
phenomena and their meanings have an existence that is independent of social
actors‖ (Bryman, 2012). Subjectivism besides, observes that creation of social
phenomenality is due to conception and resultant actions of social actors (Bryman,
2012). Moreover, constructionism is defined as ―ontological position which asserts
that social phenomena and their meanings are continually being accomplished by
social actors‖ (Bryman, 2012). The table 3.1 describes the ontology of four
different research philosophies related to social science.The research philosophy of
this study is positivism which corresponds to the law-like generalizations of the
phenomena under study. This paradigm is suitable where the research question
relates with the hypotheses testing based on the quantitative data.
71
Table 3.1: Ontology of different research philosophies
Table 3.2: Differences between research
Quantitative Research Qualitative Research
Objectives
Generate result from sample
data to measure response of
population
For better understanding of
problems by providing insight
of a problem. Based on problem
definition, hypothesis are made
to quantitative research
Sample Large number of sample data /
population
Small/limited number data
Data
collection
Structured techniques (i.e.
questionnaires, interviews via
Complex way to collect data
(i.e. interviews, individual
72
telephones, streets) interviews and group
interviews)
Data analysis
Statistical data (numbers,
graphs, charts), Interactive.
―Analysis proceeds by using
statistics, tables or charts and
discussing how what they
show relates to hypotheses‖
Non-statistical analysis is about
exploring and identifying the
themes in the content.
Outcome
Final recommendation for next
action
Exploratory but inconclusive. It
provides base to make further
decision
Hypothesis
Hypotheses are formulated and
declared earlier and then
tested.
Hypotheses are not developed.
Concepts
Concepts have concrete and
solid meanings.
Concepts are in themes and do
not correspond to the strict
definition.
Measures
Operationalization of the
variables are carefully
conducted with the focus on
standardization.
Measures are developed with a
focus on flexibility and depends
on the researchers
understanding and its context.
Data form
Data is in numbers i.e.
quantitative
Data is in the form of text and
pictorial documents
73
Theory
Theory is tested and is causal Theory is developed and is
inductive
Procedures Replicability is possible and
required
Replication is imporbable
74
Following steps are included for empirical-quantitative research:
1. Determination of the phenomenon to explain
2. Theory and hypotheses development
3. Instrumentation
4. Analysis
5. Reliability and validity testing
6. Research implications
Table 3.2 provides the comparative information on the quantitative and
qualitative types of research.
3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN
There are diverse research designs which are employed to conduct studies in
social sciences fields. Qualitative and quantitative type of research are most
commonly used in social science academic research. Hopkins (2008) suggested that
quantitative research links different variables such as ―independent, intervening and
dependent variables‖. Randall et al. (2011) in his research posits triplet quantitative
research i.e. ―Experimental, quasi experimental and non-experimental‖. The
experimental research let the investigator to shape the causal effect of one variable
to other (Randall et al., 2011). Moreover, ―quasi experimental research‖ let the
investigator to carry out and shape different variables in experimential
settings (Randall et al., 2011). On contrary, non-experimental research let the
investigator to conduct research by using questionnaires or structured interviews
for data collection to test the relationship between variables (Randall et al., 2011).
This study is aimed to analyze the effect of workplace mistreatment (workplace
incivility, abusive supervision, workplace mobbing) in relationship with on-job
behavior (job performance, OCBO, OCBI, CWBO and CWBI). The study further
75
aimed to analyze the moderating role of psychological capital on the relationship
between workplace mistreatment (workplace incivility, workplace mobbing and
abusive supervision) and on-job behavior (job performance, OCBO, OCBI, CWBO
and CWBI). Moreover, considering the nature and types of research questions, as
well as the requirement of the quantification of the phenomena; this study employs
the deductive approach and quantitative data to analyze the proposed framework.
Table-3.3 provides the adopted types of research design components, where
research philosophy is positivism, research approach is deductive, research strategy
is survey, research choice is mono method with multi source data and time horizon
of the study is cross sectional.
Survey is suggested to be the most suitable data collection technique
because of the following reasons; first, it fulfills the requirement of a large number
of sample, required for deductive and hypothesis testing study. Second, survey
method is based on the quantifiable measurs which were tested earlier, thus
provides larger number of sample with relatively higher reliability and validity.
Third, survey method ensures the inclusion of a diverse range of population.
Alternate methods of data collection techniques have limitiaons in regard to the
number of sample and subjective opinion. Collection and analysis of subjective
opinions requires significant more time and higher level of expertise on part of the
data collection agent and analyst. Additionally, the generalizability of the research
is also compromised due to limited sample size. Thus, the survey method is
deemed most suitable and practical data collection technique as part of the research
design.
Morevoer, survey method has differences based on the instrumentation and
76
Table 3.3: Summary of research philosophy and design
Table 3.4: Number of faculty members in Pakistan
S.No. Provinces
Nos. of
Universities
Nos. of
faculty
members
Nos. of
Ph.D
Faculty
Percentage
of Ph.D
Faculty
1 Punjab 58 13288 3752 28.24
2 Sindh 54 8987 1735 19.31
3 KPK 34 5514 1724 31.27
4 Balochistan 8 1387 226 16.29
5 Gilgit
Baltistan
1 162 38 23.46
6 Federal
Capital
21 7294 2454 33.64
7 AJK 7 796 196 24.62
8 Total 183 37428 10125
Source:http://hec.gov.pk/english/universities/Pages/University-wise-Full-time-faculty.aspx
77
the time frame of data collected. Instrument perspectives include questionnaire
method and the interview method, while form time-frame perspective these are
cross sectional and longitudinal surveys. Type of research question being addressed
in this research and the nature of hypotheses direct us towards the questionnaire
based survey method due to objective assessment and the requirement of a larger
sample size for sake of hypothese testing. From time-frame perspective the
longitudinal data is considered to be more suitable to the experimental studies.
Whereas, the cross sectional data can be used for the hypotheses testing studies
where the framework of the research is based on a theoretical framework, where
theory provides the clear direction of the relationship. This theoretical base of the
framework makes the need for the longitudinal data redundant and unnecessary.
Thus, being prudent, current research adopts questionnaire based survey method in
the cross-sectional time frame.
3.3 POPULATION OF STUDY
This study was aimed to collect data from faculty serving in universities in
Pakistan. As per Higher Education Commission, Government of Pakistan (Source:
http://hec.gov.pk/english/universities/pages/recognised.aspx#k), currently 183
universities are operating in Pakistan including 75 private sector universities/
degree awarding institutions. The detail of faculty serving in universities in
Pakistan is given in Table-3.4.
Total number of 37,428 faculty members is serving in universities in
Pakistan. Out of which 10125 faculty members possess Ph.D qualification which
are 27.85% of total faculty serving in Pakistan. From the data it is revealed that 58
78
universities are operating in Punjab comprising 13,288 faculty members including
3,752 Ph.D faculty members which is 28.24% of total faculty. Out of 183
universities, 54 universities are operating in Sindh comprising 1,735 Ph.D faculty
members which is 19.31% of total faculty.
34 universities are operating in Kyber Pakhtunkhwa comprising 5,514
faculty members including 1,724 Ph.D faculty members which is 31.27% of total
faculty. 08 universities are operating in Balochistan comprising 1,387 faculty
members including 226 Ph.D faculty members which is 16.29% of faculty. 01
university is operating in Gilgit Baltistan comprising 162 faculty members
including 38 Ph.D faculty members which is 23.46% of faculty. 21 universities are
operating in federal capital Islamabad comprising 7,294 faculty members including
2,454 Ph.D faculty members which is 33.64% of faculty. 07 universities are
operating in Azad Jammu & Kashmir comprising 796 faculty members including
196 Ph.D faculty members which is 24.64% of total faculty.
3.4 SAMPLE OF STUDY
Sample is considered to be ―representative of whole population‖ who can
precisely represent the characteristics of population. In the words of Marshall
(1996) sample is used to provide indication or a flavor of specific larger unit.
Sampling is called as a method which is used to select members of a certain
population. It has been rightly noted that population is impractical to analyze due to
size, so taking a sample from the population has been considered as an alternative
to the population (Proctor, 2003). Saunders (2009) has suggested to use the Fisher
et al. (1991) formula to determine the sample size from the population size as given
in equation 1:
79
Where-: n - The desired sample size
z – S.D determines 1.96, comes to 95% confidence-level
p - Fraction of propose population having peculiar attributes. Current reseach used
0.5
q = 1.0 – p in percentage
e = the degree of accuracy fraction of 0.05 corresponding to the 1.96.
Data was collected from academic staff working in universities of Pakistan
through multistage sampling. There are 183 universities which are operating in
Pakistan. 37,428 academic staff is working in these universities including 10,125
Ph.Ds. Out of 183 universities 26 universities/ degree awarding institutes were
selected by using Simple random sampling. All the selected universities have their
websites in which data of all the academic staff is available. The department wise
lists of academic staff of these universities were prepared. Then data was collected
from these universities by using purposive sampling. Only the department where
number of academic staff was more than 15 was shortlisted for data collection.
Around 600 academic staff from the sample was shortlisted by using the above
criteria. As the respondents were the academic staff of the university and they all
80
have adequate English language skills, therefore, the responses of respondents were
asked in English language. A cover letter was attached with each questionnaire
stating the objective of research and ensuring the confidentiality of the response.
When measuring variables that give a positive image of oneself, or a
negative one, social desirability bias may become a concern, as well as common
source bias that might arise from measurement of independent and dependent
variables from the same source, both of which can lead to invalid or inflated
results. We sought to a priori remedy these concerns by using a multi-source
design.
Each questionnaire was allocated a unique code for identification of
specific faculty member. A list of faculty member was maintained by the
researcher including name of university, department, faculty member designation
and questionnaire code. The data was collected through personal visit of researcher
to these academic institutions in first step. A time of one week was given to the
faculty members for completion of data. After one week the questionnaire was
collected from the respondents.
Focal individuals, faculty members, completed questionnaires of abusive
supervision (about their supervisor) and their own PsyCap. Data for these focal
individuals‘ CWBs were collected by asking a colleague of these individuals to rate
the relevant items. Data for OCBs were collected from the focal individuals‘
supervisors.
Out of 600 questionnaires 523 questionnaires were received. Out of 523
questionnaires, 38 questionnaires were discarded as the data was not completely
81
filled by the respondents. In the next step the questionnaire to measure the job
performance, OCBO and OCBI of the 485 faculty members were distributed to
their supervisors. In the final step the questionnaire were distributed to their peers
to measure CWBO and CWBI. These questionnaires were coded with the same
code which was allocated to respondent at the time of data collection. The list was
provided to the supervisor and peers which have the information about academic
staff including name against the code allocated to him to enable them to fill the
questionnaires keeping in view the respondent. Only those employees were
selected to fill the questionnaire of peers who has at least five year experience in
that department. Out of 485 questionnaires, 427 questionnaires were received. 19
questionnaires were discarded due as the data was not completely filled either by
supervisor or peer.
3.5 DESCRIPTION OF INSTRUMENT
3.5.1 Workplace Incivility
Workplace incivility was measured by adapting scale developed by (Cortina
et al., 2001). The scale contains 07 items to measure workplace incivility using a 5-
point scale (1=Never to 5=Very often). Example items include: ―Doubt your
judgment on a matter over which you have responsibility‖ and ―Pay little attention
to your statement or show little interest in your opinion‖.
3.5.2 Abusive Supervision
Abusive Supervision was measured by adapting scale developed by (Tepper,
2000). The scale contains 15-items to measure abusive supervision on a five point
likert scale (1= Strongly Disagree to 5= Strongly Agree). Example items include:
―My immediate supervisor makes negative comments about me to others‖ and ―My
82
immediate supervisor expresses anger at me when he/she is annoyed for another
reason‖.
3.5.3 Workplace Mobbing
Workplace Mobbing was measured by adapting scale developed by (Quine,
2001). The scale contains 20-items to measure workplace mobbing on a five point
likert scale (1= Never to 5=Always). Example items include: ―persistent attempts
to humiliate you in front of colleagues‖ and ―made verbal and non-verbal threats
against you‖.
3.5.4 Organizational Citizenship Behavior
OCB was measured by adapting 16 items scale (Lee and Allen, 2002). The
scale contains 16-items, 08 items of scale are used to measure OCBI and 08 items
are used to measure OCBO on a five point likert scale (1=Never to 5=Always).
Example items include: ―Adjust work schedule to accommodate other employees‖
and ―Offer ideas to improve the functioning of the organization‖.
3.5.5 Counterproductive Work Behavior
Counterproductive Work Behavior was measured by adapting scale
developed by (Spector et al., 2010). The scale contains 10 items, 05 items of scale
are used to measure CWBO and five items are used to measure CWBI on a five-
point likert scale (5 = Every Day to 1 = Never). An example item is: ―Complained
about insignificant things at work‖.
3.5.6 Job Performance
To measure job performance, 7 items scale was adapted which was
developed by William and Anderson (1991). An example item is ―Adequately
complete assigned duties‖ Responses were measured on five-point Likert type
83
scale where ―1= strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree‖.
3.5.7 Psychological Capital
Psychological Capital (PsyCap) was measured by PCQ-24, developed by
(Youssef and Luthans, 2007). The questionnaire measures all four components of
PsyCap i.e. (Hope, Optimism, Self Efficacy and Resilience). Example items
include ―If I should find myself in a jam at work, I could think of many ways to get
out of it‖ for hope and ―I feel confident analyzing a long-term problem to find its
solution‖ for efficacy. All items will be measured by using a 6-point Likert scale of
agreement with response options ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly
agree.
3.6 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
The analysis for model fitness of data was conducted by using AMOS.
Bivariate analysis of data was conducted by using SPSS. To analyze the effect of
moderation bootstrap method proposed by Hayes et al. (2013) was used to see
effect of all independent variables workplace mistreatment (workplace mobbing,
abusive supervision and workplace mobbing) on dependent variables (job
performance, OCB, CWB) and effect of moderating variables (psychological
capital) on the relationship between independent variables and dependent variables.
To summarize, chapter three contained information regarding the methods
and procedures employed in this study. It discussed the setting, participant
inclusion and exclusion criteria, recruitment and survey measurements and
variables. This chapter also contained a discourse regarding, data collection, data
analysis, and sample size. Considering the nature and types of research questions,
84
as well as the requirement of the quantification of the phenomena; this study
employs the deductive approach and quantitative data to analyze the theoretical
framework.
The population of the study was the faculty members serving in universities
in Pakistan. There are 183 universities are operating in Pakistan. A total number of
37,428 faculty members are serving in different public and private sector
universities in Pakistan. The data was collected through close ended questionnaire
on likert scale from 408 faculty members serving in Pakistan. The self reported
data of independent variable workplace mistreatment (workplace incivility, abusive
supervision, workplace mobbing) and moderating variable psychological capital
was collected from faculty members. The data about their job performance and
OCB was collected from their supervisor and data about their CWB was collected
from their peers. The analysis for model fitness of data was conducted using
AMOS, bivariate analysis of data was conducted using SPSS. To analyze the
moderating effect of psychological capital bootstrap method proposed by Hayes et
al. (2013) was used. The demographic of data and statistical results to test the
hypothesis will be discussed in chapter 4.
85
Chapter 4
RESULTS
This research is primarily endeavored to analyze the effect of workplace
mistreatment (workplace incivility, abusive supervision, workplace mobbing) and
on-job behavior (job performance, OCB, CWB). As workplace mistreatment has
negative relationship with job performance, OCB (Estes and Wang, 2008) and
positive relationship with counterproductive work behavior (Furnham and Taylor,
2011). Furthermore, due to adverse effect of workplace mistreatment with job
behaviors this study is also sought to examine the moderating role of psychological
capital on the relationship between workplace mistreatment (workplace incivility,
abusive supervision, workplace mobbing) and on-job behavior (job performance,
OCB, CWB).
Considering the above the research objectives, this chapter provides the
summary of the demographic data, test of each of the identified research question
and hypotheses. This chapter also provides a discourse and interpretation of the
results. This chapter is presented in 09 sections. The demographic of data is
presented in Section 1. The normality tests of data are presented in section 2 and 3.
The exploratory factory analysis and confirmatory factor analysis are presented in
section 4 and 5. The reliability of all the variables, common method bias and
correlation results are presented in section 6 to 8. The hypotheses results of the
research study are presented in section 9.
86 85
86
4.1 DEMOGRAPHICS OF DATA
This section of the analysis chapter provides insights about the
demographic details of the respondents, along with frequency distributions.
Respondents consisted of primarily the male gender which is a reflection of the
faculty ratio in the population of the faculty among the universities in Pakistan. The
data for this study was collected from 408 faculty members serving in different
public and private sectior universities in Pakistan. Table 4.1 is presents the gender
wise data. The table reflects that the 64.5 percent of the respondents were male and
35.5 percent were female.
Moreover, table 4.2 depicts that the major age group of the faculty member
respondents where between the age of 26 and 35, although respondents included in
the sample corresponds to all the age groups as well. Table 4.3 presents the
organization type data of the study. The data was collected from public and private
sector universities of Pakistan. Most of the respondents were from the public-sector
organization which is also the major employer of the faculty in Pakistan. Private
sector faculty was approximately 7 percent of the sample. Experience table shows
that the respondents had the representation of all the experience groups from the
faculty, majorly having experience between the 4 to 6 years. This number of years‘
experience is deemed suitable time in the profession to acclimatize with the
environment.
Frequency distribution of the demographics reveals the normally distributed
respondents from various categories. Normal distribution is a sought for situation
which corresponds to the behavior in any given population. Normally distributed
sample is, thus, a close reflection of the population.
87
Table 4.1: Frequency table: Gender
Freq Perct% Valid% Cum%
Male 263 64.5 64.5 64.5
Female 145 35.5 35.5 100.0
Figure 4.1: Frequency distribution: gender
Table 4.2: Frequency table: Age group
Freq Perct% Valid% Cum%
20-25 45 11.0 11.0 11.0
26-35 264 64.7 64.7 75.7
36-45 81 19.9 19.9 95.6
46-55 16 3.9 3.9 99.5
56 above 2 .5 .5 100.0
88
Figure 4.2: Frequency distribution: age group
Table 4.3: Frequency table: Organization type
Freq Perct% Valid% Cum%
Public Sector 348 85.3 85.3 85.3
Private Sector 60 14.7 14.7 100.0
Figure 4.3: Frequency distribution: organization type
89
Table 4.4: Frequency table: Experience
Freq Perct% Valid% Cum%
1-3 Years 88 21.6 30.0 30.0
4-6 Year 117 28.7 39.9 70.0
7-9 Years 51 12.5 17.4 87.4
10 and above Years 37 9.1 12.6 100.0
Figure 4.4: Frequency distribution: experience
4.2 Q-Q PLOT FOR VARIABLES
Figure 4.5: Q-Q plot-workplace incivility
90
Table 4.5: Q-Q plot values-Workplace incivility
Items SMID SVID CI-TC Cron α ID
WPIncivility1 25.6324 14.39 0.536 0.774
WPIncivility2 25.6814 14.444 0.524 0.776
WPIncivility3 25.7549 14.023 0.543 0.773
WPIncivlity4 25.6324 14.548 0.51 0.779
WPIncivlity5 25.6765 14.018 0.57 0.768
WPIncivlity6 25.6936 14.429 0.474 0.786
WIncivility7 25.6642 14.248 0.57 0.768
Figure 4.6: Q-Q plot-abusive supervision
91
Table 4.6: Q-Q plot values-Abusive supervision
Items SMID SVID CI-TC Cron α ID
AbusSup1 60.3407 67.709 0.558 0.896
AbusSup2 60.2279 68.108 0.541 0.897
AbusSup3 60.2402 67.701 0.555 0.896
AbusSup4 60.2721 66.695 0.624 0.894
AbusSup5 60.2451 67.188 0.615 0.894
AbusSup6 60.2966 67.079 0.607 0.894
AbusSup7 60.3309 67.043 0.581 0.895
AbusSup8 60.2451 67.964 0.564 0.896
AbusSup9 60.3015 67.425 0.589 0.895
AbusSup10 60.3456 66.782 0.585 0.895
AbusSup11 60.2794 66.993 0.612 0.894
AbusSup12 60.2377 67.671 0.582 0.895
AbusSup13 60.2721 66.616 0.61 0.894
AbusSup14 60.277 68.176 0.529 0.897
AbusSup15 60.2549 67.404 0.596 0.895
92
Figure 4.7: Q-Q plot-workplace mobbing
Table 4.7: Q-Q plot values-Workplace mobbing
Items SMID SVID CI-TC Cron α ID
WPMobbing1 70.3088 176.484 0.674 0.949
WPMobbing2 70.348 175.805 0.679 0.949
WPMobbing3 70.3995 175.729 0.685 0.949
WPMobbing4 70.3113 176.205 0.685 0.949
WPMobbing5 70.3529 176.411 0.69 0.949
WPMobbing6 70.3775 175.661 0.694 0.949
WPMobbing7 70.3897 175.688 0.683 0.949
WPMobbing8 70.3946 175.267 0.707 0.949
WPMobbing9 70.4608 176.74 0.674 0.949
93
WPMobbing10 70.4093 175.918 0.705 0.949
WPMobbing11 70.424 176.068 0.659 0.95
WPMobbing12 70.3603 175.917 0.705 0.949
WPMobbing13 70.3946 175.576 0.677 0.949
WPMobbing14 70.4412 177.028 0.646 0.95
WPMobbing15 70.3971 176.26 0.666 0.949
WPMobbing16 70.3701 174.897 0.731 0.948
WPMobbing17 70.4657 174.131 0.718 0.949
WPMobbing18 70.3971 175.621 0.692 0.949
WPMobbing19 70.3284 176.791 0.667 0.949
WPMobbing20 70.3922 175.615 0.687 0.949
Figure 4.8: Q-Q plot-psychological capital
94
Table 4.8: Q-Q plot values-Psychological capital
Items SMID SVID CI-TC Cron α ID
PsyCap1 51.8922 92.558 0.546 0.906
PsyCap2 51.8995 93.619 0.478 0.908
PsyCap3 51.9069 92.36 0.568 0.906
PsyCap4 51.9779 93.417 0.521 0.907
PsyCap5 51.951 92.941 0.521 0.907
PsyCap6 51.9093 92.417 0.544 0.906
PsyCap7 51.8382 92.057 0.511 0.907
PsyCap8 51.8603 93.236 0.489 0.907
PsyCap9 51.8113 92.954 0.498 0.907
PsyCap10 51.8309 93.217 0.473 0.908
PsyCap11 51.8652 92.181 0.525 0.907
PsyCap12 51.875 92.385 0.523 0.907
PsyCap13 52.1373 94.31 0.507 0.907
PsyCap14 52.1569 94.015 0.484 0.908
PsyCap15 52.1544 92.839 0.55 0.906
PsyCap16 52.1471 93.625 0.497 0.907
PsyCap17 52.1446 94.011 0.499 0.907
PsyCap18 52.1471 94.583 0.494 0.907
PsyCap19 51.7108 92.216 0.559 0.906
PsyCap20 51.7108 92.511 0.513 0.907
PsyCap21 51.674 91.862 0.565 0.906
95
PsyCap22 51.701 92.579 0.535 0.907
PsyCap23 51.7157 91.835 0.555 0.906
PsyCap24 51.7598 92.753 0.53 0.907
Figure 4.9: Q-Q plot-organizational citizenship behavior-I
Figure 4.10: Q-Q plot-organizational citizenship behavior-O:
96
Table 4.9: Q-Q plot values-OCBO and OCBI
Items SMID SVID CI-TC Cron α ID
OCB1 51.6838 84.197 0.558 0.889
OCB2 51.6348 82.709 0.595 0.888
OCB3 51.7304 83.131 0.591 0.888
OCB4 51.6422 83.832 0.571 0.889
OCB5 51.6789 84.474 0.517 0.89
OCB6 51.6397 82.806 0.577 0.888
OCB7 51.6765 83.389 0.581 0.888
OCB8 51.6544 83.49 0.602 0.887
OCB9 51.6005 83.749 0.567 0.889
OCB10 51.6005 83.474 0.567 0.889
OCB11 51.7206 85.435 0.446 0.893
OCB12 51.6814 83.54 0.56 0.889
OCB13 51.6569 83.676 0.574 0.888
OCB14 51.6863 85.282 0.485 0.892
OCB15 51.6471 83.113 0.584 0.888
OCB16 51.7206 84.344 0.534 0.89
97
Figure 4.11: Q-Q plot-CWBO
Figure 4.12: Q-Q plot-CWBI
98
Table 4.10: Q-Q plot values-CWBO and CWBI
Items SMID SVID CI-TC Cron α ID
CWB1 30.7181 21.112 0.399 0.657
CWB2 30.7451 20.967 0.379 0.661
CWB3 30.8162 22.072 0.271 0.68
CWB4 30.7426 21.219 0.372 0.662
CWB5 30.8064 21.159 0.371 0.662
CWB6 30.7525 21.912 0.284 0.678
CWB7 30.7623 21.612 0.335 0.669
CWB8 30.8529 21.226 0.384 0.66
CWB9 30.7059 21.402 0.325 0.671
CWB10 30.7083 21.318 0.364 0.663
Figure 4.13: Q-Q plot-job performance
99
Table 4.11: Q-Q plot values-Job performance
Items SMID SVID CI-TC Cron α ID
Perf1 19.9608 11.684 0.412 0.663
Perf2 19.9853 11.435 0.442 0.655
Perf3 20 11.695 0.397 0.667
Perf4 19.9167 11.467 0.459 0.651
Perf5 20.0098 11.843 0.384 0.67
Perf6 20.0098 11.764 0.383 0.671
Perf7 19.9412 11.795 0.369 0.674
100
Figure 4.5 and Table 4.5 exhibit Q-Q Plot for work place incivility which
shows normality of data for Q-Q plot for work place mobbing. Figure 4.6 and table
4.6 depicts the Q-Q Plot for abusive supervision. The figures and values of table
show normality of data for Q-Q plot for abusive supervision. Moreover, figure 4.7
and table 4.7 depicts the Q-Q Plot for workplace mobbing. The figures and values
of table show normality of data for Q-Q plot for workplace mobbing. Q-Q plot for
psychological capital shows normality of data for Q-Q plot for psychological
capital. Figure 4.9, 4.10 and table 4.9 depicts the Q-Q Plot values for OCBO and
OCBI. The values of Q-Q Plot for OCBI and OCBO shows normality of data.
Table 4.10 depicts values of Q-Q Plot for CWBO and CWBI. The values of Q-Q
Plot for OCBI and OCBO shows normality of data. Table 4.11 depicts values of Q-
Q Plot for job performance which shows normality of data for Q-Q plot for
performance.
4.3 MEANS, SKEWNESS, KURTOSIS
Table 4.12 shows the item wise descriptive statistics detail including
minimum value, maximum value, mean value, standard deviation, variance,
Skewness and kurtosis. The values of all the items are within acceptable ranges.
Table 4.13 shows the normality of data for all variables that are measured, the
minimum value for construct OCBI is 1.00, maximum value is 4.88. The average
mean is 3.44, standard deviation is 0.65, skewness value is -0.763 and kurtosis
value is 1.068. The minimum value for OCBO is 1.00 and maximum value is 4.50.
The value of average mean is 2.58, standard deviation is 0.62, skewness value is -
0.95 and kurtosis value is 1.24. The minimum value for CWBO is 1.20 and
maximum value is 4.80. The value of average mean is 2.59, standard deviation is
101
Table 4.12: Descriptive statistics-item wise
N Range Min Max Mean SD Var Skew Kurt
St St St St St SE St SE St SE St SE
OCB1 408 4 1 5 3.43 0.05 0.94 0.88 0.17 0.12 -0.38 0.24
OCB2 408 4 1 5 3.48 0.05 1.01 1.02 0.00 0.12 -0.34 0.24
OCB3 408 4 1 5 3.38 0.05 0.98 0.96 0.01 0.12 -0.21 0.24
OCB4 408 4 1 5 3.47 0.05 0.95 0.90 0.07 0.12 -0.40 0.24
OCB5 408 4 1 5 3.43 0.05 0.97 0.95 0.04 0.12 -0.32 0.24
OCB6 408 4 1 5 3.47 0.05 1.03 1.06 -0.08 0.12 -0.30 0.24
OCB7 408 4 1 5 3.43 0.05 0.97 0.95 0.12 0.12 -0.24 0.24
OCB8 408 4 1 5 3.46 0.05 0.94 0.88 0.11 0.12 -0.32 0.24
OCB9 408 4 1 5 3.51 0.05 0.96 0.93 -0.01 0.12 -0.26 0.24
OCB10 408 4 1 5 3.51 0.05 0.99 0.97 0.07 0.12 -0.52 0.24
OCB11 408 4 1 5 3.39 0.05 1.00 1.00 0.06 0.12 -0.30 0.24
OCB12 408 4 1 5 3.43 0.05 0.99 0.98 0.03 0.12 -0.36 0.24
OCB13 408 4 1 5 3.45 0.05 0.96 0.92 0.06 0.12 -0.31 0.24
OCB14 408 4 1 5 3.42 0.05 0.95 0.90 0.16 0.12 -0.36 0.24
OCB15 408 4 1 5 3.46 0.05 0.99 0.99 0.06 0.12 -0.36 0.24
OCB16 408 4 1 5 3.39 0.05 0.96 0.92 0.06 0.12 -0.26 0.24
CWB1 408 4 1 5 3.46 0.05 0.96 0.92 0.10 0.12 -0.36 0.24
CWB2 408 4 1 5 3.43 0.05 1.02 1.04 -0.11 0.12 -0.21 0.24
CWB3 408 4 1 5 3.36 0.05 0.98 0.96 -0.01 0.12 -0.05 0.24
CWB4 408 4 1 5 3.44 0.05 0.98 0.96 -0.02 0.12 -0.17 0.24
CWB5 408 4 1 5 3.37 0.05 0.99 0.99 0.00 0.12 -0.17 0.24
102
CWB6 408 4 1 5 3.43 0.05 0.99 0.99 0.08 0.12 -0.42 0.24
CWB7 408 4 1 5 3.42 0.05 0.96 0.93 0.10 0.12 -0.39 0.24
CWB8 408 4 1 5 3.33 0.05 0.96 0.92 0.20 0.12 -0.19 0.24
CWB9 408 4 1 5 3.47 0.05 1.03 1.05 -0.04 0.12 -0.48 0.24
CWB10 408 4 1 5 3.47 0.05 0.97 0.95 0.12 0.12 -0.44 0.24
Perf1 408 4 1 5 3.34 0.05 0.92 0.85 0.14 0.12 0.19 0.24
Perf2 408 4 1 5 3.32 0.05 0.94 0.88 0.04 0.12 0.19 0.24
Perf3 408 4 1 5 3.30 0.05 0.94 0.88 0.10 0.12 0.30 0.24
Perf4 408 4 1 5 3.39 0.05 0.91 0.83 0.14 0.12 0.11 0.24
Perf5 408 4 1 5 3.29 0.05 0.92 0.85 0.09 0.12 0.18 0.24
Perf6 408 4 1 5 3.29 0.05 0.94 0.89 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.24
Perf7 408 4 1 5 3.36 0.05 0.95 0.91 0.14 0.12 0.03 0.24
PsyCap1 408 3 1 4 2.27 0.04 0.73 0.54 0.24 0.12 -0.12 0.24
PsyCap2 408 3 1 4 2.26 0.04 0.72 0.52 0.27 0.12 -0.05 0.24
PsyCap3 408 3 1 4 2.26 0.04 0.73 0.53 0.19 0.12 -0.17 0.24
PsyCap4 408 4 1 5 2.19 0.03 0.69 0.47 0.20 0.12 0.23 0.24
PsyCap5 408 3 1 4 2.21 0.04 0.73 0.53 0.18 0.12 -0.21 0.24
PsyCap6 408 3 1 4 2.25 0.04 0.75 0.56 0.15 0.12 -0.29 0.24
PsyCap7 408 4 1 5 2.33 0.04 0.82 0.68 0.42 0.12 0.25 0.24
PsyCap8 408 3 1 4 2.30 0.04 0.74 0.55 0.17 0.12 -0.23 0.24
PsyCap9 408 4 1 5 2.35 0.04 0.76 0.57 0.30 0.12 0.02 0.24
PsyCap10 408 3 1 4 2.33 0.04 0.77 0.59 0.18 0.12 -0.29 0.24
PsyCap11 408 4 1 5 2.30 0.04 0.79 0.63 0.37 0.12 -0.04 0.24
PsyCap12 408 3 1 4 2.29 0.04 0.78 0.60 0.20 0.12 -0.31 0.24
PsyCap13 408 3 1 4 2.03 0.03 0.62 0.39 0.23 0.12 0.37 0.24
103
PsyCap14 408 4 1 5 2.01 0.03 0.67 0.45 0.38 0.12 0.64 0.24
PsyCap15 408 3 1 4 2.01 0.03 0.70 0.50 0.41 0.12 0.21 0.24
PsyCap16 408 4 1 5 2.02 0.03 0.70 0.48 0.42 0.12 0.57 0.24
PsyCap17 408 3 1 4 2.02 0.03 0.66 0.43 0.24 0.12 0.10 0.24
PsyCap18 408 3 1 4 2.02 0.03 0.61 0.37 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.24
PsyCap19 408 4 1 5 2.45 0.04 0.75 0.56 0.28 0.12 0.14 0.24
PsyCap20 408 4 1 5 2.45 0.04 0.78 0.61 0.20 0.12 -0.19 0.24
PsyCap21 408 4 1 5 2.49 0.04 0.77 0.59 0.13 0.12 -0.03 0.24
PsyCap22 408 4 1 5 2.46 0.04 0.74 0.55 0.41 0.12 -0.03 0.24
PsyCap23 408 4 1 5 2.45 0.04 0.79 0.62 0.28 0.12 -0.03 0.24
PsyCap24 408 4 1 5 2.40 0.04 0.74 0.54 0.24 0.12 0.02 0.24
WPInciv1 408 4 1 5 1.68 0.04 0.90 0.80 1.26 0.12 1.09 0.24
WPInciv 2 408 4 1 5 1.73 0.04 0.90 0.81 1.08 0.12 0.43 0.24
WPInciv 3 408 4 1 5 1.80 0.05 0.96 0.92 0.88 0.12 -0.32 0.24
WPInciv 4 408 3 1 4 1.68 0.04 0.90 0.80 1.11 0.12 0.19 0.24
WPInciv 5 408 4 1 5 1.72 0.05 0.93 0.86 1.12 0.12 0.56 0.24
WPInciv 6 408 4 1 5 1.74 0.05 0.96 0.93 1.07 0.12 0.05 0.24
WPInciv 7 408 4 1 5 1.71 0.04 0.88 0.78 0.99 0.12 0.04 0.24
AbusSup1 408 3 1 4 1.76 0.04 0.90 0.81 0.94 0.12 -0.11 0.24
AbusSup2 408 4 1 5 1.64 0.04 0.89 0.79 1.27 0.12 0.89 0.24
AbusSup3 408 4 1 5 1.66 0.04 0.91 0.82 1.27 0.12 0.82 0.24
AbusSup4 408 4 1 5 1.69 0.05 0.91 0.83 1.15 0.12 0.46 0.24
104
AbusSup5 408 4 1 5 1.66 0.04 0.88 0.77 1.29 0.12 1.18 0.24
AbusSup6 408 4 1 5 1.71 0.04 0.90 0.81 1.03 0.12 0.13 0.24
AbusSup7 408 4 1 5 1.75 0.05 0.93 0.87 1.01 0.12 0.02 0.24
AbusSup8 408 3 1 4 1.66 0.04 0.87 0.76 1.14 0.12 0.37 0.24
AbusSup9 408 3 1 4 1.72 0.04 0.89 0.79 0.97 0.12 -0.12 0.24
AbuSup10 408 4 1 5 1.76 0.05 0.95 0.91 1.02 0.12 0.01 0.24
AbuSup11 408 4 1 5 1.70 0.04 0.90 0.81 1.15 0.12 0.57 0.24
AbuSup12 408 4 1 5 1.65 0.04 0.87 0.76 1.20 0.12 0.75 0.24
AbuSup13 408 4 1 5 1.69 0.05 0.93 0.87 1.18 0.12 0.55 0.24
AbuSup14 408 4 1 5 1.69 0.04 0.90 0.80 1.12 0.12 0.46 0.24
AbuSup15 408 4 1 5 1.67 0.04 0.88 0.78 1.15 0.12 0.47 0.24
WPMob1 408 4 1 5 2.22 0.05 0.95 0.90 0.35 0.12 -0.58 0.24
WPMob2 408 4 1 5 2.26 0.05 0.98 0.96 0.16 0.12 -0.99 0.24
WPMob3 408 4 1 5 2.31 0.05 0.98 0.95 0.15 0.12 -0.94 0.24
WPMob4 408 4 1 5 2.22 0.05 0.95 0.91 0.29 0.12 -0.72 0.24
WPMob5 408 4 1 5 2.26 0.05 0.93 0.87 0.13 0.12 -0.86 0.24
WPMob6 408 4 1 5 2.29 0.05 0.97 0.94 0.22 0.12 -0.67 0.24
WPMob7 408 4 1 5 2.30 0.05 0.98 0.96 0.16 0.12 -0.96 0.24
WPMob8 408 4 1 5 2.30 0.05 0.97 0.94 0.26 0.12 -0.63 0.24
WPMob9 408 4 1 5 2.37 0.05 0.94 0.88 0.07 0.12 -0.74 0.24
WPMob10 408 4 1 5 2.32 0.05 0.94 0.89 0.18 0.12 -0.79 0.24
WPMob11 408 4 1 5 2.33 0.05 0.99 0.98 0.20 0.12 -0.75 0.24
WPMob12 408 4 1 5 2.27 0.05 0.94 0.89 0.17 0.12 -0.84 0.24
105
WPMob13 408 4 1 5 2.30 0.05 0.99 0.99 0.33 0.12 -0.61 0.24
WPMob14 408 4 1 5 2.35 0.05 0.96 0.92 0.16 0.12 -0.63 0.24
WPMob15 408 4 1 5 2.31 0.05 0.97 0.95 0.16 0.12 -0.85 0.24
WPMob16 408 4 1 5 2.28 0.05 0.96 0.92 0.17 0.12 -0.90 0.24
WPMob17 408 4 1 5 2.38 0.05 1.02 1.03 0.16 0.12 -0.85 0.24
WPMob18 408 4 1 5 2.31 0.05 0.97 0.95 0.21 0.12 -0.81 0.24
WPMob19 408 4 1 5 2.24 0.05 0.94 0.89 0.20 0.12 -0.85 0.24
WPMob20 408 4 1 5 2.30 0.05 0.98 0.96 0.24 0.12 -0.75 0.24
Table 4.13: Means, Skewness, Kurtosis
N Min Max Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis
OCBI 408 1.00 4.88 3.4427 .65201 -.763 1.068
OCBO 408 1.00 4.50 3.4461 .62399 -.953 1.242
CWBO 408 1.20 4.80 3.4132 .59706 -.242 .956
CWBI 408 1.60 5.00 2.5781 .58050 .022 .333
Performance 408 1.00 4.71 2.5901 .55551 -.706 2.093
Psychological
Capital
408 1.00 3.25 2.2568 .41833 -.510 .376
Mobbing 408 1.00 4.43 1.7206 .62005 1.126 1.669
Abusive
Supervision
408 1.00 4.27 1.6944 .58423 1.288 2.208
Incivility 408 1.00 4.55 2.2955 .69713 .143 -.445
106
0.59, skewness value is -0.242 and kurtosis value is 0.956. The minimum value for
CWBI is 1.60 and maximum value is 5.00. The value of average mean is 2.58,
standard deviation is 0.58, skewness value is 0.22 and kurtosis value is 0.33. The
minimum value for job performance is 1 and maximum value is 4.71. The value of
average mean is 3.32, standard deviation is 0.55, skewness value is -0.706 and
kurtosis value is 2.09.
The minimum value for psychological capital is 1.00 and maximum value is
3.25. The average mean is 2.26, standard deviation is 0.41, skewness value is -0.51
and kurtosis value is 0.376. The minimum value for work place mobbing is 1 and
maximum value is 4.43. The average mean is 1.72, standard deviation is 0.62,
skewness value is 1.126 and kurtosis value is 1.66. The minimum value for abusive
supervision is 1 and maximum value is 4.27. The average mean value is 1.69,
standard deviation is 0.58, skewness value is 1.28 and kurtosis value is 2.208. The
minimum value for incivility is 1 and maximum value is 4.55. The average mean is
2.29, standard deviation is 0.69, skewness value is 0.143 and kurtosis value is -
0.445. On the basis of values of mean, skewness and kurtosis confirms normality
test is satisfactory.
The desirable values of SD in five point likert scale is less than 1.3 and in
six points likert scale is less than 1.5. The table 4.13 shows that SD of all the
variables is less than 1.0 which is desirable. The desirable value to test Skewness of
the variables is less than 1.2. The table shows that the value of Skewness of all the
variables is acceptable. The desirable value of kurtosis is less than 5. The table
shows that value of kurtosis of all the variables is less than 5 which is acceptable.
107
Table 4.14: Extraction values
Factor Extraction Factor Extraction Factor Extraction
OCB1 .516 PsyCap1 .558 WPIncivility1 .546
OCB2 .564 PsyCap2 .560 WPIncivility 2 .516
OCB3 .559 PsyCap4 .687 WPIncivility 3 .636
OCB4 .536 PsyCap5 .567 WPIncivility 4 .564
OCB5 .609 PsyCap6 .533 WPIncivility 5 .658
OCB6 .559 PsyCap7 .559 WPIncivility 6 .586
OCB7 .655 PsyCap8 .553 WPIncivility 7 .592
OCB8 .563 PsyCap9 .619 AbusSup1 .577
OCB9 .560 PsyCap10 .566 AbusSup2 .617
OCB10 .616 PsyCap11 .521 AbusSup3 .505
OCB11 .514 PsyCap12 .520 AbusSup4 .608
OCB12 .647 PsyCap13 .554 AbusSup5 .613
OCB13 .542 PsyCap14 .601 AbusSup6 .564
OCB14 .570 PsyCap15 .571 AbusSup7 .559
OCB15 .662 PsyCap16 .588 AbusSup8 .575
OCB16 .556 PsyCap17 .559 AbusSup9 .570
CWB1 .630 PsyCap18 .583 AbusSup10 .523
CWB2 .608 PsyCap19 .569 AbusSup11 .604
CWB3 .705 PsyCap20 .513 AbusSup12 .580
CWB4 .603 PsyCap21 .568 AbusSup13 .566
CWB5 .629 PsyCap22 .531 AbusSup14 .562
CWB6 .714 PsyCap23 .517 AbusSup15 .562
CWB7 .634 PsyCap24 .543 WPMob1 .568
108
CWB8 .644 WPMob2 .597
CWB9 .646 WPMob3 .614
CWB10 .619 WPMob4 .575
Perf1 .663 WPMob5 .636
Perf2 .617 WPMob .628
Perf3 .604 WPMob7 .611
Perf4 .670 WPMob8 .626
Perf5 .643 WPMob9 .578
Perf6 .569 WPMob10 .631
Perf7 .637 WPMob11 .576
WPMob12 .611
WPMob13 .615
WPMob14 .586
WPMob15 .576
WPMob16 .641
WPMob17 .634
WPMob18 .608
WPMob19 .592
WPMob20 .634
109
4.4 EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS
Exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the data to ensure the proper
loading of the items. The extraction values of all the item are given in table- 4.14.
Principal component analysis was conducted where extraction communalities are
estimates of the variance in each variable accounted for by the factors in the factor
solution. The higher the value the more influential is the variable in determination
of the factor. Small values indicate variables that do not fit well with the factor
solution, and are possibly dropped from the analysis. All the variables that scored
above 0.5, indicating that they contributed and influenced the resultant factor
detection structure, were retained. One item i.e. PsyCap3 was dropped due to poor
loadings. The table 4.14 presents the extraction values of all the retained items.
4.5 RELIABILITY OF VARIABLES
Reliability is related to the accuracy and consistency of a measurement
procedure. Reliability of the instrument was established through Cronbach‗s Alpha
test. The table 4.15 presents the Cronbach Alpha values which reflect the reliability
of the instrument. Nunnally (1978) suggests a value of 0.7 as a benchmark for
modest composite reliability. However, Churchill (1979) suggests that a
Cronbach's alpha value of 0.6 is acceptable to reflect the reliability of the
instrument.
4.5.1 Workplace Incivility
The table 4.15 shows the reliability of the construct workplace incivility.
The measurement scale was consistent of seven items, five-point likert scale was
used (5= strongly agree, 1= strongly disagree). Factor analysis revealed a one
factor solution. On the basis of value of Cronbach‘s alpha is 0.801. The value of
110
workplace incivility is above the standard which means our reliability test for
workplace incivility is satisfactory.
4.5.2 Abusive Supervision
Reliability of construct abusive supervision was tested, which was
measured by 15 items. The measurement scale was consistent of fifteen items, five-
point likert scale was used (5= strongly agree, 1= strongly disagree). Factor
analysis revealed a one factor solution, the value of Cronbach‘s alpha for construct
abusive supervision is 0.902, on the basis of value for construct abusive
supervision is above the standard which means the reliability test for abusive
supervision is satisfactory.
4.5.3 Workplace Mobbing
Reliability of construct workplace mobbing was measured by using 20
items. The measurement scale was consistent of twenty items, five-point Likert
scale was used (5= strongly agree, 1= strongly disagree). The value of Cronbach‘s
alpha is 0.952. The value of construct workplace mobbing is above the standard, on
the basis of value of Cronbach‘s reliability test for scale, which shows the
reliability of the workplace mobbing is satisfactory.
4.5.4 Psychological Capital
Reliability of moderating variable psychological capital was measured by
24 items, for these twenty-four items, five-point Likert scale was used (5= strongly
agree, 1= strongly disagree). The value of Cronbach‘s alpha is 0.91, on the basis of
value of Cronbach‘s Alpha for construct psychological capital, it is reflected that
the psychological capital variable is reliable.
111
4.5.5 Organizational Citizenship Behavior
Organizational citizenship behavior was measured by 16 items, based on
five-point Likert scale was used (5= strongly agree, 1= strongly disagree). The
value of Cronbach‘s alpha is .895, on the basis of value of Cronbach‘s Alpha for
construct organizational citizenship behavior it is concluded that the reliability test
for organizational citizenship behavior is satisfactory.
4.5.6 Counterproductive Work Behavior
Reliability of construct counter productive work behavior was also tested.
The measurement scale was consistent of ten items on five point Likert scale (5=
strongly agree, 1= strongly disagree). The value of Cronbach‘s alpha is 0.698, on
the basis of value of Cronbach‘s Alpha for construct organizational citizenship
behavior, it was estimated that the construct is reliable in the studied context.
4.5.7 Job Performance
Third variable for the on job behavior was performance, measured on seven
point Likert scale with seven items. Cronbach alpha value reflected the value of
0.702, confirming the reliability of the performance variable.
4.6 CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS
Combined CFA results support the theoretical framework which results
reflect that the individual items and the constructs have proper loadings. Output
values of CFI=0.96, CMIN/DF=1.11 and RMSEA of 0.02 reflect the acceptable
values. KMO and Bartlett values present the suitability of the data to conduct the
factor analysis. KMO value depicts the sampling adequacy and the Bartlett present
the spherecity of the data to be able to conduct the factor analysis. KMO value
above 0.7 is considered as a good indicator to ensure that the numbers of responses
112
Table 4.15: Reliability values of variables
Name of Var Cron. α No of Items
Workplace Mobbing 0.801 20
Abusive Supervision 0.902 15
Workplace Incivility 0.952 7
Psychological Capital 0.910 23
Organization Citizenship Behaviour 0.895 16
Counter Productive Work Behaviour 0.698 10
Job Performance 0.702 7
113
are adequate in relation to the number of items of the instrument. Moreover,
Bartlett test of spherecity should be significant with less than 0.05 values.
Exploratory factor analysis showed the satisfactory KMO and Bartlett values with
KMO as 0.93 and Bartlett is significant at 0.00 level.
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted in AMOS at two levels.
Individual construct CFA confirms the validity of the items with its relevant
construct. On-job-behavior results reflect the good model fitness with the
CFA=0.96, CMIN/DF=1.23 and RMSEA of 0.024. Moreover, the item loadings on
the relevant construct were at acceptable level as well. Values of the item loadings
respective to their constructs hints towards the convergent and discriminant validity
of the framework. Values adhere to the nomological validity requirements of the
framework.
Psychological capital has been reported and measured at two levels of
constructs in the literature. Research has identified psychological capital as a
unified construct while it has argued to consider the psychological capital as the
multi-dimensional construct. To determine the suitable nature of construct of
psychological capital in this study‘s context, it validity was tested from both the
perspectives. Second order construct of the psychological capital was tested in
AMOS which shows the fitness of model with the values of CFA=0.98,
CMIN/DF=1.12 and RMSEA of 0.018. Furthermore, the model fitness statistics
for the single unified construct were as CFA=0.98, CMIN/DF=1.11 and RMSEA
of 0.017. Comparing the model fitness statistics suggests the psychological capital
to be taken as a single construct in this study‘s context. Figure 4.17 depicts the
CFA of workplace mistreatment. Workplace mistreatment was operationalized as
114
Figure 4.14: CFA-complete model
115
Figure 4.15: CFA-on-job behaviors
116
Figure 4.16: CFA-psychological capital
Figure 4.17: CFA-workplace mistreatment
117
the workplace mobbing, workplace incivility and abusive supervision. CFA
measurements for the workplace mistreatment showed the suitable fitness of the
data for this construct with CFA=0.99, CMIN/DF=1.05 and RMSEA of 0.011.
4.7 COMMON METHOD BIAS
Common method bias is considered to be a serious threat to the validity.
Although, the methodology of this study was specifically designed to eliminate the
threat of common method bias, it was still deemed reasonable to assess the
presence of common method bias. Common method variance can be calculated
based on the loading of all the items on a single construct. If the model fits
properly, it reflects the poor design of the questionnaire reflecting a threat to
validity. If the model fitness is evaluated to be poor then it reflects the absence of
common method variance. Single factor model was tested through loading all the
items of the questionnaire into a single factor in AMOS. Model fitness results the
poor model fit, with the values of CFI=0.61, GFI=0.48, RMSEA=.053 and
NFI=0.45, it reflects the data‘s suitability for further analysis without presence of
common method variance.
4.8 CORRELATION
Correlation table below presents the correlation between the constructs of
the study. Table 4.16 shows that there is a negative association between abusive
supervision with OCBI, OCBO, job performance and positive association with
CWBI and CWBO. Workplace incivility has negative association with OCBI,
OCBO, job performance and positive association with CWBI and CWBO.
Likewise, workplace mobbing has negative association with OCBI, OCBO and job
performance and positive association with CWBI and CWBO. Psychological
118
Figure 4.18: Common method bias
119
Table 4.16: Correlation matrix
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Incivility 1
Abus Sup .397**
1
WPMob .304**
.338**
1
PsyCap -.624**
-.619**
-.636**
1
J.Perf -.388**
-.349**
-.361**
.592**
1
OCBI -.327**
-.388**
-.249**
.556**
.155**
1
OCBO -.334**
-.372**
-.258**
.538**
.170**
.817**
1
CWBI .261**
.207**
.238**
-.431**
-.177**
-.124* -.104
* 1
CWBO .276**
.260**
.214**
-.497**
-.243**
-.211**
-.197**
.473**
1
*p < 0.10, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.001
120
capital has positive association with OCBI, OCBO, job performance and negative
ssociation with CWBI and CWBO. These values of these relationship range from
the 0.104 to the 0.835 and have been found to be highly significant at varying
degrees.
4.9 TESTING OF HYPOTHESES
Baron and Kenny (1986) method is one of the most widely used moderation
analysis technique in social sciences. This method is based on step-wise analysis,
where the direct relationship of independent variable and dependent variable is
essential. Typical data assumptions of the ordinary least squares are also applied to
the Baron and Kenny (1986) method. Moreover, the relationship of moderating
variable with dependent variable is also assumed.
Step 1 of the (Baron and Kenny, 1986) analysis includes independent
variable and dependent variable. Step 2 includes the moderating variables as the
independent variable with the actual independent variable in the regression
equation. Step 3 includes the interaction term as the independent variable in the
regression equation. Interaction term is created by the multiplying the independent
variable with the moderating variable. If the interaction term is found significant,
the moderating effect of the moderator on the relationship of independent and
dependent variable is established.
The moderation effects in the hypotheses testing were estimated by the
SPSS version of the PROCESS macro generating bias-corrected confidence
intervals (Hayes, 2013). This macro is an extension of the SPSS, which can be
installed as a separate plugin which integrates with the earlier menu of the SPSS.
121
Although, the Hayes‘ PROCESS is based on the OLS regression too, but the
estimation of the equation is conducted by the algorithm devised by the Andrew
Hayes. Hayes' PROCESS macro is a better estimation method than the Baron and
Kenny, because Baron and Kenny (1986) method does not accumulate for the
conditional effects of independent variables on the dependent variables.
Hayes‘ algorithm recognizes this aspect. In algorithm‘s output, point
estimate is considered significant when zero is not included between ULCI and
LLCI, analysis is conducted on the bootstrapped sample. Bootstrapping procedure
better produces the sampling distribution assisting better inferences, because the
Baron and Kenny (1986) estimation is prone to distribution effects as well.
As per results in table- 4.17, workplace incivility has significant negative
relationship with OCBO (β = -0.598, p < 0.00). The beta value shows that one unit
increase in independent variable (workplace incivility) resulted in 0.59 unit
decrease in OCBO. The value of R² = 0.317, which shows that a total of 31.7 %
variance is explained between workplace incivility and OCBO. To test the
moderating effect of PsyCap between workplace incivility and OCBO bootstrap
macro method (Process method 1) proposed by Hayes, 2013 was used. Independent
variable i.e. workplace incivility, dependent variable OCBO and moderating
variable psychological capital were entered simultaneously.
Results shows that when moderating variable psychological capital was
entered, the interaction term (workplace incivility x PsyCap) reflected a significant
effect on OCB (β = 0.306, p = 0.000) with acceptable (LLCI = 0.1590, ULCI =
0.4539). Based on these results, the hypothesis 1(a) and 4(c) are accepted.
122
Table 4.17: Workplace incivility and OCBO-PsyCap as moderator
Dependent Variable= OCBO
Variables Coeff. Sig. R2 ∆R
2 F P LLCI ULCI
Constant 2.7851 0.000 .3177 .0340 62.7113 .0000 2.0467 3.5235
Workplace
Incivility
-.5989 .0001 -.9065 -.2914
Psychological
Capital
.2442 .1233 -.0667 .5550
Interaction .3064 .0001 .1590 .4539
Table 4.18: Workplace incivility and OCBI-PsyCap as moderator
Dependent Variable= OCBI
Variables Coeff. Sig. R2 ∆R
2 F P LLCI ULCI
Constant 2.6775 0.000 .3435 .0340 70.4552 .0000 1.9206 3.4343
Workplace
Incivility
-.6511 .0001 -.9663 -.3358
Psychological
Capital
.2595 .1101 -.0591 .5781
Interaction .3492 .0000 .1981 .5004
123
As per results in table- 4.18, workplace incivility has significant negative
relationship with OCBI (β = -0.65, p < 0.00). The beta value shows that one unit
increase in independent variable (workplace incivility) resulted in 0.65 unit
decrease in OCBI. The value of R² = 0.343, which shows that a total of 34.3 %
variance is explained between workplace incivility and OCBI. To test the
moderating effect of PsyCap between workplace incivility and OCBI, bootstrap
macro method (Process method 1) proposed by Hayes, 2013 was used. Independent
variable workplace incivility, dependent variable OCBI and moderating variable
psychological capital were entered simultaneously. Results shows that when
moderating variable psychological capital was entered, the interaction term
(workplace incivility x psychological capital) reflected a significant effect on OCBI
(β = 0.3492, p = 0.00) with acceptable values (LLCI = 0.1981, ULCI = 0.5004).
Based on these results, the hypothesis 1(b) and 4(b) are accepted.
As per results in table-4.19, workplace incivility has significant negative
impact on the job performance (β = -0.66, p < 0.05). The beta value shows that one
unit increase in independent variable (workplace incivility) resulted in 0.66 unit
decrease in job performance.The value of R² = 0.39, which shows that a total of
39% variance is explained between workplace incivility and job performance. To
test the moderating effect of PsyCap between workplace incivility and job
performance bootstrap macro method (Process method 1) proposed by Hayes
(2013) was used. Independent variable workplace incivility, dependent variable job
performance and moderating variable psychological capital were entered
simultaneously. Results shows that when moderating variable psychological capital
was entered, the interaction term (workplace incivility x PsyCap) reflected
124
Table 4.19: Workplace incivility and job performance-PsyCap as moderator
Dependent Variable= Job Performance
Variables Coeff. Sig. R2 ∆R
2 F P LLCI ULCI
Constant 2.8786 .3906 .0395 86.3283 .0000 2.2573 3.4999
Workplace
Incivility
-.6605 .0000 -.9192 -.4017
Psychological
Capital
.1707 .2002 -.0908 .4322
Interaction .3229 .0000 .1989 .4470
Table 4.20: Workplace incivility and CWBO-PsyCap as moderator
Dependent Variable= CWBO
Variables Coeff. Sig. R2 ∆R
2 F P LLCI ULCI
Constant -.8469 .0000 .2544 .0055 45.9518 .5007 -3.31 1.6233
Workplace
Incivility
.2463 .4160 -.348 .8408
Psychological
Capital
1.0835 .0009 .446 1.7201
Interaction -.0762 .3119 -.224 .0718
125
a significant effect on Job Performance (β = 0.32, p < 0.05) with acceptable
values (LLCI = 0.19, ULCI = 0.44). Based on these results, the hypothesis 1(c) and
4 (a) are accepted.
As per results in table-4.20, workplace incivility has insignificant impact on
the CWBO (β = 0.246, p > 0.10). Insignificant results are also reflected the LLCI
and ULCI values of -.34 and 0.84 respectively. This insignificant impact of
workplace incivility on the CWBO reflects that the moderating role of
psychological capital is not established. Based on these results, the hypothesis 1(d)
and 4(e) are rejected.
As per results in table- 4.21, workplace incivility has significant impact on
the CWBI (β = 0.53, p < 0.07). The value of R² = 0.20, which shows that a total of
20% variance is explained between workplace incivility and CWBI. To test the
moderating effect of PsyCap between workplace incivility and CWBI bootstrap
macro method (Process method 1) proposed by (Hayes, 2013) was used.
Independent variable workplace mobbing, dependent variable CWBI and
moderating variable psychological capital were entered simultaneously. Results
shows that when moderating variable psychological capital was entered, the
interaction term (workplace incivility x psychological capital) reflected
insignificant effect on CWBI (β = -0.13, p = 0.07) with unacceptable values
(LLCI= -0.2746 and ULCI= 0.01179). Based on these results, the hypothesis 1(e) is
accepted and hypothesis 4(d) is rejected.
As per results in table - 4.22, abusive supervision has significant
negative relationship with OCBO (β = -0.789, p < 0.00). The beta value shows that
126
Table 4.21: Workplace incivility and CWBI-PsyCap as moderator
Dependent Variable= CWB1
Variables Coeff. Sig. R2 ∆R
2 F P LLCI ULCI
Constant -1.2304 .0000 .2004 .0055 33.7611 0.312 -3.62 1.1592
Workplace
Incivility
.5311 0.0702 -0.044 1.1062
Psychological
Capital
1.1254 0.0004 0.5095 1.7413
Interaction -.1314 0.0719 -0.2746 0.0117
Table 4.22: Abusive supervision and OCBO-PsyCap as moderator
Dependent Variable= OCBO
Variables Coeff. Sig. R2 ∆R
2 F P LLCI ULCI
Constant 3.2451 .0000 . 3308 .0355 66.5810 .0000 2.5105 3.9798
Abusive
Supervision
-.7892 .0000 -1.1018 -.4766
Psychological
Capital
.0687 .6668 -.2448 .3823
Interaction .3766 .0000 .2238 .5293
127
one unit increase in independent variable (abusive supervision) resulted in 0.78 unit
decrease in OCBI. The value of R² = 0.338, which shows that a total of 33.8 %
variance is explained on the relationship between abusive supervision and OCBO.
Lower level confidence interval and the upper limit interval showed significant
results (LLCI = 0.223, ULCI = 0.529).
Results show that when moderating variable psychological capital was
entered, the interaction term (abusive supervision x PsyCap) reflected a significant
effect on OCBO (β = 0.376, p = 0.00). Based on these results, the hypothesis 2(a)
and 5(c) are accepted.
As per results in table - 4.23, abusive supervision has significant negative
relationship with OCBI (β = -0.702, p < 0.00). The beta value shows that one unit
increase in independent variable (abusive supervision) resulted in 0.70 unit
decrease in OCBI. The value of R² = 0.338, which shows that a total of 33.8 %
variance is explained between abusive supervision and OCBI. To test the
moderating effect of psychological capital between abusive supervision and OCBI
bootstrap macro method (Process method 1) proposed by Hayes, 2013 was used.
Independent variable abusive supervision, dependent variable OCBI and
moderating variable psychological capital were entered simultaneously. Lower
level confidence interval and the upper limit interval showed significant results
(LLCI = 0.1659, ULCI = 0.4832).
Results shows that when moderating variable Psychological Capital was
entered, the interaction term (Abusive Supervision x PsyCap) reflected a significant
effect on OCBI (β = 0.3246, p = 0.00). Based on these results, the hypothesis 2(b)
128
Table 4.23: Abusive supervision and OCBI-PsyCap as moderator
Dependent Variable= OCBI
Variables Coeff. Sig. R2 ∆R
2 F P LLCI ULCI
Constant 2.9561 .0000 .3389 .0355 69.0434 .0000 2.1931 3.7191
Abusive
Supervision
-.7027 .0000 -1.0273 -.3780
Psychological
Capital
.2149 .1953 -.1108 .5405
Interaction .3246 .0001 .1659 .4832
Table 4.24: Abusive supervision and job performance-PsyCap as moderator
Dependent Variable= Job Performance
Variables Coeff. Sig. R2 ∆R
2 F P LLCI ULCI
Constant 2.4731 .0000 .3783 .0272 81.9350 .0000 1.8427 3.1036
Abusive
Supervision
-.5105 .0002 -.7788 -.2422
Psychological
Capital
.3065 .0257 .0375 .5756
Interaction .2802 .0000 .1491 .4113
129
and 5(b) are aaccepted.
As per results in table – 4.24, abusive supervision has significant negative
impact on the job performance (β = -0.51, p < 0.05). The beta value shows that one
unit increase in independent variable (abusive supervision) resulted in 0.51 unit
decrease in job performance.The value of R² is 0.37, which shows that a total of
37% variance is explained between abusive supervision and job performance.
Lower level confidence interval and the upper limit interval showed significant
results (LLCI = 0.03, ULCI = .57). Results shows that when moderating variable
Psychological Capital was entered, the interaction term (Abusive Supervision x
Psychological Capital) did reflect a significant effect on Job Performance (β = 0.28,
p < 0.05). Based on these results, the hypothesis 2(c) and 5(a) are accepted.
As per results in table - 4.25, abusive supervision has insignificant impact
on the CWBO (β = 0.27, p > 0.37). Insignificant results are also reflected the LLCI
and ULCI values of -.33 and 0.89 respectively. This insignificant impact of abusive
supervision on the CWBO reflects that the moderating role of psychological capital
is not established. Based on these results, the hypothesis 2(d) and 5(e) are rejected.
As per results in table-4.26 below abusive supervision has significant
positive impact on the CWBI (β = 0.50, p < 0.09). The beta value shows that one
unit increase in independent variable (abusive supervision) resulted in 0.50 unit
increase in CWBI. The value of R² = 0.20, which shows that a total of 20%
variance is explained by the impact of abusive supervision on CWBI.To test the
moderating effect of psychological capital on the relationship between abusive
supervision and CWBI bootstrap macro method (Process method 1) proposed by
130
Table 4.25: Abusive supervision and CWBO-PsyCap as moderator.
Dependent Variable= CWBO
Variables Coeff. Sig. R2 ∆R
2 F P LLCI ULCI
Constant -1.0602 .0000 .2568 .0064 46.5278 .4160 -3.6201 1.4997
Abusive
Supervision
.2780 .3726 -.3343 .8903
Psychological
Capital
1.1681 .0006 .5020 1.8341
Interaction -.0915 .2437 -.2456 .0626
Table 4.26: Abusive supervision and CWBI-PsyCap as moderator
Dependent Variable= CWBI
Variables Coeff. Sig. R2 ∆R
2 F P LLCI ULCI
Constant -1.4794 .0000 .2066 .0064 35.0752 0.2398 -3.9501 0.9913
Abusive
Supervision
.5044 0.0941 -0.0865 1.0954
Psychological
Capital
1.2949 0.0001 0.652 1.9377
Interaction -.1508 0.0469 -0.2995 -0.0021
131
(Hayes, 2013) was used. Independent variable abusive supervision, dependent
variable CWBI and moderating variable psychological capital were entered
simultaneously. Results show that when moderating variable Psychological Capital
was entered, the interaction term (Abusive Supervision x Psychological Capital)
was also significant (p < 0.05). Based on these results, the hypothesis 2(e) and 5(d)
are accepted.
As per results in table 4.27 presented above workplace mobbing has
significant negative relationship with OCBO (β = -0.534, p < 0.00). The beta value
shows that one unit increase in independent variable (workplace mobbing) resulted
in 0.53 unit decrease in OCBO. The value of R² = 0.329, which shows that a total
of 32.9 % variance is explained on the relationship between workplace mobbing
and OCBO. To test the moderating effect of PsyCap between workplace mobbing
and OCBO, bootstrap macro method (Process method-1) proposed by (Hayes,
2013) was used. Independent variable workplace mobbing, dependent variable
OCBO and moderating variable psychological capital were entered simultaneously.
Table- 4.27 depicts the results for testing the hypothesis. Results shows that when
moderating variable psychological capital was entered, the interaction term
(workplace mobbing x psychological capital) did reflected a significant effect on
OCBO (β = 0.300, p = 0.00) with acceptable values (LLCI = 0.1571, ULCI =
0.4428). Based on these results, the hypothesis 3(a) and 6(c) are accepted. As per
results presented in table 4.28 workplace mobbing has significant negative
relationship with OCBI (β = -0.544, p < 0.00). The beta value shows that one
unit increase in independent variable (workplace mobbing) resulted in .54 unit
decrease in OCBI. The value of R² = 0.357, which shows that a total of 35.7 %
132
Table 4.27: Worplace mobbing and OCBO-PsyCap as moderator
Dependent Variable= OCBO
Variables Coeff. Sig. R2 ∆R
2 F P LLCI ULCI
Constant 2.7435 0.00 .3298 .0320 66.2795 .0000 1.7821 3.7050
Workplace
Mobbing
-.5342 .0015 -.8626 -.2058
Psychological
Capital
.1907 .3345 -.1972 .5786
Interaction .3000 .0000 .1571 .4428
Table 4.28: Worplace mobbing and OCBI-PsyCap as moderator
Dependent Variable = OCBI
Variables Coeff. Sig. R2 ∆R
2 F P LLCI ULCI
Constant 2.5425 0.00 .3577 .0320 75.0083 .0000 1.5590 3.5260
Workplace
Mobbing
-.5448 .0015 -.8808 -.2089
Psychological
Capital
.2402 .2346 -.1565 .6370
Interaction .3220 .0000 .1759 .4682
133
variance is explained on the relationship between workplace mobbing and OCBI.
To test the moderating effect of PsyCap between workplace mobbing and OCBI
bootstrap macro method (Process method 1) proposed by (Hayes, 2013) was used.
Independent variable workplace mobbing, dependent variable OCBI and
variable psychological capital were entered simultaneously.
Table 4.28 depicts the results for testing the hypothesis. Results shows that
when moderating variable psychological capital was entered, the interaction term
(workplace mobbing x PsyCap) reflected a significant effect on OCBI (β = 0.3220,
p = 0.00) with acceptable values (LLCI = 0.1759, ULCI = 0.4682). Based on these
results, the hypothesis 3(b) and 6(b) are accepted.
As per results in table- 4.29, workplace mobbing has significant negative
effect on the job performance (β = -0.28, p < 0.05). These results are also reflected
by the LLCI and ULCI values (LLCI= .015, ULCI=.263). To test the moderating
effect of PsyCap between workplace mobbing and job performance bootstrap
macro method (Process model 1) proposed by (Hayes, 2013) was used.
Independent variable workplace mobbing, dependent variable job performance and
moderating variable psychological capital were entered simultaneously.
Results shows that when moderating variable psychological capital was
entered, the interaction term (workplace mobbing x PsyCap) reflected a significant
effect on Job Performance (β = 0.13, p = 0.02) with acceptable values (LLCI =
0.015, ULCI = 0.264). Based on these results, the hypothesis 3(c) and 6(a) are
accepted.
As per results in table 4.30, workplace mobbing has insignificant impact on
134
the CWBO (β = 0.12, p > 0.10). Insignificant results are also reflected the LLCI
and ULCI values of -.48 and 0.72 respectively. This insignificant impact of
workplace mobbing on the CWBO reflects that the moderating role of
psychological capital is not established. Therefore hypothesis 3(d) and 6(e) are
rejected.
As per results in table-4.31, workplace mobbing has insignificant
relationship with CWBI (β = 0.49, p < 0.10). To test the moderating effect of
PsyCap between workplace mobbing and CWBI bootstrap macro method (Process
method 1) proposed by (Hayes, 2013) was used. Independent variable workplace
mobbing, dependent variable CWBI and moderating variable psychological capital
were entered simultaneously.
Results show that when moderating variable psychological capital was
entered, the interaction term (workplace incivility x psychological capital) reflected
insignificant effect on CWBI (β = -0.13, p = 0.06) with unacceptable values of
(LLCI= -0.2711 and ULCI= 0.0079. Based on these results, the hypothesis 3(e) and
6(d) are rejected.
The moderating effect of psychological capital between between dependent
variables (job performance, Organizational Citizenship Behavior towards
Organization-OCBO, Organizational Citizenship Behavior towards Individual-
OCBI, Counterproductive Work Behavior towards Organization-CWBO,
Counterproductive Work Behavior towards Individuals-CWBI with independent
varibles (incivility, abusive supervision, mobbing) has been represented through
two way interaction diagrams (see fig. 4.19 to 4.33).
135
Table 4.29: Worplace mobbing and job perfromance-PsyCap as moderator
Dependent Variable= Job Performance
Variables Coeff. Sig. R2 ∆R
2 F P LLCI ULCI
Constant 2.2506 0.000 .3588 .0077 75.3463 .0000 1.4133 3.0878
Workplace Mobbing -.2872 .0490 -.5732 -.0012
Psychological
Capital
.4606 .0077 .1228 .7983
Interaction .1398 .0277 .0154 .2642
Table 4.30: Worplace mobbing and CWBO-PsyCap as moderator
Dependent Variable= CWBO
Variables Coeff. Sig. R2 ∆R
2 F P LLCI ULCI
Constant -.6305 .0000 .2680 .0043 49.3136 .5641 -2.7776 1.5166
Workplace Mobbing .1210 .6956 -.4866 .7287
Psychological Capital 1.0790 .0001 .5528 1.6051
Interaction -.0622 .3937 -.2053 .0810
136
Table 4.31: Worplace mobbing and CWBI-PsyCap as moderator
Dependent Variable= CWBI
Variables Coeff. Sig. R2 ∆R
2 F P LLCI ULCI
Constant -1.0365 .0000 .2034 .0043 34.3889 0.3307 -3.1289 1.0558
Workplace
Mobbing
.4986 0.1007 -0.0936 1.0907
Psychological
Capital
1.1058 0.000 0.593 1.6185
Interaction -.1316 0.0644 -0.2711 0.0079
Figure 4.19: Workplace incivility,OCBO,PsyCap-two way interaction
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Low Incivility High Incivility
OC
BO
Moderator
Low PsyCap
High PsyCap
137
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Low Incivility High Incivility
OC
BI
Moderator
Low PsyCap
High PsyCap
Figure 4.20: Workplace incivility,OCBI,PsyCap-two way interaction
Figure 4.21: Workplace incivility,job performance,PsyCap-two way interaction
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Low Incivility High Incivility
Job
Per
form
ance
Moderator
Low PsyCap
High PsyCap
138
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Low Incivility High Incivility
CW
BO
Moderator
Low PsyCap
High PsyCap
Figure 4.22: Workplace incivility,CWBO,PsyCap-two way interaction
Figure 4.23: Workplace incivility,CWBI,PsyCap-two way interaction
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Low Incivility High Incivility
CW
BI
Moderator
Low PsyCap
High PsyCap
139
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Low AbusiveSupervision
High AbusiveSupervision
OC
BO
Moderator
Low PsyCap
High PsyCap
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Low AbusiveSupervision
High AbusiveSupervision
OC
BI
Moderator
Low PsyCap
High PsyCap
Figure 4.24: Abusive supervision,OCBO,PsyCap-two way interaction
Figure 4.25: Abusive supervision,OCBI,PsyCap-two way interaction
140
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Low AbusiveSupervision
High AbusiveSupervision
Job
Per
form
ance
Moderator
Low PsyCap
High PsyCap
Figure 4.26: Abusive supervision,job performance,PsyCap-two way interaction
Figure 4.27: Abusive supervision,CWBO,PsyCap-two way interaction
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Low AbusiveSupervision
High AbusiveSupervision
CW
BO
Moderator
Low PsyCap
High PsyCap
141
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Low AbusiveSupervision
High AbusiveSupervision
CW
BI
Moderator
Low PsyCap
High PsyCap
Figure 4.28: Abusive supervision,CWBI,PsyCap-two way interaction
Figure 4.29: Workplace mobbing,OCBO,PsyCap-two way interaction
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Low mobbing High mobbing
OC
BO
Moderator
Low PsyCap
High PsyCap
142
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Low mobbing High mobbing
OC
BI
Moderator
Low PsyCap
High PsyCap
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Low mobbing High mobbing
Job
Per
form
ance
Moderator
Low PsyCap
High PsyCap
Figure 4.30: Workplace mobbing,OCBI,PsyCap-two way interaction
Figure 4.31: Workplace mobbing,job performance,PsyCap-two way interaction
143
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Low Mobbing High Mobbing
CW
BI
Moderator
Low PsyCap
High PsyCap
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Low mobbing High mobbing
CW
BO
Moderator
Low PsyCap
High PsyCap
Figure 4.32: Workplace mobbing,CWBO,PsyCap-two way interaction
Figure 4.33: Workplace mobbing,CWBI,PsyCap-two way interaction
144
Table 4.32: Results summary
Hypotheses Result
1
(a) Workplace incivility has negative relationship with
OCBO
Accepted
(b) Workplace incivility has negative relationship with
OCBI
Accepted
(c) Workplace incivility has negative relationship with Job
Performance
Accepted
(d) Workplace incivility has positive relationship with
CWBO
Rejected
(e) Workplace incivility has positive relationship with
CWBI
Accepted
2
(a) Abusive supervision has negative relationship with
OCBO
Accepted
(b) Abusive supervision has negative relationship with
OCBI
Accepted
(c) Abusive supervision has negative relationship with Job
Performance
Accepted
(d) Abusive supervision has positive relationship with
CWBO
Rejected
(e) Abusive supervision has positive relationship with
CWBI
Accepted
3
(a) Workplace mobbing has negative relationship with
OCBO
Accepted
145
(b) Workplace mobbing has negative relationship with
OCBI
Accepted
(c) Workplace mobbing has negative relationship with Job
Performance
Accepted
(d) Workplace mobbing has positive relationship with
CWBO
Rejected
(e) Workplace mobbing has positive relationship with
CWBI
Rejected
4
(a) Psychological capital will moderate workplace
incivility and OCBO relationship.
Accepted
(b) Psychological capital will moderate workplace
incivility and OCBI relationship.
Accepted
(c) Psychological capital will moderate workplace
incivility and Job Performance relationship.
Accepted
(d) Psychological capital will moderate workplace
incivility and CWBO relationship.
Rejected
(e) Psychological capital will moderate workplace
incivility and CWBI relationship.
Rejected
5
(a) Psychological capital will moderate abusive supervision
and OCBO relationship.
Accepted
(b) Psychological capital will moderate abusive supervision
and OCBI relationship.
Accepted
(c) Psychological capital will moderate abusive supervision
and Job Performance relationship.
Accepted
146
(d) Psychological capital will moderate abusive supervision
and CWBO relationship.
Rejected
(e) Psychological capital will moderate abusive supervision
and CWBI relationship.
Accepted
6
(a) Psychological capital will moderate workplace
mobbing and OCBO relationship.
Accepted
(b) Psychological capital will moderate workplace
mobbing and OCBI relationship.
Accepted
(c) Psychological capital will moderate workplace
mobbing and Job Performance relationship.
Accepted
(d) Psychological capital will moderate workplace
mobbing and CWBO relationship.
Rejected
(e) Psychological capital will moderate workplace
mobbing and CWBI relationship.
Rejected
In summary, the results revealed that workplace incivility, abusive
supervision, workplace mobbing has negative relationship with OCBO, OCBI, job
performance. The results furher shows positive relationship of workplace incivility
and abusive supervision with CWBI. Moreover, the results show that PsyCap
moderates the relationship between (workplace incivility, abusive
supervision,workplace mobbing) in relationship with (job performance, OCBO and
OCBI). Furthermore, moderating role PsyCap was not revealed between workplace
incivility, abusive supervison, workplace mobbing in relationship with CWBO.
Further, PsyCap moderates the abusive supervision and CWBI relationship.
147
Chapter 5
DISCUSSION
This study aims to examine the consequences of workplace mistreatment
(workplace mobbing, abusive supervision, workplace incivility) of faculty members
serving in universities in Pakistan. In particular, the reported study investigated the
links between (Workplace mobbing, abusive supervision, workplace incivility) and
on-job behaviors (job performance, OCBO, OCBI, CWBO, CWBI) outcomes.
Moderating mechanisms of the psychological capital were also examined.
The first objective of the study is to analyze the effect of workplace
mistreatment i.e. workplace mobbing, abusive supervision and workplace incivility
on-job behavior i.e. (Job performance, OCBO, OCBI, CWBO, CWBI). The second
objective of the study is to analyze the moderating role of Psychological Capital on
the relationship between Workplace Mistreatment (Workplace Incivility,
Workplace Mobbing and Abusive Supervision) on-job behavior (Job performance,
OCBO, OCBI, CWBO, CWBI).
After elaborating statistical results in chapter four, a detailed discussion
based on research questions, objectives, hypothesis and statistical results is
presented in this chapter with reference to literature and previous studies. The
limitations of the research and future research direction ars also discussed. The
managerial implications and implications in context with Universities in Pakistan
are discussed in detail alongwith theoretical implications. At the end the conclusion
of research is discussed.
147
148
5.1 EFFECT OF WORKPLACE MISTREATMENT ON JOB BEHAVIOR
To support research objective 1, empirical evidences were found by
multivariate analysis. It was revealed that mobbing has direct negative effect on job
performance. Workplace incivility also have direct negative effect on (OCBO and
OCBI) and direct positive effect on (CWBI) and insignificant effect with (CWBO).
Abusive supervision has direct negative relationship with job performance. Abusive
supervision has also direct negative effect with (OCBO and OCBI) while have
direct positive effect with CWBI and insignificant effect with CWBO. Likewise,
workplace mobbing has direct negative relationship with job performance.
Workplace mobbing also has direct negative relationship with (OCBO and OCBI)
while have direct positive effect with CWBI and insignificant effect with CWBO.
5.1.1 Relationship between Workplace Incivility and On-Job Behavior
The first research question of the study is, ―What is the nature of
relationship between Workplace Mistreatment (Workplace Incivility, Mobbing and
Abusive Supervision) on-job behavior (Job performance, OCB(OCBO,OCBI) and
CWB(CWBO,CWBI)?‖ To address this research questions, fifteen hypotheses were
formulated.
Hypotheses 1 (a, b, c, d and e) were formulated to analyze the effect of
workplace incivility on job behaviors (job performance, OCBO, OCBI, CWBO,
CWBI). Workplace incivility is low intensity unintentional behavior in violation of
workplace norms and mutual respect. It also refers to uncivil behavior typically
abrupt and disrespectful, exhibiting discourtesy towards others. A small act of
incivility can ultimately lead to physical aggression and violence. The perception of
incivility can lead to a requisite for negative behavior at workplace. Although the
149
intentions of instigator are unambiguous but incivility leads to destructive spiral of
events as it is influences by perception of employees based on individual
differences as well as contextual factors. Incivility can have major negative
outcomes not only for the employees but also for the organization. By experiencing
incivility at work employees destroy their useful resources in managing incivility
which results in lower job performance withdraw discretionary behaviors toward
their colleagues and organization which results in lower OCBI, OCBO and
reciprocate in the form of counterproductive work behavior towards individuals and
organization CWBI and CWBO.
It was hypothesized that workplace incivility has negative relationship
with OCBO, OCBI and job performance. The empirical results indicate the
significant negative relationship between the variables, therefore supporting the
suggested hypothesis. The findings are aligned with a number of other studies that
too are in support of representing the negative relationship of workplace incivility
with OCBO,OCBI and job performance. As a result, the finding of this study is in
line with the findings of previous studies which elucidated the direct negative
relationship between workplace incivility with job performance and OCB (Aryee et
al., 2007; Parzefall and Salin, 2010; ÇINAR, 2015; Terzioglu et al., 2016).
Unfavorable treatment from organization members can arouse counteractive
feelings in the employs towards the organization adversely affecting their
performance (Eisenberger et al., 2010). The results of this study revealed that
workplace incivility has direct positive relationship with CWBI which is in
accordance of the previous studies on workplace incivility while insignificant
relationship exist between workplace incivility and CWBO (Pearson et al., 2000;
150
Penney and Spector, 2005). Workplace incivility also has direct negative effect on
(OCBO and OCBI) and direct positive effect on (CWBI) and insignificant effect
with (CWBO). Previous studies also have recognized the social nature of workplace
incivility and argued that acts of incivility potentially create unpleasant exchanges
or even lead to more serious conduct such as lower job performance, OCBO,OCBI
and higher CWBI.
5.1.2 Relationship between Abusive Supervision and On-Job Behavior
Hypotheses 2 (a, b, c, d and e) were formulated to analyze the effect of
abusive supervision on job behaviors (job performance, OCBO, OCBI, CWBO,
CWBI). Abusive supervision refers to persistent demonstration of unfriendly,
antagonistic, aggressive, unsympathetic and unreceptive behavior by their
supervisor at work place. In addition, the abusive supervision has negative
consequences for individuals in organizations over attitudes, behavior and health
related outcomes. Therefore, it has been observed that the employees feel state of
fear in establishing communication with their supervisors which resulted adversely
to the organization. Moreover, experiencing abusive supervision, the individuals
halt in engaging themselves in any extra role behavior. Consequently, the results
affirm the direct negative effect of abusive supervision with job performance,
OCBO and OCBI. As a result, this study establishes that supervisors who have
demeaning attitude towards their subordinates that‘s results in negative attitude and
behavior at workplace, which leads to reduced job performance and pro social
behavior i.e. citizenship behavior. The presence of abusive supervision inculcates
negative emotions in subordinate which leads to counterproductive work behaviors
like: violence, damage to organizational property, purposely failing to follow
151
instructions or doing work incorrectly. According to social exchange theory,
individuals may be guided by negative reciprocity beliefs whereby they understand
that in case of mistreatment, it is justified on their part to retaliate in return
(Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005). Therefore, it has been observed that the
employees feel state of fear in establishing communication with their supervisors
which resulted adversely to the organization.
The results of this study revealed that abusive supervision has significant
negative relationship with job performance, OCBI and OCBO. The results also
revealed that abusive supervision has significant positive relationship with CWBI
and insignificant results were shown in case of CWBO. These findings are in
accordance with the findings of previous studies which elucidated the direct inverse
connection of abusive supervision with job performance and OCB (Harris et al.,
2007;Walter et al., 2015; Zellars et al., 2002).
5.1.3 Relationship between Workplace Mobbing and On-Job Behavior
Subsequently, hypotheses 2 (a, b, c, d and e) were formulated to analyze the
effect of workplace mobbing with on-job behaviors (job performance,
OCBO,OCBI,CWBO,CWBI). Workplace mobbing is the individual or group
attempt towards an employee in the form of degradation, devaluing, discrediting,
deprivation, loss of professional reputation which resulted in psychological distress
and negative emotions among employees which ultimately leads to negative effect
on-job behavior. Mobbing is an intended harassment of an employee in the form of
group of employees with the aim to wipe out employee from work. Mobbing not
only has negative consequences at work but also has negative consequences from
152
the perspective of health. Customarily, the victims of mobbing face health issues
like: headache, stomach disorders, abdominal pains and turn into more severe
mental disorders (Kozsr, 2006).
By experiencing workplace mobbing employees slowly end to loose self-
belief and contemplate them as less able to solve even simple tasks (Divincová and
Sivakova, 2014) which lead to lower job performance. When employees feels
degradation and devaluation by a group of people at work this could lead to
negative attitudes which results in decreased job satisfaction and increased turnover
intention at workplace. They withdraw desirable on-job behaviors including OCBO
and OCBI. Mobbing results in arousal of negative emotions in the employee who
ultimately harm and violates significant norms at work which threatens the well-
being of employees and organization and reciprocate by indulging in disruptive
actions by exacting retribution unswervingly versus the individuals therefore it has
positive relationship with CWBI. However, with relation to organization the faculty
reported insignificant relationship of workplace mobbing towards CWBO and
CWBI which shows that faculty who face mobbing in universities in Pakistan
believe that there is no direct involvement of organization in mobbing behavior.
The results of this study revealed that workplace mobbing has direct
negative relationship with job performance, OCBO, and OCBI while insignificant
relationship with CWBI and CWBO which are in accordance of the previous
studies on workplace mobbing (Reio and Trudel, 2016; Penney and Spector, 2005;
Rahim and Cosby, 2016; Bishoff et al., 2016; Bowling and Eschleman, 2010). By
experiencing workplace mobbing employees slowly end to loose self-belief and
contemplate them as less able to solve even simple tasks (Divincová and Sivakova,
153
2014) which lead to lower job performance. This reveals that workplace mobbing
can impediment job performance as well as OCBO and OCBI.
5.2 PSYCHOLOGICAL CAPITAL AS MODERATOR
To support research objective -2, and to address research question 2,
Hypothesis 4(c), 5(c) and 6 (c) examined the role of psychological capital as
moderator on the relationship between workplace incivility, abusive supervision
and workplace mobbing with job performance. Hypothesis 4(c) examined the role
of psychological capital as moderator between workplace incivility and job
performance. The results revealed that psychological capital moderated the
negative effect of workplace incivility with job performance. High-level of
psychological-capital will weaken the negative effect of workplace-incivility with
job-performance while lower level of psychological-capital will strengthen
negative effect of workplace-incivility and job-performance. Therefore, hypothesis
4(c) is accepted.
Job performance is one of the core issue of Industrial and organizational
research. Scholars and entrepreneurs are in continuous pursuit to research this
major organizational outcome. Due to its significant importance it has been one of
the most research behaviors of organizational studies. Organizational goals and
objectives are directly linked with the job performance of individuals. High level of
performance will lead to increase in team and group performance which ultimately
leads to organizational performance. A number of factors effect job performance of
individual at work including interaction, dealing and treatment of coworkers at
workplace. If individual will experience negative interaction, dealing and treatment
154
of coworkers it will adversely affect individual job performance which leads to
adverse organizational performance.
Workplace incivility is a milder form of unintentional behavior violating
formal norms of workplace norms and intermutual veneration. It also refers to
abrupt behavior typically impolite and disrespectful, exhibiting discourtesy towards
others. The perception of incivility can lead to a requisite for negative behavior at
workplace. Although the intentions of instigator are unambiguous but incivility
leads to destructive spiral of events as it is influences by perception of employees
based on individual differences as well as contextual factors. Workplace incivility
has negative effect with job performance. When individual will face incivility at
workplace it will create negative feelings and emotions at workplace which will
directly affect job performance of individual and high level of incivility leads to
low level of job performance.
High level of psychological capital helps in dealing with negative behaviors
and emotions linked with stressful work or life situations (Avey et al., 2008). In the
light of conservation of resource theory, the psychological capital as a resource
helps the individuals to successfully adapt in the face of threat. Psychological
capital also helps in coping with the negative event at work place in such a way
that high-level of psychological-capital will diminish negative effect of workplace
incivility with job performance and low-level of psychological-capital will boosts
the negative effect of abusive supervision with job performance. This study reveals
that psychological-capital moderates the effect of workplace incivility with job
performance. The results of this hypothesis are in correspond to other studies in
which emotional intelligence which is a positive state as psychological capital
155
exhibited significant moderation between workplace mistreatment and
performance (Ashraf and Khan, 2014).
Hypothesis 5 (c) examined the role of psychological capital as moderator
between abusive supervision and job performance. The results revealed that
psychological capital moderates the inverse connection of abusive supervision with
job performance. High-level of psychological capital will weaken the negative
effect of abusive supervision with job performance. Therefore, hypothesis 5(c) is
accepted.
Job performance is the key outcome an employee displays at workplace.
The performance of organization is linked with job performance of individual. If
individuals will perform the job as per expected outcome the organization will
achieve its goal effectively and efficiently. If individuals will not fail to perform
the expected outcomes from their job it will adversely affect the overall
performance of organization. Therefore, job performance of individuals has
significant impact on organizational performance. Due to its importance
organizations give substantial attention to job performance of individuals.
Organizations design their systems and procedures in such a way to create
conducive work environment where every employee can exhibit the desired
outcome expected from them to achieve organizational goals and objectives.
Abusive supervision refers to descriptors such as ―using derogatory names,
engaging in explosive outbursts (e.g., yelling or screaming at someone for
disagreeing), intimidating by use of threats of job loss, withholding needed
information, aggressive eye contact, the silent treatment, and humiliating or
156
ridiculing someone in front of others‖ (Keashly, 1998). When an employee faces
the abusive supervision it arouses negative emotions in individuals and individuals
experience lack of confidence, fear, anxiety, distress and nervousness. Due to these
adverse sentiments they did not give proper attention to their work in terms of
effort and time which resulted in lower job performance as a consequence of
abusive supervision.
Psychological capital which is defined as ―An individual‘s positive
psychological state of development that is characterized by: (1) having confidence
(self-efficacy) to take on and put in the necessary effort to succeed at challenging
tasks; (2) making a positive attribution (optimism) about succeeding now and in the
future; (3) persevering towards goals and, when necessary, redirecting paths to
goals (hope) in order to succeed; and (4) when beset by problems and adversity,
sustaining and bouncing back and even beyond (resiliency) to attain success‖
(Luthans et al., 2007). High level of psychological capital helps in dealing with
negative behaviors and emotions linked with stressful work or life situations (Avey
et al., 2008).
In the light of conservation of resource theory, the psychological capital as
a resource helping the individuals to successfully adapt in the face of threat and
cope with the negative event at work place in such a way that high-level of
psychological capital will diminish negative effect of abusive supervision with job
performance and low-level of psychological-capital will boost the negative effect
of abusive supervision with job performance. This study reveals that psychological-
capital moderates the relationship between abusive-supervision and job-
performance. The results are in accordance with the previous findings in which
157
psychological-capital moderated the effect of LMX on job performance (Wang et
al., 2014).
Hypothesis 6 (c) examined the role of psychological capital as moderator
between workplace mobbing and job performance. Hypothesis was accepted and
results revealed that the inverse effect of workplace mobbing with job performance
is moderated by psychological capital in such a way that high-level of
psychological capital will diminish the inverse effect of workplace mobbing with
job performance while lower level of psychological capital will boost negative
effect of workplace mobbing with job performance.
The results revealed that psychological capital moderated the negative
effect of workplace mobbing with job performance. High-level of psychological-
capital will weaken the negative effect of workplace-mobbing with job-
performance while lower level of psychological-capital will strengthen negative
effect of workplace-mobbing and job-performance. Therefore, hypothesis 6(c) is
accepted.
Job performance is one of the core issue of industrial and organizational
research. Scholars and entrepreneurs are in continuous pursuit to research this
major organizational outcome. Due to its significant importance, it has been one of
the most research behaviors of organizational studies. Organizational goals and
objectives are directly linked with the job performance of individuals. High level of
performance will lead to increase in team and group performance which ultimately
leads to organizational performance. A number of factors effect job performance of
individual at work including interaction, dealing and treatment of coworkers at
158
workplace. If individual will experience negative interaction, dealing and treatment
of coworkers it will adversely affect individual job performance which leads to
adverse organizational performance.
High level of psychological capital helps in dealing with negative behaviors
and emotions linked with stressful work or life situations (Avey et al., 2008). In the
light of conservation of resource theory, the psychological capital as a resource
helps the individuals to successfully adapt in the face of threat. Psychological
capital also helps in coping with the negative event at work place in such a way
that high-level of psychological-capital will diminish negative effect of workplace
incivility with job performance and low-level of psychological-capital will boosts
the negative effect of abusive supervision with job performance. This study reveals
that psychological-capital moderates the effect of workplace incivility with job
performance. The results of this hypothesis are in correspond to other studies in
which emotional intelligence which is a positive state as psychological capital
exhibited significant moderation between workplace mistreatment and
performance (Ashraf and Khan, 2014).
Workplace mobbing is the individual or group attempt towards an
employee in the form of degradation, devaluing, discrediting, deprivation, loss of
professional reputation which resulted in psychological distress and negative
emotions among employees which ultimately leads to negative effect on-job
behavior. When employee feels degradation and devaluation at work this could
lead to negative attitudes and behaviors which results in decreased job performance
and job satisfaction and increase turnover intention at workplace. In line with the
conservation of resource theory, psychological capital as a resource inculcates
159
strong belief in individual‘s ability to regulate outcomes, form positive
anticipations to deal challenging situations and positively influence and contribute
in harmonizing adverse situations and adjustments in external environment
(Luthans et al., 2006). Consequently, when employees experience mobbing at
workplace, it adversely effects their job performance. When employees possess
low-level of psychological-capital inverse connection of workplace mobbing and
job performance will be strong and when employees possess high-level of
psychological-capital the inverse connection of workplace mobbing with job
performance will be low. The results of this hypothesis are in accordance with the
results of other studies in which emotional intelligence which is a positive state as
psychological capital exhibited significant moderation between workplace
mistreatment and performance (Ashraf and Khan, 2014).
To address research question 3, hypotheses 4(a), 4(b), 5(a), 5(b), 6(a) and 6
(b) examined the role of psychological capital as moderator on the relationship
between workplace incivility, abusive supervision and workplace mobbing with
OCBI and OCBO. The hypotheses 4(a) & 4(b) examined the role of psychological
capital as moderator between workplace incivility and organizational citizenship
behavior (OCBO, OCBI). Hypotheses were accepted and results suggest that the
psychological capital moderates the relationship of workplace incivility and
organizational citizenship behavior. Results support the notion that the faculty
members who possesses more psychological capital can handle the workplace
incivility which does translate into the discretionary behavior OCB towards
individuals in the form of OCBI and towards organization in the form of OCBO.
Direct relationship of the workplace mobbing on the organizational citizenship
160
behavior was negative which reflected that the workplace incivility will lead to
lesser organizational citizenship behavior among the faculty members of the
academia. Positive moderation of the psychological capital has proved to be the
controlling factor which helps to cope the workplace incivility.
Workplace incivility is a milder form of unintentional behavior violating
formal norms of workplace norms and inter-mutual veneration. It also refers to
abrupt behavior typically impolite and disrespectful, exhibiting discourtesy towards
others. A small act of incivility can ultimately lead to physical aggression and
violence. The perception of incivility can lead to a requisite for negative behavior
at workplace. Although the intentions of instigator are unambiguous but incivility
leads to destructive spiral of events as it is influences by perception of employees
based on individual differences as well as contextual factors.
In line of social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) the employees at workplace
reciprocates the treatment and action they get. Likewise, workplace incivility
weakens social relationships, by supporting inter-mutual reverence and set-to with
integral individual need for positive social ties. In line of this, incivility
distressingly effect work attitudes and on-job behaviors, inclusive of discretionary
behaviors towards individuals OCBI and organization OCBO. In line with the
conservation of resource theory psychological capital as a resource inculcates
strong belief in individual‘s ability to regulate outcomes, form positive
anticipations to deal challenging situations and positively influence and contribute
in harmonizing adverse situations and adjustments in external environment
(Luthans et al., 2006). Consequently, when employees experience incivility at
workplace, negative relationship with discretionary behavior like OCBO and OCBI
161
at workplace is resulted. When employees possess low-level of psychological
capital the negative relationship between workplace incivility and OCB will be
strong and when employees possess high-level of psychological capital the
negative relationship between workplace incivility and OCB will be low. The
results of this hypothesis are in accordance with the results of other studies in
which emotional intelligence which is a positive state as psychological capital
exhibited significant moderation between workplace mistreatment and on-job
behavior (Ashraf and Khan, 2014).
Hypothesis 5(a) & 5(b) examined the role of psychological capital as
moderator between abusive supervision and OCBO and OCBI. Hypothesis were
accepted and results revealed inverse connection of abusive supervision with
OCBO and OCBI is moderated by psychological capital in such a way that high-
level of psychological capital will diminish the negative effect of abusive
supervision and OCBO and OCBI and lower-level of psychological capital will
strengthen the negative relationship between abusive supervision and OCBO and
OCBI.
A meta-analysis conducted by (Martinko et al., 2013) revealed that a
number of research studies have shown abusive supervision as antecedent of
additional offensive actions with their colleagues such as (Liu et al., 2012; Mawritz
et al., 2012; Harris et al., 2013). When employees will become abusive with their
colleagues as a consequence of abusive supervision they will not help out other
employees in addition to their normal job performance hence, result is lower level
of OCBI at individual level. Accordingly they will withdraw discretionary behavior
towards their organization by not performing extra for the sake of organization
162
which will result in lower level of OCBO. Therefore, experiencing abusive
supervision, the individuals restricts in engaging themselves in any extra role
behavior. In line with the conservation of resource theory, psychological capital as
a resource inculcates strong belief in individual‘s ability to regulate outcomes, form
positive anticipations to deal challenging situations and positively influence and
contribute in harmonizing adverse situations and adjustments in external
environment (Luthans et al., 2006).
When employees are abused by their supervisors, negative relationship with
discretionary behavior like OCBO and OCBI at workplace is resulted. When
employees possess low-level of psychological capital the inverse connection
between abusive supervision and OCBO and OCBI will be strong and when
employees possess high-level of psychological capital the negative connection of
abusive supervision with OCBO and OCBI will be low. The results of this
hypothesis are in accordance with the results of previous studies (Valsania et al.,
2012).
Several hypotheses were tested to achieve the second objective of the study.
Hypothesis 6(a) and 6(b) examined the role of psychological capital as moderator
between the relationship of workplace mobbing and OCBO, OCBI. Hypotheses
were accepted and results suggest that the psychological capital positively
moderates the relationship of workplace mobbing and OCBO and OCBI. Results
support the notion that the faculty which have more psychological capital can
handle the workplace mobbing which does translate into OCBO, OCBI. Direct
relationship of the workplace mobbing on the OCBO and OCBI was negative
which reflected that the workplace mobbing will lead to lesser organizational
163
citizenship behavior among the faculty members of the academia. Positive
moderation of the psychological capital has proved to be the controlling factor
which helps to cope the workplace mobbing.
To address research question 3, Hypothesis 4(d), 4(e), 5(d), 5(e), 6 (d) and 6
(e) examined the role of psychological capital as moderator on the relationship
between workplace incivility, abusive supervision and workplace mobbing with
CWBO, CWBI.
Hypotheses 4(d) and 4(e) examined the role of psychological capital as
moderator between the relationship of workplace incivility and CWBO and CWBI.
The results revealed that psychological capital does not moderates the relationship
between workplace mistreatment and CWBI and CWBO.
Hypothesis 5(d) & 5(e) examined the role of psychological capital as
moderator between abusive supervision and CWBO, CWBI. The results revealed
that psychological-capital moderated the positive effect of abusive-supervision and
CWBI. High-level of psychological-capital diminishes the effect of workplace
mobbing and CWBI while low-level of psychological-capital boosts the effect of
workplace mobbing and CWBI. Therefore, hypothesis 5(e) is accepted. The results
also revealed non-significant relationship between the moderating role of
psychological capital on the relationship between abusive supervision and CWBO.
Therefore, hypothesis 5(d) is rejected.
Counterproductive work behavior consists of willingness or intention to
harm the organization and stakeholders (Fox and Spector, 2005). The important
mechanism of counterproductive work behavior is the purposeful actions one
164
willing to do itself. The actions to harm the organization and stakeholders are not
accidental (Lee and Allen, 2002). Counterproductive work behavior adversely
effects the functioning of the organization. That‘s why it is usually considered as
undesirable and a hazard to the individual and organizational wellbeing.
When an employee faces the abusive supervision, it arouses negative
emotions in individuals. Individuals with negative emotions experience lack of
confidence, fear, anxiety, distress and nervousness. Employees who experience
abusive supervision at workplace feel annoyed, revengeful and dissatisfied. In line
with ―social exchange theory‖, the basis of reciprocation states that when
employees are annoyed, revengeful and dissatisfied as a consequence of abusive
supervision towards organization and individuals working there they will
reciprocate in the form of CWBO and CWBI.
In the light of conservation of resource theory, the psychological capital as
a resource helps the individuals to successfully adapt in facing abusive supervision.
Psychological capital also helps in coping with the negative event at work place in
such a way that lower-level of psychological-capital boosts the effect of abusive-
supervision and CWBI and high-level of psychological capital diminishes the
effect of abusive-supervision and CWBI. This study reveals that psychological-
capital moderates effect of abusive-supervision and CWBI. The results of study are
in-accordance with previous findings (Bibi et al., 2013).
Hypothesis 6(d) & 6(e) examined the role of psychological capital as
moderator between workplace mobbing and CWBO and CWBI. The results
revealed that psychological capital does not moderated the negative effect of
165
workplace mobbing with CWBI and CWBO. Therefore, hypothesis 6 (d) & 6 (e)
are rejected.
Moreover, the study also analyzed the individual moderation of the
constructs of the psychological capital namely, hope, optimism, resilience and self-
efficacy. The results of the moderation analysis reveal that the individual
moderation of the dimensions of the psychological capital i.e. (Hope, Optimism,
Resilience, Self Efficacy) do not moderate the relationship of the workplace
mistreatment (workplace incivility, abusive supervision, workplace mobbing) and
on-job-behavior (OCBO,OCBI, job performance, CWBO, CWBI). Although, the
psychological capital – when taken as one construct – moderates some of the
dimensions of the workplace mistreatment and on-job-behavior. Detailed results of
the moderation of individual dimensions are also presented in the Appendix.
5.3 LIMITATIONS
Despite having a number of theoretical and practical implications, the study
is not free from limitations. Though, the researcher attempted to cover the variety
of factors that influence the phenomenon of workplace mistreatment yet few
constraints have been confronted to accomplish this task that can be addressed in
future research.
The focus of the study was to examine the impact of workplace
mistreatment i.e. workplace mobbing, abusive supervision and workplace incivility
on-job behaviors i.e. job performance, organizational citizenship behavior and
counterproductive work behavior. The study also assessed the moderating role of
psychological capital on the relationship of workplace mistreatment and on-job
166
behavior.
The primary limitation of the current study was its socio-cultural context.
The data was collected from universities operating in Punjab, KPK and Islamabad
regions of Pakistan. Therefore, results of this study should be interpreted with a
caution and not be generalized. If the scope of the study may be enhanced to all
the provinces of Pakistan the results and findings of the study may vary. In
addition, the data was only collected from the faculty members serving in
universities in Punjab, KPK and Islamabad regions of Pakistan. Therefore, the
results of the study represent the higher education sector of Pakistan only. The
results may vary for other sectors like service and manufacturing.
The study was conducted in Pakistan so the results cannot be generalized to
other regions. The results may vary in different cultural settings. The study was
designed on cross-sectional in nature. Therefore, these findings may not apply
temporally. While this research has curtailed the research scope and focused
workplace mobbing, abusive supervision and workplace incivility as workplace
mistreatment likewise, the study only focused on limited on-job behaviors (job
performance, organizational citizenship behavior, counterproductive work
behavior) only. The current study has analyzed psychological capital as moderator
which has not been examined earlier on frequent basis. Therefore, future
researchers should further empirically test this model to validate.
5.4 FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTION
The current study was framed as to examine the relationship between
workplace mistreatment (workplace mobbing, abusive supervision, workplace
167
incivility) and on-job behaviors (job performance, organizational citizenship
behavior, counterproductive work behavior). The study also examined the
moderating role of psychological capital over the above relationship.
The current study has only discussed workplace mobbing, abusive
supervision and workplace incivility as workplace mistreatment. Future researches
also study other variables of workplace mistreatment like: interpersonal conflict,
ostracism, social undermining, bullying, workplace aggression, emotional abuse,
victimization etc. The above stated variables may have a significant effect over on-
job behavior and it is imperative to study the effect of these variables in relation
with on-job behaviors in general and in context of higher education sector Pakistan
in specific.
The study has examined the role of psychological capital as moderator on
the relationship between workplace mistreatment (workplace mobbing, abusive
supervision, workplace incivility) in relation with on-job behavior (job
performance, organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive behavior).
Apart from psychological capital other positive character strengths such as positive
affectivity, self-esteem, locus of control and perseverance can be studied as
moderator on the relationship between workplace mistreatment and on-job
behaviors.
Alternatively, the character strengths other than individual characteristics
such as the ability to be mindful and thankful (mindfulness and gratitude), can have
a positive effect on the relationship between workplace mistreatment and on-job
behaviors. In addition to this, political skills which comprises of (social astuteness,
168
interpersonal influence, networking ability and apparent sincerity) may affect the
relationship between workplace mistreatment and on-job behaviors. Employee
well-being which comprises of positive affectivity and life satisfaction can also
positively moderates the relationship between workplace mistreatment and on-job
behavior.
Apart from potential moderators, future research should also explore
different mediators as outcome of workplace mistreatment and have significant
effect on-job behavior. These potential mediator variables could include: negative
emotions, retaliation, workplace aggression etc. These negative constructs can have
negative effect with positive on-job behaviors and can have positive effect with
negative and undesirable on-job behaviors.
Future research could also explore the relationship between other positive
and desirable on-job behaviors and undesirable on-job behavior in addition to on-
job behavior discussed in the present study. Future research can study the effect of
workplace mistreatment on other desirable on-job behaviors such as creative
performance, contextual performance of employees and work engagement. Future
research can also study the effect of workplace mistreatment on undesirable on-job
behaviors like retaliation and burnout.
Future research can be conducted in another socio-cultural context. The
data can be collected from universities operating in geographical region with
different socio-cultural context. The scope of the study can also be enhanced to
other sectors like services and manufacturing. A comparative study of the
relationship of workplace mistreatment and on-job behaviors in the context of
169
public and private sector can be conducted.
Future research can also be conducted by collecting data through diary
studies and multisource data collection technique. Different demographic variables
such as gender and age can have significant effect on the relationship between
workplace mistreatment and on-job behaviors. Future research should also study
the effect of these demographic variables. Future research should study the
different interventions to minimize the effect of workplace mistreatment on-job
behavior.
5.5 IMPLICATIONS
Implications of current study findings are presented in this section and draw
attention to the effect of workplace mistreatment (workplace mobbing, abusive
supervision, workplace incivility) on-job behavior (job performance, organizational
citizenship behavior, counterproductive behavior). The study also revealed the
moderating role of psychological capital on the above-mentioned relationship on
faculty serving in universities in Pakistan. Based on the results of the study
following recommendations are made which may help the university management
and also Higher Education Commission (HEC), Government of Pakistan to cope
mistreatment in universities on proactive basis.
5.5.1 Managerial Implications
The study investigated workplace mistreatment (workplace incivility,
abusive supervision, workplace mobbing) among faculty members working in
universities of Pakistan. The results of the study revealed that workplace incivility,
abusive supervision, and workplace mobbing exist both in public and private sector
170
universities. The results are consistent with previous research in which prevalence
of bullying, job dissatisfaction; lower levels of OCB and psychosocial problems
were found among faculty members working in Pakistani universities (Ali and
Waqar, 2013; Atta and Khan, 2015; Abdullah and Akhar, 2016; Ahmad et al.,
2017; Malik et al., 2017).
From the results, it is also evident that the workplace mobbing is perceived
more by the public sector faculty members. This may be reflective of the prevalent
culture in these universities. Union and group politics are common in the public
sector organizations which may be a reason for teachers feeling targeted and
threatened. The findings also support the arguments by (Brunetto et al., 2016) that
private sector institutions may be better managed than the public sector with the
administration being more involved in resolving issues of staff .
The results of this study further revealed the differences between the male
and female faculty members in terms of abusive supervision and workplace
mobbing. Workplace mobbing among the female faculty members have been found
to be relatively lower than the male faculty members, which may be attributed to
the male activeness unions and other grouping activities in the organization. As
female members of the organization are less active in group politics and avoid such
activities, they are less prone to be on the receiving side of the workplace mobbing.
The findings of this study are consistent with the previous research
by (Salin, 2013) in which differences in prevalence of workplace bullying across
gender lines were considered as given requiring difference in training.
The study further revealed that workplace mistreatment has negative
significant relationship with desirable on-job behaviors (job performance and
171
organizational citizenship behavior) and positive significant relationship with
undesirable on-job behaviors (counterproductive work behavior) in faculty working
in universities in Pakistan. The management of universities should devise policies
and rules to minimize workplace mistreatment at work because it lowers the job
performance and organizational citizenship behavior. These two desirable work
behaviors are as important to be displayed in any organization but as far as
universities are concerned they are the vital behaviors to be displayed at work. If
faculty working in universities will not perform its job well i.e. teaching, research
and outreach. It will not only affect the performance of a university but also the
process of overall nation building. Therefore, it is imperative that strict policies and
procedures must be introduced in the universities to create conducive work
environment.
5.5.2 Implications for Universities
Universities have a legitimate obligation to safeguard employees from
mistreatment. Therefore, following recommendations are made for the
management of universities on proactive basis to handle mistreatment in
universities:
i. Each university must have its own mistreatment control policy. The
policy should be communicated very clearly to all the employees and
should be available online, where zero tolerance of mistreatment be
emphasized.
ii. Device a system through which distributive and procedural justice is
ensured in decision making
172
iii. Provide a safe and healthy workplace and learning environment that is
free from mistreatment and discrimination
iv. Provide equal opportunities to all individuals, or a group of people,
instead treating less favorably than another person or group because of
one or more characteristics.
v. The immediate head/supervisor should have an extra responsibility to
provide unprejudiced, fair and well-behaved treatment to faculty
members under their supervision and to lead by example.
vi. The academic heads should intervene actively to stop mistreatment
behavior at workplace where it occurs. The peers should also intervene
to stop mistreatment behavior when observed and report to higher
management
vii. Employees should be encouraged to speak to their Head of
Departments, unless that is inappropriate, in which case they should
approach to Registrar or Vice Chancellor.
The results of the study also revealed that psychological capital moderates
the negative relationship between workplace mistreatment (workplace mobbing,
abusive supervision, workplace incivility) in relation with desirable on-job
behaviors (job performance and organizational citizenship behavior).
Psychological capital is a positive psychological state which can be developed and
enhanced through training interventions. To minimize, reduce, and mitigate the
effect of workplace mistreatment (workplace mobbing, abusive supervision,
workplace incivility) the management of the university should design the training
interventions to develop and enhance the psychological capital among faculty
173
members serving in university to cope the unwanted mistreatment at workplace.
The Higher Education Commission (HEC), Government of Pakistan is the
regulatory body for universities and degree awarding institutes in the country.
There is a substantial growth in higher education sector in Pakistan from last few
years which has resulted in socioeconomic and cultural development of the
country. Most importantly, teaching in universities has emerged as a prestigious
and prized profession in Pakistan. The Higher Education Commission (HEC) has
taken many reforms in line with the Government of Pakistan vision 2025 such as:
Excellence in Leadership, Governance and Management of Universities, Increase
in number of faculty with highest academic qualifications, enhanced quality of
curricula, research innovation and commercialization, increase equitable access to
higher education. These reforms were taken with the aim to align Human Resource
Development with Economic Development and to create knowledge based
economy in Pakistan.
Faculty development of university faculty in one of the key priority of
HEC. HEC has a full fledge training program known as ―Master Trainers-Faculty
Professional Development Program‖. The duration of the program is 08 weeks and
is designed to develop andragogy skills including teaching, research and
management skills. The Master Trainers trained by HEC then conduct similar type
of training in their respective universities and degree awarding institutes. At the
start of program two batches comprising 25-30 faculty members per batch were
given training by HEC in a year. However, from past few years the numbers of
batches have been increased to three per years. HEC has trained more than 900
faculty members as master trainers.
174
The training material for ―Master Trainer Program‖ by Higher Education
Commission covers a number of modules related to Teaching, Assessment,
Importance of Teaching, Verbal and Non-Verbal Communication, Academic
Writing. The list of modules covered during the training is provided in appendix.
The training is mainly focused on the academic planning, academic management,
teaching and research skills required to faculty members to perform their job.
However a favorable consideration has been given to impart entrepreneurial and
leadership skills among faculty and accordingly the modules to develop these skills
have also be included in the training. However, a little emphasis has been given on
women harassment and nurturing skills to manage emotions at work. The modules
of training are designed to enable the faculty member to plan, deliver the academic
and research responsibilities. The training module to address mistreatment at
workplace is unfortunately missing and there is dire need of incorporating a
module which can develop the coping skills among the faculty members through
interventions to cope mistreatment at workplace to avoid negative consequences of
mistreatment at workplace.
Following recommendations are made for the Higher Education
Commission to address the mistreatment in universities in Pakistan:
i. The Higher Education Commission, Government of Pakistan being
regulator should device mistreatment control policy and circulate it
to all universities for implementation.
ii. Psychological capital training intervention as a module should be
included in master training faculty development program to train
faculty members to cope mistreatment.
175
iii. The faculty members from different universities should be trained
with psychological capital interventions to cope mistreatment. These
trainers then assigned the task to provide training to faculty in their
respective universities.
iv. HEC should also provide guidelines to include the Psychological
Capital training intervention as a module faculty training program
run by different universities.
v. Special short term Psychological Training Intervention programs for
Senior Administrative and Academic Had must be introduced under
Higher Education Commission - Management University
Governance Program.
5.5.3 Theoretical Implications
Findings of present study are based on theoretical level adding up in the
area of workplace mistreatment (workplace mobbing, abusive supervision,
workplace incivility) in particular, and in the area of on-job behaviors (job
performance, OCBO, OCBI, CWBO, CWBI), with the moderation effect of
psychological capital in general. The study formulated the hypothesis between
workplace mistreatment (workplace mobbing, abusive supervision, workplace
incivility) and on-job behaviors (job performance, OCBO, OCBI, CWBO, CWBI)
in the light of Social Exchange Theory. The study also hypothesized the
moderating role of psychological capital to cope the effect of workplace
mistreatment (workplace mobbing, abusive supervision, workplace incivility) and
on-job behaviors (job performance, OCBO, OCBI, CWBO, CWBI) by utilizing
Conservation of Resource Theory.
176
5.6 CONCLUSION
Based on the findings from this study subsequent conclusions could be
drawn. In the beginning, the relationship of each of workplace mistreatment
(workplace mobbing, abusive supervision, workplace incivility) was analyzed
through bivariate analysis and all three variables were found negative correlated
with desirable on-job behaviors (job performance, OCBO, OCBI) and found
positively correlated with undesirable on-job behavior (CWBI,
CWBO). Furthermore, through multivariate analysis workplace mistreatment
(workplace mobbing, abusive supervision, workplace incivility) finds significant
negative effect on desirable on-job behaviors (job performance, OCBO, OCBI) and
significant positive effect on undesirable on-job behaviors (CWBI) while in
significant effect with CWBO.
Finally, the vital role of psychological capital as a moderator of the
relationship of workplace mistreatment (workplace mobbing, abusive supervision,
workplace incivility) on the relationship with on-job behaviors (job performance,
OCBI, OCBO, CWBI, CWBO) was analyzed through boot strapping method by
(Hayes, 2013). Consequently, results of findings show that psychological capital
moderates the relationship between workplace mistreatment (workplace mobbing,
abusive supervision, workplace incivility) and on-job desirable behaviors in such a
way that high level of psychological capital will weaken negative relationship
between workplace mistreatment (workplace mobbing, abusive supervision,
workplace incivility) and on-job desirable behaviors (job performance, OCBO,
OCBI) and low level of psychological capital will strengthen the negative
relationship between above variables.
177
The findings conclude that workplace mistreatment (workplace mobbing,
abusive supervision, workplace incivility) has significant negative effect on-job
desirable variables (job performance, OCBO, OCBI). Presence of these types of
mistreatment adversely affects job performance and organizational citizenship
behavior. Consequently, the management of all universities should device policies
and procedures to minimize the workplace mistreatment in the universities which
will enforce to treat all staff equally, and with dignity and respect. At the same
time, the management of the universities should provide a supportive and inclusive
learning, working and social environment in which everyone feels that they are
valued and can work to achieve their potential.
A number of studies have shown that on-job behaviors contribute in
important ways to organizational functioning and performance and may enhance an
organizaton‘s ablity to attract and retain good employees by making it a more
attractive place for people to work (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Whereas the results of
this study indicate that workplace mistreatment can be coped by inculcating the
psychological capital in faculty members which may enhance desireable on-job
behaviors such as job performance, OCBO and OCBI and it may mitigate the
adverse effects of workplace mistreatment.
The management of the university should devise interventions through
short trainings to develop and harness psychological capital among faculty
members. The management of university spends a large amount for faculty
development programs to improve their learning, teaching, and research skills of
faculty members. The management of university should also allocate budget to
develop positive organizational behavior among faculty members by training
178
intervention which will not only develop psychological capital among faculty
members to cope workplace mistreatment at work but ultimately lead to enhance
psychological capital of the who organizations to cope such type of negative issues.
The study also revealed that psychological capital does not moderate the
relationship between workplace mistreatment (workplace mobbing, abusive
supervision, workplace incivility) and undesirable on job behavior CWBO and
CWBI. However, study revealed that psychological capital moderates on the
relationship between abusive supervision and CWBI. Although universities
operating in Pakistan have devised some policies such as harassment policies and
disciplines rules but with the diversified nature of workplace mistreatments and
their negative impact on job performance more objective policies need to be
devised and implemented. The Higher Education Commission, Government of
Pakistan being regulator should also play its role to enforce all the universities
operating in Pakistan to implement workplace mistreatment control policies. This
will surely be another good step to create an environment to encourage harmonious
relationships among all individuals where they will be treated with dignity and
respect so that they can fulfill their personal potential in a professional working and
learning environment.
179
SUMMARY
The objective of the study was to analyze relationship between workplace
mistreatment (workplace mobbing, abusive supervision, workplace incivility) and
on-job desireable behaviors (job performance, organizational citizenship behavior
towards organization-OCBO, organization citizenship behavior towards
individuals-OCBI). The study also investigated the relationship between
(workplace mobbing, abusive supervision, workplace incivility) and on-job
undesirable behaviors (counterproductive work behavior towards organization-
CWBO, counterproductive behavior towards individuals-CWBI). The another main
objective of the study was to analyze the moderating role of psychological capital
on the relationship between (workplace mobbing, abusive supervision, workplace
incivility) and on-job behaviors (job performance, OCBI, OCBO, CWBI, CWBO).
The relationship between these variables has been elaborated with the
support of social exchange theory, attributional theory and stress stain model.
Based on theoretical arguments, the hypotheses for the negative relationship
between workplace mistreatment with job performance and OCB and positive
relationship with CWB are developed. Moreover, by using conservation of
resource theory, the arguments on moderating role of psychological capital on the
relationship between workplace mistreatment (workplace incivility, abusive
supervision, workplace mobbing) an on-job behaviors ( job performance , OCB,
CWB) are discussed and hypotheses are developed.
The data was collected from 408 faculty members serving in different
universities in Pakistan. Multisource data was collected through questionnaires
179
180
from faculty members serving in universities in Pakistan. The data for independent
variables workplace mistreatment (workplace mobbing, abusive supervision,
workplace incivility) and moderating variable i.e. psychological capital was
collected from faculty members in the first step. The data for on-job behaviors (job
performance, OCBO,OCBI) was collected from their supervisors in the next step.
The data for (counterproductive work behavior towards organization,
counterproductive behavior towards individuals) was collected from their peers in
the final step.
The results of the study revealed that workplace mistreatment (workplace
incivility, abusive supervision, workplace mobbing) has significant negative
relationship with and job performance, OCBO, OCBI while positive relationship
with counterproductive behavior towards individuals. However, insignificant
results were also revealed on the relationship between workplace mistreatment
(workplace incivility, abusive supervision, workplace mobbing) and
counterproductive behavior towards organization and workplace mobbing and
counterproductive behavior towards individuals.
The results also revealed that psychological capital moderates the
relationship between workplace mistreatment (workplace incivility, abusive
supervision, workplace mobbing) and job performance, OCBO, OCBI. However,
in case of counterproductive work behavior towards organization,
counterproductive behavior towards individuals, diverse results are revealed.
181
LITERATURE CITED
Abbas, M., U. Raja, W. Darr, and D. Bouckenooghe. 2014. Combined effects of
perceived politics and psychological capital on job satisfaction, turnover
intentions, and performance. Journal of Management, 40(7): 1813-1830.
Abdullah, N.A., and M. M. S. Akhar. 2016. Job satisfaction through organizational
citizenship behaviour: a case of university teachers in Pakistan. Alberta
Journal of Educational Research, 62(2): 201.
A. Bryman. 2012. Social research methods: OUP Oxford.19 pp.
Abramson, L. Y., M. E. Seligman, and J. D. Teasdale. 1978. Learned helplessness
in humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
87(1): 49.
Acedo, F. J., C. Barroso, and J. L. Galan. 2006. The resource‐based theory:
dissemination and main trends. Strategic Management Journal, 27(7): 621-
636.
Adams, V. H., Snyder, C. R., R and, K. L., King, E. A., Sigmon, D. R., and K. M.
Pulvers, 2002. Hope in the workplace. Handbook of Workplace Spirituality
and Organizational Performance, 367-377.
Ahmad, J., M. Hussain, and A. Rajput. 2012. Prognosticators of job satisfaction for
faculty in universities. Management and Marketing Journal, 10(1): 117-124.
Ahmad, S., R. Kalim, and A. Kaleem. 2017. Academics' perceptions of bullying at
work: insights from Pakistan. International Journal of Educational
Management, 31(2).
Alfes, K., A. Shantz, C. Truss, and E. Soane. 2013. The link between perceived
human resource management practices, engagement and employee
181
182
behaviour: a moderated mediation model. The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 24(2): 330-351.
Ali, U., and S. Waqar. 2013. Teachers' organizational citizenship behavior working
under different leadership styles. Pakistan Journal of Psychological
Research, 28(2): 297.
Alparslan, A. M., and T. Hakan. 2009. Mobbing olgusu ve mobbing davranişinda
duygusal zekâ etkisi.
Altuntaş, C. 2010. Mobbing kavrami ve örnekleri üzerine uygulamali bir çalişma.
Journal of Yasar University, 18(5): 2995-3015.
Andersson, L. M., and C. M. Pearson. 1999. Tit for tat? the spiraling effect of
incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24(3): 452-
471.
Aquino, K., and S. Douglas. 2003. Identity threat and antisocial behavior in
organizations: the moderating effects of individual differences, aggressive
modeling, and hierarchical status. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 90(1): 195-208.
Aquino, K., S. Douglas, and M. J. Martinko. 2004. Overt anger in response to
victimization: attributional style and organizational norms as moderators.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9(2): 152.
Aquino, K., S. L. Grover, M. Bradfield, and D. G. Allen. 1999. The effects of
negative affectivity, hierarchical status, and self-determination on
workplace victimization. Academy of Management Journal, 42(3): 260-
272.
Aquino, K., and K. Lamertz. 2004. A relational model of workplace victimization:
180
183
social roles and patterns of victimization in dyadic relationships. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 89(6): 1023.
Aquino, K., T. M. Tripp, and R. J. Bies. 2001. How employees respond to personal
offense: the effects of blame attribution, victim status, and offender status
on revenge and reconciliation in the workplace. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86(1): 52.
Ardichvili, A. 2011a. Invited reaction: Meta‐analysis of the impact of
psychological capital on employee attitudes, behaviors, and performance.
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 22(2): 153-156.
Ardichvili, A. 2011b. Sustainability of nations, communities, organizations and
individuals: the role of HRD. Human Resource Development International,
14(4): 371-374.
Arenas, A., G. Giorgi, F. Montani, S. Mancuso, J. F. Perez, N. Mucci, and G.
Arcangeli. 2015. Workplace bullying in a sample of Italian and Spanish
employees and its relationship with job satisfaction, and psychological
well-being. Frontiers in Psychology, 6: 1912.
Arnetz, B., and V. Blomkvist. 2007. Leadership, mental health, and organizational
efficacy in health care organizations. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics,
76(4): 242-248.
Aryee, S., Z. X. Chen, L.Y. Sun, and Y. A. Debrah. 2007. Antecedents and
outcomes of abusive supervision: test of a trickle-down model. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 92(1): 191.
Aryee, S., L. Y. Sun, Z. X. G. Chen, and Y. A. Debrah. 2008. Abusive supervision
and contextual performance: the mediating role of emotional exhaustion
184
and the moderating role of work unit structure. Management and
Organization Review, 4(3): 393-411.
Ashraf, F., and M. A. Khan. 2014. Does emotional intelligence moderate the
relationship between workplace bullying and job performance? Asian
Business and Management, 13(2): 171-190.
Atta, M., and M. J. Khan. 2015. Leadership styles as determinants of organizational
citizenship behavior among public sector university teachers. Pakistan
Journal of Social Sciences, 35(1): 273-286.
Avey, J. B., F. Luthans, and S. M. Jensen. 2009. Psychological capital: a positive
resource for combating employee stress and turnover. Human Resource
Management, 48(5): 677-693.
Avey, J. B., F. Luthans, R. M. Smith, and N. F. Palmer. 2010. Impact of positive
psychological capital on employee well-being over time. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 15(1): 17.
Avey, J. B., F. Luthans, and C. M. Youssef. 2010. The additive value of positive
psychological capital in predicting work attitudes and behaviors. Journal of
Management, 36(2): 430-452.
Avey, J. B., J. L. Patera, and B. J. West. 2006. The implications of positive
psychological capital on employee absenteeism. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 13(2): 42-60.
Avey, J. B., R. J. Reichard, F. Luthans, and K. H. Mhatre. 2011. Meta‐analysis of
the impact of positive psychological capital on employee attitudes,
behaviors, and performance. Human Resource Development Quarterly,
22(2): 127-152.
185
Avey, J. B., T. S. Wernsing, and F. Luthans. 2008. Can positive employees help
positive organizational change? impact of psychological capital and
emotions on relevant attitudes and behaviors. The Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 44(1): 48-70.
Aybas, M., and A. C. Acar. 2017. The effect of HRM practices on employees' work
engagement and the mediating and moderating role of positive
psychological capital. International Review of Management and Marketing,
7(1).
Balducci, C., W. B. Schaufeli, and F. Fraccaroli. 2011. The job demands–resources
model and counterproductive work behaviour: the role of job-related affect.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(4): 467-496.
Bandura, A. 1977. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2): 191.
Bandura, A. 1997. Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. Henry Holt and Co.,
New York. 3 pp.
Barling, J. 1996. The prediction, experience, and consequences of workplace
violence. In: G. R. VandenBos & E. Q. Bulatao, (eds.), Violence on the
job: Identifying risks and developing solutions, p. 29-49.
Baron, R. M., and D. A. Kenny. 1986. The moderator–mediator variable distinction
in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical
considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6): 1173.
Barrick, M. R., and M. K. Mount. 1991. The big five personality dimensions and
job performance: a meta‐analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1): 1-26.
Bartlett II, J. E., M. E. Bartlett, and T. G. Reio Jr. 2008. Analysis of nonresponse
186
bias in research for business education. The Journal of Research in Business
Education, 50(1): 45.
Bateman, T. S., and D. W. Organ. 1983. Job satisfaction and the good soldier: the
relationship between affect and employee citizenship. Academy of
Management Journal, 26(4): 587-595.
Baumeister, R. F., E. Bratslavsky, M. Muraven, and D. M. Tice. 1998. Ego
depletion: is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 74(5): 1252.
Bennett, R. J., and S. L. Robinson. 2000. Development of a measure of workplace
deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3): 349.
Berry, C. M., N. C. Carpenter, and C. L. Barratt. 2012. Do other-reports of
counterproductive work behavior provide an incremental contribution over
self-reports? a meta-analytic comparison: Journal of Applied Psychology,
97(3): 613-636.
Birkqvist, K., K. Osterman, and M. Hielt-Bdck. 1994. Aggression among
university employees. Aggressive Behavior, 20(3): 173-184.
Bibi, Z., J. Karim, and S. ud Din. 2013. Workplace incivility and counterproductive
work behavior: moderating role of emotional intelligence. Pakistan Journal
of Psychological Research, 28(2): 317.
Bies, R. J., T. M. Tripp, and R. M. Kramer. 1997. At the breaking point: cognitive
and social dynamics of revenge in organizations. Sage Publications. p. 18-
36.
Blaikie, N. 2000. Designing social research. Polity Press. CBG. p.128-129.
Blaikie, P. 1993. Approaches to Social Enquiry.Polity Press., Cambridge. 75 pp.
187
Blau, P. M. 1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life. Transaction Publishers.,
London. 39 pp.
Bolino, M. C., and W. H. Turnley. 2005. The personal costs of citizenship
behavior: the relationship between individual initiative and role overload,
job stress, and work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4):
740.
Borman, W. C., D. R. Ilgen, and R. J. Klimoski. 2003. Handbook of Psychology:
Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 12th
ed.,Wiley and Sons Inc. NJ.
p.273-284.
Borman, W. C., and S. Motowidlo. 1993. Expanding the criterion domain to
include elements of contextual performance. In: N. Schmitt & W. C.
Borman (eds.), Personnel Selection in Organizations. Jossey Bass., San
Francisco. 71 pp.
Borman, W. C., L. A. Penner, T. D. Allen, and S. J. Motowidlo. 2001. Personality
predictors of citizenship performance. International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 9(1‐2): 52-69.
Bowling, N. A., and T. A. Beehr. 2006. Workplace harassment from the victim's
perspective: a theoretical model and meta-analysis: Journal of Applied
Psychology,91(5):998-1012.
Bowling, N. A., and K. J. Eschleman. 2010. Employee personality as a moderator
of the relationships between work stressors and counterproductive work
behavior. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15(1): 91.
Bowling, N. A., and J. S. Michel. 2011. Why do you treat me badly? the role of
attributions regarding the cause of abuse in subordinates' responses to
188
abusive supervision. Work and Stress, 25(4): 309-320.
Bronfenbrenner, U., and P. A. Morris. 1998. The ecology of developmental
processes.5th
ed.,Wiley Publisher. LN. p.993-1028.
Brown, S. P., W. L. Cron, and J. W. Slocum Jr. 1998. Effects of trait
competitiveness and perceived intraorganizational competition on
salesperson goal setting and performance. The Journal of Marketing: 88-98.
Brunetto, Y., M. Xerri, E. Trinchero, R. Farr-Wharton, K. Shacklock, and E.
Borgonovi. 2016. Public – private sector comparisons of nurses‘ work
harassment using set: Italy and Australia. Public Management Review,
18(10): 1479-1503.
Budd, J. W., P. J. Gollan, A. Wilkinson, and K. Harlos. 2010. If you build a
remedial voice mechanism, will they come? determinants of voicing
interpersonal mistreatment at work. Human Relations, 63(3): 311-329.
Bushra, F., U. Ahmad, and A. Naveed. 2011. Effect of transformational leadership
on employees' job satisfaction and organizational commitment in banking
sector of Lahore (Pakistan). International Journal of Business and Social
Science, 2(18).
Byrne, A., A. M. Dionisi, J. Barling, A. Akers, J. Robertson, R. Lys, K. Dupré.
2014. The depleted leader: The influence of leaders' diminished
psychological resources on leadership behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly,
25(2): 344-357.
Cameron, K. S., J. E. Dutton, R. E. Quinn, and A. Wrzesniewski. 2003. Developing
a Discipline of Positive Organizational Scholarship. Berrett-Koehler
Publishers., San Francisco. 361 pp.
189
Campbell, J. P., R. A. McCloy, S. H. Oppler, and C. E. Sager. 1993. A theory of
performance. Personnel Selection in Organizations, 3570: 35-70.
Campbell, J. P., J. J. McHenry, and L. L. Wise. 1990. Modeling job performance
in a population of jobs. Personnel Psychology, 43(2): 313-575.
Campos, M. N., T. LaFerriere, and J. M. LaPointe. 2005. Analysing arguments in
networked conversations: the context of student teachers. Canadian Journal
of Higher Education, 35(4): 55-84.
Carlson, D., M. Ferguson, E. Hunter, and D. Whitten. 2012. Abusive supervision
and work–family conflict: the path through emotional labor and burnout.
The Leadership Quarterly, 23(5): 849-859.
Chadwick, I. C., and J. L. Raver. 2013. Continuously improving in tough times:
Overcoming resource constraints with psychological capital. Paper
presented at the Academy of Management Proceedings.
Cheung, F., C. S.k. Tang, and S. Tang. 2011. Psychological capital as a moderator
between emotional labor, burnout, and job satisfaction among school
teachers in China. International Journal of Stress Management, 18(4): 348.
Chiaburu, D. S., I.S. Oh, C. M. Berry, N. Li, and R. G. Gardner. 2011. The five-
factor model of personality traits and organizational citizenship behaviors: a
meta-analysis: Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(6): 1140-66.
Chughtai, A. A. 2008. Impact of job involvement on in-role job performance and
organizational citizenship behaviour. Journal of Behavioral and Applied
Management, 9(2): 169.
Chughtai, A. A., and S. Zafar. 2006. Antecedents and consequences of
organizational commitment among Pakistani university teachers. Applied
190
Human Resource Management Research, 11(1): 39-64.
Churchill Jr, G. A. 1979. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing
constructs. Journal of Marketing Research: 64-73.
ÇINAR, O. 2015. Okul müdürlerinin iletişim sürecindeki etkililiği. Dumlupınar
Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 26(26).
Çobanoğlu, Ş. 2005. Mobbing işyerinde duygusal saldırı ve mücadele yöntemleri.
İstanbul Timaş Yayınları. 256 pp.
Cohen, T. R., A. T. Panter, N. Turan, L. Morse, and Y. Kim. 2014. Moral character
in the workplace. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(5):
943.
Cooper, C. L., H. Hoel, and B. Faragher. 2004. Bullying is detrimental to health,
but all bullying behaviours are not necessarily equally damaging. British
Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 32(3): 367-387.
Cortina, L. M. 2008. Unseen injustice: Incivility as modern discrimination in
organizations. Academy of Management Review, 33(1): 55-75.
Cortina, L. M., and V. J. Magley. 2003. Raising voice, risking retaliation: events
following interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 8(4): 247-265.
Cortina, L. M., V. J. Magley, J. H. Williams, and R. D. Langhout. 2001. Incivility
in the workplace: incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 6(1): 64.
Coutu, D. L. 2002. How resilience works. Harvard Business Review, 80(5): 46-56.
Coyne, I., E. Seigne, and P. Randall. 2000. Predicting workplace victim status from
personality. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
191
9(3): 335-349.
Coyne, I., P. Smith-Lee Chong, E. Seigne, and P. Randall. 2003. Self and peer
nominations of bullying: an analysis of incident rates, individual
differences, and perceptions of the working environment. European Journal
of Work and Organizational Psychology, 12(3): 209-228.
Crook, T. R., D. J. Ketchen, J. G. Combs, and S. Y. Todd. 2008. Strategic
resources and performance: a meta‐analysis. Strategic Management Journal,
29(11): 1141-1154.
Crook, T. R., S. Y. Todd, J. G. Combs, D. J. Woehr, and D. J. Ketchen Jr. 2011.
Does human capital matter? a meta-analysis of the relationship between
human capital and firm performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
96(3):443-456.
Cropanzano, R., E. Anthony, S. Daniels, and A. Hall. 2016. Social exchange
theory: a critical review with theoretical remedies. Academy of
Management Annals: Annals. 2015.0099.
Cropanzano, R., and R. Folger. 1989. Referent cognitions and task decision
autonomy: Beyond equity theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(2):
293.
Cropanzano, R., J. C. Howes, A. A. Grandey, and P. Toth. 1997. The relationship
of organizational politics and support to work behaviors, attitudes, and
stress. Journal of Organizational Behavior: 159-180.
Cropanzano, R., and M. S. Mitchell. 2005. Social exchange theory: an
interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6): 874-900.
D'Cruz, P., and E. Noronha. 2010. The exit coping response to workplace bullying:
192
The contribution of inclusivist and exclusivist hrm strategies. Employee
Relations, 32(2): 102-120.
Dalal, R. S. 2005. A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational
citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior: Journal of
Applied Psychology, 90(6): 1241-55.
Danish, R. Q., Y. Munir, M. I. Ishaq, and A. Arshad. 2014. Role of organizational
learning, climate and justice on teachers‘ extra-role performance. Journal of
Basic and Applied Scientific Research, 4(1): 9-14.
DeWall, C. N., R. F. Baumeister, T. F. Stillman, and M. T. Gailliot. 2007. Violence
restrained: effects of self-regulation and its depletion on aggression. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(1): 62-76.
Di Martino, V., H. Hoel, and C. L. Cooper. 2003. Preventing violence and
harassment in the workplace. Rep. European Foundation for the
Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Dublin.
Divincová, A., and B. Sivakova. 2014. Mobbing at workplace and its impact on
employee performance. Human Resources Management and Ergonomics,
7: 20-34.
Djurkovic, N., D. McCormack, and G. Casimir. 2008. Workplace bullying and
intention to leave: the moderating effect of perceived organisational
support. Human Resource Management Journal, 18(4): 405-422.
Douglas, S. C., and M. J. Martinko. 2001. Exploring the role of individual
differences in the prediction of workplace aggression. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86(4): 547.
Duffy, M., and L. Sperry. 2007. Workplace mobbing: individual and family health
193
consequences. The Family Journal, 15(4): 398-404.
Duffy, M. K., D. C. Ganster, and M. Pagon. 2002. Social undermining in the
workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2): 331-351.
Dunbar, N. E. 2004. Theory in progress: Dyadic power theory: constructing a
communication-based theory of relational power. Journal of Family
Communication, 4(3-4): 235-248.
Dunbar, N. E., and G. Abra. 2010. Observations of dyadic power in interpersonal
interaction. Communication Monographs, 77(4): 657-684.
Dunlop, P. D., and K. Lee. 2004. Workplace deviance, organizational citizenship
behavior, and business unit performance: the bad apples do spoil the whole
barrel. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(1): 67-80.
Eatough, E. M., C.H. Chang, S. A. Miloslavic, and R. E. Johnson. 2011.
Relationships of role stressors with organizational citizenship behavior: a
meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 28(3): 112-134.
Einarsen, S. 1999. The nature and causes of bullying at work. International Journal
of Manpower, 20(1/2): 16-27.
Einarsen, S. 2000. Bullying and harassment at work: unveiling an organizational
taboo. Transcending Boundaries Integrating People Processes and Systems:
7-13.
Einarsen, S. 2000. Harassment and bullying at work: a review of the Scandinavian
approach. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5(4): 379-401.
Einarsen, S., H. Hoel, D. Zapf, and C. L. Cooper. 2011. The concept of bullying
and harassment at work: the european tradition. In: S.Einarsen, H. Hoel &
D. Zapf, (eds), Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace: Developments
194
in Theory Research and Practice. CRC Press., LON, p. 3-40.
Einarsen, S., B. r. I. Raknes, and S. B. Matthiesen. 1994. Bullying and harassment
at work and their relationships to work environment quality: an exploratory
study. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 4(4):
381-401.
Einarsen, S., and A. Skogstad. 1996. Bullying at work: Epidemiological findings in
public and private organizations. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 5(2): 185-201.
Eisenberger, R., G. Karagonlar, F. Stinglhamber, P. Neves, T. E. Becker, M. G.
Gonzalez-Morales, and M. Steiger-Mueller. 2010. Leader–member
exchange and affective organizational commitment: the contribution of
supervisor's organizational embodiment. Journal of Applied Psychology,
95(6): 1085.
Elovainio, M., M. Kivimäki, N. Steen, and J. Vahtera. 2004. Job decision latitude,
organizational justice and health: multilevel covariance structure analysis.
Social Science & Medicine, 58(9): 1659-1669.
Escartín, J., A. Rodríguez-Carballeira, D. Zapf, C. Porrúa, and J. Martín-Peña.
2009. Perceived severity of various bullying behaviours at work and the
relevance of exposure to bullying. Work & Stress, 23(3): 191-205.
Estes, B., and J. Wang. 2008. Workplace incivility: impacts on individual and
organizational performance. Human Resource Development Review.
Felblinger, D. M. 2008. Incivility and bullying in the workplace and nurses‘ shame
responses. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, & Neonatal Nursing, 37(2):
234-242.
195
Ferris, G. R., D. C. Treadway, P. L. Perrewé, R. L. Brouer, C. Douglas, and S. Lux.
2007. Political skill in organizations. Journal of Management, 33(3): 290-
320.
Fida, R., H. K. S. Laschinger, and M. P. Leiter. 2016. The protective role of self-
efficacy against workplace incivility and burnout in nursing: a time-lagged
study. Health Care Management Review.
Finkel, E. J., and W. K. Campbell. 2001. Self-control and accommodation in close
relationships: an interdependence analysis. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 81(2): 263.
Finne, L. B., S. Knardahl, and B. Lau. 2011. Workplace bullying and mental
distress - a prospective study of Norwegian employees. Scandinavian
Journal of Work, Environment & Health: 276-287.
Folger, R., and R.A. Baron. 1996. Violence and hostility at work: a model of
reactions to perceived injustice. In: G. R. VandenBos & E. Q. Bulatao,
(eds.), Violence on the job: identifying risks and developing
solutions.Ameerican Psychological Association, p. 51-85.
Fox, S., and R. L. Cowan. 2015. Revision of the workplace bullying checklist: the
importance of human resource management's role in defining and
addressing workplace bullying. Human Resource Management Journal,
25(1): 116-130.
Fox, S., and L. E. Stallworth. 2005. Racial/ethnic bullying: exploring links between
bullying and racism in the US workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
66(3): 438-456.
Fox, S., and L. E. Stallworth. 2010. The battered apple: an application of stressor-
196
emotion-control/support theory to teachers‘ experience of violence and
bullying. Human Relations, 63(7): 927-954.
French, T. M. 1952. The integration of behavior. Vol 1., University of Chicago
Press.
Fried, Y. 1991. Meta-analytic comparison of the Job Diagnostic Survey and Job
Characteristics Inventory as correlates of work satisfaction and
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(5): 690-697
Gergen, K. J. 1969. The Psychology of Behavior Exchange. Addison-Wesley and
Co., New York. 109 pp.
Gilboa, S., A. Shirom, Y. Fried, and C. Cooper. 2008. A meta‐analysis of work
demand stressors and job performance: examining main and moderating
effects. Personnel Psychology, 61(2): 227-271.
Giorgi, A. 2012. The descriptive phenomenological psychological method. Journal
of Phenomenological Psychology, 43(1): 3-12.
Giumetti, G. W., A. L. Hatfield, J. L. Scisco, A. N. Schroeder, E. R. Muth, and R.
M. Kowalski. 2013. What a rude e-mail! Examining the differential effects
of incivility versus support on mood, energy, engagement, and performance
in an online context. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18(3):
297.
Glasø, L., S. B. Matthiesen, M. B. Nielsen, and S. Einarsen. 2007. Do targets of
workplace bullying portray a general victim personality profile?
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 48(4): 313-319.
Glomb, T. M., and H. Liao. 2003. Interpersonal aggression in work groups: social
influence, reciprocal, and individual effects. Academy of Management
197
Journal, 46(4): 486-496.
Gooty, J., M. Gavin, P. D. Johnson, M. L. Frazier, and D. B. Snow. 2009. In the
eyes of the beholder transformational leadership, positive psychological
capital, and performance. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies,
15(4): 353-367.
Gouldner, A. W. 1960. The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement.
American Sociological Review, 21(3): 161-178.
Granö, N., M. Virtanen, J. Vahtera, M. Elovainio, and M. Kivimäki. 2004.
Impulsivity as a predictor of smoking and alcohol consumption. Personality
and Individual Differences, 37(8): 1693-1700.
Greenberg, J. 1993. Stealing in the name of justice: informational and interpersonal
moderators of theft reactions to underpayment inequity. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54(1): 81-103.
Greenhaus, J. H., and G. N. Powell. 2006. When work and family are allies: a
theory of work-family enrichment. Academy of Management Review,
31(1): 72-92.
Griffin, M. A., A. Neal, and S. K. Parker. 2007. A new model of work role
performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts.
Academy of Management Journal, 50(2): 327-347.
Griffin, R. W., and Y. P. Lopez. 2005. Bad behavior in organizations: a review and
typology for future research. Journal of Management, 31(6): 988-1005.
Gülle, M., and F. Soyer. 2016. Examining mobbing perceptions and organizational
commitment levels of physical education and sport teachers. Journal of
Physical Education and Sport, 16(1): 210.
198
Hampton, J. 1988. Hobbes and the social contract tradition: Cambridge University
Press., London. 316 pp.
Harris, K. J., P. Harvey, R. B. Harris, and M. Cast. 2013. An investigation of
abusive supervision, vicarious abusive supervision, and their joint impacts.
The Journal of Social Psychology, 153(1): 38-50.
Harris, K. J., K. M. Kacmar, and S. Zivnuska. 2007. An investigation of abusive
supervision as a predictor of performance and the meaning of work as a
moderator of the relationship. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3): 252-263.
Harvey, P., J. Stoner, W. Hochwarter, and C. Kacmar. 2007. Coping with abusive
supervision: the neutralizing effects of ingratiation and positive affect on
negative employee outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3): 264-280.
Hatch, M. J., and A. L. Cunliffe. 2006. Organization Theory. Oxford University
Press., London. 370 pp.
Hauge, L. J., A. Skogstad, and S. Einarsen. 2010. The relative impact of workplace
bullying as a social stressor at work. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology,
51(5): 426-433.
Hayes, A. F. 2013. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process
analysis: A regression-based approach: Guilford Press. 507 pp.
Heames, J., and M. Harvey. 2006. Workplace bullying: A cross-level assessment.
Management Decision, 44(9): 1214-1230.
Hedgcock, W. M., K. D. Vohs, and A. R. Rao. 2012. Reducing self-control
depletion effects through enhanced sensitivity to implementation: evidence
from fmri and behavioral studies. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(4):
486-495.
199
Hershcovis, M. S. 2011. Incivility, social undermining, bullying… oh my!: a call to
reconcile constructs within workplace aggression research. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 32(3): 499-519.
Hershcovis, M. S., N. Turner, J. Barling, K. A. Arnold, K. E. Dupré, M. Inness, N.
Sivanathan. 2007. Predicting workplace aggression: a meta-analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1):228-238.
Hina, K., and M. Ajmal. 2017. Quality assurance and enhancement mechanism in
tertiary education of Pakistan: recent status, issues and expectations.
Pakistan Journal of Education, 33(1).
Hobfoll, S. E. 2002. Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of
General Psychology, 6(4): 307.
Hobfoll, S. E., and J. Freedy. 1993. Conservation of resources: A general stress
theory applied to burnout. Taylor & Francis. p. 115-133.
Hodgins, M. 2014. Workplace mistreatment: health, working environment and
social and economic factors. Health, 6(05): 392.
Hodgins, M., S. MacCurtain, and P. Mannix-McNamara. 2014. Workplace bullying
and incivility: a systematic review of interventions. International Journal of
Workplace Health Management, 7(1): 54-72.
Hoel, H., and C. L. Cooper. 2000. Destructive conflict and bullying at work:
Manchester School of Management, UMIST Manchester. 30 pp.
Hoel, H., and S. Einarsen. 1999. Workplace bullying: Wiley Online Library.p.1-3.
Hoffman, B. J., C. A. Blair, J. P. Meriac, and D. J. Woehr. 2007. Expanding the
criterion domain? a quantitative review of the ocb literature. American
Psychological Association, 92(2):555-566.
200
Hollinger, R. C., and J. P. Clark. 1983. Theft by employees. Lexington Books.,
Lexington. 160 pp.
Hoobler, J. M., and D. J. Brass. 2006. Abusive supervision and family undermining
as displaced aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5): 1125.
Hooker, K., D. Monahan, K. Shifren, and C. Hutchinson. 1992. Mental and
physical health of spouse caregivers: the role of personality. Psychology
and Aging, 7(3): 367.
Hornstein, H. A. 2003. Workplace incivility: An unavoidable product of human
nature and organizational nurturing. Ivey Business Journal, 68(2): 1-7.
Hunter, J. E., and R. F. Hunter. 1984. Validity and utility of alternative predictors
of job performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96(1): 72.
Hur, W.-M., T. Moon, and J.-K. Jun. 2016. The effect of workplace incivility on
service employee creativity: the mediating role of emotional exhaustion and
intrinsic motivation. Journal of Services Marketing, 30(3): 302-315.
Hurtz, G. M., and J. J. Donovan. 2000. Personality and job performance: the big
five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6): 869-879.
Hussain, S., H. Gul, M. Usman, and Z. U. Islam. 2016. Breach of psychological
contract, task performance, workplace deviance: evidence from academia in
Khyber Pukhtunkhwa, Pakistan. International Business and Management,
13(2): 12-20.
ILO. 2012. Better jobs for a better economy. ILO. Geneva. Switzerland.
Inness, M., J. Barling, and N. Turner. 2005. Understanding supervisor-targeted
aggression: a within-person, between-jobs design. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90(4): 731.
201
Iqbal, H. K., U. Aziz, and A. Tasawar. 2012. Impact of organizational justice on
organizational citizenship behavior: an empirical evidence from Pakistan.
World Applied Sciences Journal, 19(9): 1348-1354.
Ismail, R., and M. Ali. 2016. Workplace incivility a hurdle in tqm practices
implementation in higher education institutes of Balochistan. Journal of
Education and Practice, 7(16): 60-72.
Jalees, T., and S. Ghauri. 2016. Influence of organizational culture on job
satisfaction, organizational commitment and turnover intention: a study on
a Pakistani private university. Market Forces, 11(1).
James, K., and S. Vinnicombe. 2002. Acknowledging the individual in the
researcher. Essential Skills for Management Research, 84-98.
Javed, F., A. Khan, T. Nawaz, and S. Hyder. 2015. Determining the effects of
mobbing on organizational commitment: a case of educational sector in
Pakistan. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(22): 101-105.
Jex, S. M., and T. A. Beehr. 1991. Emerging theoretical and methodological issues
in the study of work-related stress. Research in Personnel and Human
Resources Management, 9(31): l-365.
Jex, S. M., and P. D. Bliese. 1999. Efficacy beliefs as a moderator of the impact of
work-related stressors: a multilevel study. Journal of Applied Psychology,
84(3): 349.
Jimmieson, N. L., D. J. Terry, and V. J. Callan. 2004. A longitudinal study of
employee adaptation to organizational change: the role of change-related
information and change-related self-efficacy. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 9(1): 11.
202
Johan Hauge, L., A. Skogstad, and S. Einarsen. 2007. Relationships between
stressful work environments and bullying: results of a large representative
study. Work & Stress, 21(3): 220-242.
Johnson, P. R., and J. Indvik. 2001. Slings and arrows of rudeness: incivility in the
workplace. Journal of Management Development, 20(8): 705-714.
Jones, D. A. 2009. Getting even with one's supervisor and one's organization:
relationships among types of injustice, desires for revenge, and
counterproductive work behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
30(4): 525-542.
Judge, T. A., and J. E. Bono. 2001. Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—
self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional
stability—with job satisfaction and job performance: a meta-analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1): 80.
Judge, T. A., C. J. Thoresen, J. E. Bono, and G. K. Patton. 2001. The job
satisfaction–job performance relationship: a qualitative and quantitative
review: Psychological Bulletin, 127(3): 376-407.
Kabat-Farr, D., L. M. Cortina, and L. A. Marchiondo. 2016. The emotional
aftermath of incivility: anger, guilt, and the role of organizational
commitment. International Journal of Stress Management.
Kahn-Greene, E. T., E. L. Lipizzi, A. K. Conrad, G. H. Kamimori, and W. D.
Killgore. 2006. Sleep deprivation adversely affects interpersonal responses
to frustration. Personality and Individual Differences, 41(8): 1433-1443.
Karim, J., Z. Bibi, S. U. Rehman, and M. S. Khan. 2015. Emotional intelligence
and perceived work-related outcomes: mediating role of workplace
203
incivility victimization. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research, 30(1):
21.
Katz, D., and R. Kahn. 1966. L. 1978. The social psychology of organizations.
Wiley., London. 848 pp.
Katz, D., and R. L. Kahn. 1978. Organizations and the system concept. Classics of
Organization Theory: 161-172.
Keashly, L. 2001. Interpersonal and systemic aspects of emotional abuse at work:
The target's perspective. Violence and Victims, 16(3): 233-268.
Keashly, L., and S. Harvey. 2005. Emotional abuse in the workplace. Journal of
Emotional Abuse, 1(1): 85-117.
Keashly, L., S. Hunter, and S. Harvey. 1997. Abusive interaction and role state
stressors: relative impact on student residence assistant stress and work
attitudes. Work and Stress, 11(2): 175-185.
Keashly, L., and J. H. Neuman. 2010. Faculty experiences with bullying in higher
education: Causes, consequences, and management. Administrative Theory
and Praxis, 32(1): 48-70.
Kemper, S. 2016. Abusive supervision in the workplace: an examination of current
research and a proposal for preventive measures. Doctorate dissertation,
Univ. Portland State: 303 pp.
Khan, K., and A. R. Nemati. 2011. Impact of job involvement on employee
satisfaction: a study based on medical doctors working at riphah
international university teaching hospitals in Pakistan. African Journal of
Business Management, 5(6): 2241.
Kim, W. C., and R. Mauborgne. 2003. Fair process: managing in the knowledge
204
economy. Harvard Business Review, 81(1): 127-136.
Kivimäki, M., S. T. Nyberg, G. D. Batty, E. I. Fransson, K. Heikkilä, L.
Alfredsson, A. Casini. 2012. Job strain as a risk factor for coronary heart
disease: a collaborative meta-analysis of individual participant data. The
Lancet, 380 (9852): 1491-1497.
Kivimäki, M., M. Virtanen, M. Vartia, M. Elovainio, J. Vahtera, and L.
Keltikangas-Järvinen. 2003. Workplace bullying and the risk of
cardiovascular disease and depression. Occupational and Environmental
Medicine, 60(10): 779-783.
Koys, D. J. 2001. The effects of employee satisfaction, organizational citizenship
behavior, and turnover on organizational effectiveness: A unit‐level,
longitudinal study. Personnel Psychology, 54(1): 101-114.
Kozsr. 2006. Mobbing.(online).Available at: http://www.kozsr.sk/page_sk/bozp/
aktualnetemy/Mobbing1.pdf
Lallukka, T., O. Rahkonen, and E. Lahelma. 2011. Workplace bullying and
subsequent sleep problems-the helsinki health study. Scandinavian Journal
of Work, Environment & Health: 204-212.
Lane, A. L. 2013. Antecedents to Mobbing. Ph.D. thesis, Marshall University.
Larson, M., and F. Luthans. 2006. Potential added value of psychological capital in
predicting work attitudes. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies,
13(1): 45-62.
Lavelle, J. J., D. E. Rupp, and J. Brockner. 2007. Taking a multifoci approach to
the study of justice, social exchange, and citizenship behavior: the target
similarity model. Journal of Management, 33(6): 841-866.
205
Lee, D. 2002. Gendered workplace bullying in the restructured UK civil service.
Personnel Review, 31(2): 205-227.
Lee, K., and N. J. Allen. 2002. Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace
deviance: the role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology,
87(1): 131.
LePine, J. A., N. P. Podsakoff, and M. A. LePine. 2005. A meta-analytic test of the
challenge stressor–hindrance stressor framework: an explanation for
inconsistent relationships among stressors and performance. Academy of
Management Journal, 48(5): 764-775.
Lewin, K. 1935. Psycho‐sociological problems of a minority group. Journal of
Personality, 3(3): 175-187.
Lewis, D., and R. Gunn. 2007. Workplace bullying in the public sector:
understanding the racial dimension. Public Administration, 85(3): 641-665.
Leymann, H. 1990. Mobbing and psychological terror at workplaces. Violence and
Victims, 5(2): 119-126.
Leymann, H. 1997. The definition of mobbing at workplaces. The mobbing
encyclopaedia.www.leymann.se.
Li, Y., Z. Wang, L.-Q. Yang, and S. Liu. 2016. The crossover of psychological
distress from leaders to subordinates in teams: the role of abusive
supervision, psychological capital, and team performance. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 21(2): 142.
Liefooghe, A. P. 2004. Bullying at work: an introduction to the symposium. British
Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 32(3): 265-267.
Lim, S., and L. M. Cortina. 2005. Interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace: the
206
interface and impact of general incivility and sexual harassment. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 90(3): 483.
Lim, S., L. M. Cortina, and V. J. Magley. 2008. Personal and workgroup incivility:
impact on work and health outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology,
93(1): 95.
Liu, D., H. Liao, and R. Loi. 2012. The dark side of leadership: A three-level
investigation of the cascading effect of abusive supervision on employee
creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 55(5): 1187-1212.
Lord, V. B. 1998. Characteristics of violence in state government. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 13(4): 489-503.
Lorenz, K. 1963. zur Naturgeschichte der Aggression. Das sogenannte Bose. Dr. G.
Borotha-Schoeler Verlag, Wien. 371 pp.
Lutgen‐Sandvik, P., S. J. Tracy, and J. K. Alberts. 2007. Burned by bullying in the
American workplace: Prevalence, perception, degree and impact. Journal of
Management Studies, 44(6): 837-862.
Luthans, F. 2002. The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(6): 695-706.
Luthans, F., J. B. Avey, and J. L. Patera. 2008. Experimental analysis of a web-
based training intervention to develop positive psychological capital.
Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(2): 209-221.
Luthans, F., B. J. Avolio, J. B. Avey, and S. M. Norman. 2007. Positive
psychological capital: Measurement and relationship with performance and
satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 60(3): 541-572.
Luthans, F., B. J. Avolio, F. O. Walumbwa, and W. Li. 2005. The psychological
207
capital of Chinese workers: Exploring the relationship with performance.
Management and Organization Review, 1(2): 249-271.
Luthans, F., G. R. Vogelgesang, and P. B. Lester. 2006. Developing the
psychological capital of resiliency. Human Resource Development Review,
5(1): 25-44.
Luthans, F., and C. M. Youssef. 2004. Human, social, and now positive
psychological capital management: investing in people for competitive
advantage. Organizational Dynamics, 33(2): 143-160.
Luthans, F., and C. M. Youssef. 2007. Emerging positive organizational behavior.
Journal of Management, 33(3): 321-349.
Luthans, F., C. M. Youssef, and B. J. Avolio. 2007. Psychological capital:
Investing and developing positive organizational behavior. Positive
Organizational Behavior, 1(2): 9-24.
Luthans, K. W., and S. M. Jensen. 2005. The linkage between psychological capital
and commitment to organizational mission: a study of nurses. Journal of
Nursing Administration, 35(6): 304-310.
Lynch, P. D., R. Eisenberger, and S. Armeli. 1999. Perceived organizational
support: inferior versus superior performance by wary employees. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 84(4): 467.
Mackey, J. D., R. E. Frieder, P. L. Perrewé, V. C. Gallagher, and R. A. Brymer.
2015. Empowered employees as social deviants: the role of abusive
supervision. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30(1): 149-162.
Malik, M. E., and B. Naeem. 2011. Role of spirituality in job satisfaction and
organizational commitment among faculty of institutes of higher learning in
208
Pakistan. African Journal of Business Management, 5(4): 1236.
Malik, N. A., K. Björkqvist, and K. Österman. 2017. Sick-leave due to burnout
among university teachers in Pakistan and Finland and its psychosocial
concomitants. European Journal of Social Sciences Education and
Research, 10(2): 203-212.
Manzoor, S. R., I. A. Khattak, and S. Hassan. Psychological capital and
counterproductive work behaviour with intrusion of employee performance:
study from kpk, pakistan universities. City University Research Journal
5(1): 372-383.
Marshall, M. N. 1996. Sampling for qualitative research. Family Practice, 13(6),
522-526.
Martinko, M. J., P. Harvey, J. R. Brees, and J. Mackey. 2013. A review of abusive
supervision research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(1): 120-137.
Masten, A., M. Reed, C. Snyder, and S. Lopez. 2002. Handbook of positive
psychology. Oxford University Press. p.74-88.
Masten, A. S. 2001. Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development.
American Psychologist, 56(3): 227.
Mawritz, M. B., R. Folger, and G. P. Latham. 2014. Supervisors' exceedingly
difficult goals and abusive supervision: the mediating effects of hindrance
stress, anger, and anxiety. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(3): 358-
372.
Mawritz, M. B., D. M. Mayer, J. M. Hoobler, S. J. Wayne, and S. V. Marinova.
2012. A trickle‐down model of abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology,
65(2): 325-357.
209
McClurg, L. N. 2001. Team rewards: how far have we come? Human Resource
Management, 40(1): 73-86.
McCormack, D., G. Casimir, N. Djurkovic, and L. Yang. 2009. Workplace
bullying and intention to leave among schoolteachers in china: the
mediating effect of affective commitment. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 39(9): 2106-2127.
McKenny, A. F., J. C. Short, and G. T. Payne. 2013. Using computer-aided text
analysis to elevate constructs: An illustration using psychological capital.
Organizational Research Methods, 16(1): 152-184.
Michel, L., and D. Herbeck. 2015. American Terrorist: Timothy McVeigh and the
Oklahoma City Bombing: BookBaby Publishers., New Jersey. 200 pp.
Mikkelsen, E. G. e., and S. Einarsen. 2002. Basic assumptions and symptoms of
post-traumatic stress among victims of bullying at work. European Journal
of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11(1): 87-111.
Miller, N. E. 1941. I. The frustration-aggression hypothesis. Psychological Review,
48(4): 337.
Mitchell, M. S., and M. L. Ambrose. 2007. Abusive supervision and workplace
deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 92(4): 1159.
Mitchell, M. S., R. S. Cropanzano, and D. M. Quisenberry. 2012. Social exchange
theory, exchange resources, and interpersonal relationships: a modest
resolution of theoretical difficulties. Handbook of Social Resource Theory.
Springer. p. 99-118.
Mitchell, M. S., R. M. Vogel, and R. Folger. 2015. Third parties‘ reactions to the
210
abusive supervision of coworkers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(4):
1040.
Motowidlo, S. J. 2000. Some basic issues related to contextual performance and
organizational citizenship behavior in human resource management. Human
Resource Management Review, 10(1): 115-126.
Motowildo, S. J., W. C. Borman, and M. J. Schmit. 1997. A theory of individual
differences in task and contextual performance. Human Performance, 10(2):
71-83.
Munir, S., and M. Sajid. 2010. Examining locus of control (LOC) as a determinant
of organizational commitment among university professors in Pakistan.
Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, 1(4): 78.
Muraven, M., and R. F. Baumeister. 2000. Self-regulation and depletion of limited
resources: Does self-control resemble a muscle? Psychological Bulletin,
126(2): 247.
Murphy, K. R. 1989. Is the relationship between cognitive ability and job
performance stable over time? Human Performance, 2(3): 183-200.
Murphy, K. R. 1990. Job performance and productivity. Psychology in
organizations: Integrating Science and Practice, 157-176.
Nawab, S., and K. K. Bhatti. 2011. Influence of employee compensation on
organizational commitment and job satisfaction: a case study of educational
sector of Pakistan. International Journal of Business and Social Science,
2(8).
Neuman, J. H. 2000. Injustice, stress and bullying can be expensive. Paper
presented at the Workplace Bullying Conference, Oakland, California.
211
Neuman, J. H., and R. A. Baron. 1998. Workplace violence and workplace
aggression: Evidence concerning specific forms, potential causes, and
preferred targets. Journal of Management, 24(3): 391-419.
Newbert, S. L. 2007. Empirical research on the resource‐based view of the firm: an
assessment and suggestions for future research. Strategic Management
Journal, 28(2): 121-146.
Newman, A., D. Ucbasaran, F. Zhu, and G. Hirst. 2014. Psychological capital: a
review and synthesis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(1): 120-138.
Newman, D. A., T. Kinney, and J. L. Farr. 2004. Job performance ratings.
Comprehensive. Handbook of Psychological Assessment, 4: 373-389.
Nielsen, M. B., and S. Einarsen. 2012. Outcomes of exposure to workplace
bullying: a meta-analytic review. Work and Stress, 26(4): 309-332.
Nielsen, M. B., S. B. Matthiesen, and S. Einarsen. 2010. The impact of
methodological moderators on prevalence rates of workplace bullying-a
meta‐analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
83(4): 955-979.
Nielsen, M. B., T. Tangen, T. Idsoe, S. B. Matthiesen, and N. Magerøy. 2015. Post-
traumatic stress disorder as a consequence of bullying at work and at
school- a literature review and meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 21: 17-24.
Noa, D., D. Schwartz, and P. E. Gail. 2002. Mobbing‒Emotional Abuse in the
American Workplace. Civil Society Publishing., Iowa. 213 pp.
Nunnally, J. 1978. Psychometric methods: New York: McGraw-Hill. 640 pp.
N. Blaikie. 2000. Designing Social Research (1st ed.). Polity Press, Cambridge.
352 pp.
212
Ogunfowora, B. 2013. When the abuse is unevenly distributed: the effects of
abusive supervision variability on work attitudes and behaviors. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 34(8): 1105-1123.
Organ, D. W. 1988. Organizational citizenship behavior: the good soldier
syndrome: Lexington Books., New York. 321 pp.
Organ, D. W. 1997. Organizational citizenship behavior: It's construct clean-up
time. Human Performance, 10(2): 85-97.
Organ, D. W., and K. Ryan. 1995. A meta‐analytic review of attitudinal and
dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel
Psychology, 48(4): 775-802.
Özler, D. E., C. G. Atalay, and M. D. Şahin. 2008. Mobbing‘in örgütsel bağlılık
üzerine etkisini belirlemeye yönelik bir araştırma. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi
Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 22: 37-60.
Parzefall, M.-R., and D. M. Salin. 2010. Perceptions of and reactions to workplace
bullying: A social exchange perspective. Human Relations, 63(6): 761-780.
Pearson, C. M., L. M. Andersson, and C. L. Porath. 2000. Assessing and attacking
workplace incivility. Organizational Dynamics, 29(2): 123-137.
Pearson, C. M., L. M. Andersson, and J. W. Wegner. 2001. When workers flout
convention: A study of workplace incivility. Human Relations, 54(11):
1387-1419.
Pearson, C. M., and C. L. Porath. 2005. On the nature, consequences and remedies
of workplace incivility: no time for nice? think again. The Academy of
Management Executive, 19(1): 7-18.
Penney, L. M., and P. E. Spector. 2005. Job stress, incivility, and
213
counterproductive work behavior (CWB): the moderating role of negative
affectivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(7): 777-796.
Penney, L. M., and P. E. Spector. 2008. Emotions and counterproductive work
behavior. Edward Elgar Publishing. London. 231 pp.
Persson, R., A. Hogh, A.M. Hansen, C. Nordander, K. Ohlsson, I. Balogh, P.
Orbaek. 2009. Personality trait scores among occupationally active bullied
persons and witnesses to bullying. Motivation and Emotion, 33(4): 387.
Peterson, C. 2006. A primer in positive psychology: Oxford University Press.,
London. 112 pp.
Peterson, S. J., and K. Byron. 2008. Exploring the role of hope in job performance:
Results from four studies. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(6): 785-
803.
Podsakoff, N. P., S. W. Whiting, P. M. Podsakoff, and B. D. Blume. 2009.
Individual-and organizational-level consequences of organizational
citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,
94(1), 122-141.
Podsakoff, P. M., M. Ahearne, and S. B. MacKenzie. 1997. Organizational
citizenship behavior and the quantity and quality of work group
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2), 262-270.
Priesemuth, M. 2013. Stand up and speak up: employees‘ prosocial reactions to
observed abusive supervision. Business and Society, 52(4): 649-665.
Proctor, A., and Meullenet, J. F. 2003. Sampling and sample preparation. 3rd
ed.,
Springer Science, NY. p. 65-81.
Quine, L. 1999. Workplace bullying in NHS community trust: staff questionnaire
214
survey. Business Management Journal, 318(7178): 228-232.
Quine, L. 2001. Workplace bullying in nurses. Journal of Health Psychology, 6(1):
73-84.
Qureshi, M. I., M. Iftikhar, S. Y. Janjua, K. Zaman, U. M. Raja, and Y. Javed.
2015. Empirical investigation of mobbing, stress and employees‘ behavior
at work place: quantitatively refining a qualitative model. Quality &
Quantity, 49(1): 93-113.
Rahim, A., A. Rahim, D. M. Cosby, and D. M. Cosby. 2016. A model of workplace
incivility, job burnout, turnover intentions, and job performance. Journal of
Management Development, 35(10): 1255-1265.
Ramsay, S., A. Troth, and S. Branch. 2011. Work‐place bullying: A group
processes framework. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 84(4): 799-816.
Rayner, C. 1997. The incidence of workplace bullying. Journal of Community and
Applied Social Psychology, 7(3): 199-208.
Rayner, C. 1998. Unison Survey on Workplace Bullying. CRC Press., London. 22
pp.
Rayner, C., H. Hoel, and C. Cooper. 2002. Bullying at work: What we know, who
is to blame and what can we do. CRC Press London. 24 pp.
Razzaghian, M., and U. Ghani. 2014. Effect of workplace bullying on turnover
intention of faculty members: a case of private sector universities of khyber
pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Business and Economic Review, 6(1):40-51.
Rehman, R. R. 2012. Work-family conflict and organization commitment: a case
study of faculty members in Pakistani universities. Pakistan Journal of
215
Social and Clinical Psychology, 9(2):112- 121.
Reio Jr, T. G., and J. Trudel. 2016. Workplace incivility and conflict management
styles: predicting job performance, organizational. Adult Education and
Vocational Training in the Digital Age, 2(5); 217-229.
Reivich, K., G. Buchanan, and M. Seligman. 1995. The measurement of
explanatory style. In: M.B. Gregory & E.P. Seligman, (eds.), Explanatory
Style, p. 21-47.
Rich, B. L., J. A. Lepine, and E. R. Crawford. 2010. Job engagement: antecedents
and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3):
617-635.
Roberts, S. J., L. L. Scherer, and C. J. Bowyer. 2011. Job stress and incivility: what
role does psychological capital play? Journal of Leadership and
Organizational Studies, 18(4): 449-458.
Robinson, S. L., and R. J. Bennett. 1995. A typology of deviant workplace
behaviors: a multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management
Journal, 38(2): 555-572.
Robinson, S. L., and A. M. O'Leary-Kelly. 1998. Monkey see, monkey do: the
influence of work groups on the antisocial behavior of employees.
Academy of Management Journal, 41(6): 658-672.
Rook, K., D. Dooley, and R. Catalano. 1991. Stress transmission: The effects of
husbands' job stressors on the emotional health of their wives. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 165-177.
Rousseau, D. 1995. Psychological contracts in organizations: understanding written
and unwritten agreements. Sage Publications Inc., California. 264 pp.
216
Rovi, S., P.-H. Chen, M. Vega, M. S. Johnson, and C. P. Mouton. 2009. Mapping
the elder mistreatment iceberg: US hospitalizations with elder abuse and
neglect diagnoses. Journal of Elder Abuse and Neglect, 21(4): 346-359.
Sakurai, K., and S. M. Jex. 2012. Coworker incivility and incivility targets' work
effort and counterproductive work behaviors:tThe moderating role of
supervisor social support. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
17(2): 150.
Salin, D. 2001. Prevalence and forms of bullying among business professionals: a
comparison of two different strategies for measuring bullying. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(4): 425-441.
Salin, D. 2003. Ways of explaining workplace bullying: a review of enabling,
motivating and precipitating structures and processes in the work
environment. Human Relations, 56(10): 1213-1232.
Salin, D., H. Hoel, S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, and C. Cooper. 2011.
Organisational causes of workplace bullying. Bullying and harassment in
the workplace. Developments in Theory, Research, and Practice, 2: 227-
243.
Samnani, A.K. 2013. Embracing new directions in workplace bullying research: a
paradigmatic approach. Journal of Management Inquiry, 22(1): 26-36.
Saunders, M., P. Lewis., and A. Thornhill. 2007. Research methods for business
students, 4th
ed., Prentice Hall Financial Times. NY.p. 45-56.
Scheier, M. F., and C. S. Carver. 1985. Optimism, coping, and health: assessment
and implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychology,
4(3): 219.
217
Schmidt, F. L., and J. E. Hunter. 1998. The validity and utility of selection methods
in personnel psychology: practical and theoretical implications of 85 years
of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2): 262.
Seligman, M. E., and M. Csikszentmihalyi. 2000a. Special issue on happiness,
excellence, and optimal human functioning. American Psychologist, 55(1):
5-183.
Seligman, M. E., and M. Csikszentmihalyi. 2000b. Special issue: Positive
psychology. American Psychologist, 55(1): 5-14.
Shaheen, A., and Y. A. Farooqi. 2014. Relationship among employee motivation,
employee commitment, job involvement, employee engagement: a case
study of university of Gujrat, Pakistan. International Journal of
Multidisciplinary Sciences and Engineering, 5(9): 12-18.
Shahjehan, A., and M. Yasir. 2016. Surface and deep conceptualizations of silence
and voice paradoxes: an empirical analysis of women behavior at
workplace. Cogent Business & Management, 3(1): 1221560.
Shahzad, A., M. A. Siddiqui, and M. Zakaria. 2014. Linking organizational justice
with organization citizenship behaviors: collectivism as moderator. Pakistan
Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences, 8(2): 900-913.
Shahzad, K., S. Bashir, and M. I. Ramay. 2008. Impact of HR practices on
perceived performance of university teachers in Pakistan. International
Review of Business Research Papers, 4(2): 302-315.
Siu, O.L., C. H. Hui, D. R. Phillips, L. Lin, T.-w. Wong, and K. Shi. 2009. A study
of resiliency among Chinese health care workers: capacity to cope with
workplace stress. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(5): 770-776.
218
Skarlicki, D. P., and R. Folger. 1997. Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of
distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 82(3): 434.
Smith, C., D. W. Organ, and J. P. Near. 1983. Organizational citizenship behavior:
its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4): 653.
Snyder, C. R. 1989. Reality negotiation: From excuses to hope and beyond. Journal
of Social and Clinical Psychology, 8(2): 130-157.
Snyder, C. R. 1994. The psychology of hope: you can get there from here. Simon
and Schuster Inc., New York. 428 pp.
Snyder, C. R., C. Harris, J. R. Anderson, S. A. Holleran, L. M. Irving, S. T.
Sigmon, P. Harney. 1991. The will and the ways: development and
validation of an individual-differences measure of hope. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 60(4): 570.
Spector, P. E., J. A. Bauer, and S. Fox. 2010. Measurement artifacts in the
assessment of counterproductive work behavior and organizational
citizenship behavior: do we know what we think we know? Journal of
Applied Psychology, 95(4): 781.
Spector, P. E., and S. Fox. 2005. The stressor-emotion model of counterproductive
work behavior. In: S. Fox & P. E. Spector, (eds.), Counterproductive Work
Behavior: investigations of actors and targets. American Psychological
Association, p. 151-174.
Spector, P. E., S. Fox, L. M. Penney, K. Bruursema, A. Goh, and S. Kessler. 2006.
The dimensionality of counterproductivity: are all counterproductive
behaviors created equal? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(3): 446-460.
219
Spector, P. E., and Z. E. Zhou. 2014. The moderating role of gender in
relationships of stressors and personality with counterproductive work
behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(4): 669-681.
Spence Laschinger, H. K., M. Leiter, A. Day, and D. Gilin. 2009. Workplace
empowerment, incivility, and burnout: impact on staff nurse recruitment
and retention outcomes. Journal of Nursing Management, 17(3): 302-311.
Sperry, L. 2009. Mobbing and bullying: The influence of individual, work group,
and organizational dynamics on abusive workplace behavior. Consulting
Psychology Journal Practice and Research, 61(3): 190.
Stajkovic, A. D., and F. Luthans. 1998. Social cognitive theory and self-efficacy:
going beyond traditional motivational and behavioral approaches.
Organizational Dynamics, 26(4): 62-74.
Stotland, E. 1969. The psychology of hope: Jossey-Bass San Francisco.p.247-272.
Strandmark, M., and L.-M. Hallberg. 2007. Being rejected and expelled from the
workplace: experiences of bullying in the public service sector. Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 4(1-2): 1-14.
Stucke, T. S., and R. F. Baumeister. 2006. Ego depletion and aggressive behavior:
is the inhibition of aggression a limited resource? European Journal of
Social Psychology, 36(1): 1-13.
Sun, T., X. W. Zhao, L. B. Yang, and L. H. Fan. 2012. The impact of psychological
capital on job embeddedness and job performance among nurses: a
structural equation approach. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 68(1): 69-79.
Taylor, S. G., A. G. Bedeian, and D. H. Kluemper. 2012. Linking workplace
incivility to citizenship performance: the combined effects of affective
220
commitment and conscientiousness. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
33(7): 878-893.
Tedeschi, J. T., and N. Norman. 1985. Social power, self-presentation, and the self.
In: B.R.Schlenker (eds.), The self and social life. McGraw-Hill, New York:
293-322.
Tedeschi, J. T., and N. M. Norman. 1985. A social psychological interpretation of
displaced aggression. Advances in Group Processes, 2: 29-56.
Tengilimoğlu, D., F. A. Mansur, and S. F. Dziegielewski. 2010. The effect of the
mobbing on organizational commitment in the hospital setting: a field
study. Journal of Social Service Research, 36(2): 128-141.
Tepper, B. J. 2000. Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of
Management Journal, 43(2): 178-190.
Tepper, B. J. 2007. Abusive supervision in work organizations: review, synthesis,
and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33(3): 261-289.
Tepper, B. J., M. K. Duffy, C. A. Henle, and L. S. Lambert. 2006. Procedural
injustice, victim precipitation, and abusive supervision. Personnel
Psychology, 59(1): 101-123.
Tepper, B. J., M. K. Duffy, and J. D. Shaw. 2001. Personality moderators of the
relationship between abusive supervision and subordinates' resistance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5): 974.
Terzioglu, F., S. Temel, and F. Uslu Sahan. 2016. Factors affecting performance
and productivity of nurses: professional attitude, organisational justice,
organisational culture and mobbing. Journal of Nursing Management,
24(6): 735-744.
221
Tetley, J. 2009. An investigation of self-authorship, hope, and meaning in life
among second-year college students. Doctoral dissertation, The George
Washington University: 103 pp.
Thau, S., R. J. Bennett, M. S. Mitchell, and M. B. Marrs. 2009. How management
style moderates the relationship between abusive supervision and
workplace deviance: an uncertainty management theory perspective.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1): 79-92.
Tiger, L. 1979. Optimism: The biology of hope. Simon and Schuster, Inc., New
York. 318 pp.
Tinaz, P. 2006. İşyerinde psikolojik taciz (mobbing). Çalışma ve Toplum, 4(11):
13-28.
Tugade, M. M., and B. L. Fredrickson. 2004. Resilient individuals use positive
emotions to bounce back from negative emotional experiences. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 86(2): 320.
Turnley, W. H., M. C. Bolino, S. W. Lester, and J. M. Bloodgood. 2003. The
impact of psychological contract fulfillment on the performance of in-role
and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 29(2):
187-206.
Valentine, S., G. Fleischman, and L. Godkin. 2015. Rogues in the ranks of selling
organizations: using corporate ethics to manage workplace bullying and job
satisfaction. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 35(2): 143-
163.
Valsania, S. E., J. A. M. León, F. M. Alonso, and G. T. Cantisano. 2012. Authentic
leadership and its effect on employees' organizational citizenship
222
behaviours. Psicothema, 24(4): 561-566.
Van de Vliert, E., S. Einarsen, and M. B. Nielsen. 2013. Are national levels of
employee harassment cultural covariations of climato-economic conditions?
Work and Stress, 27(1): 106-122.
Van Scotter, J., S. J. Motowidlo, and T. C. Cross. 2000. Effects of task
performance and contextual performance on systemic rewards. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 85(4): 526.
Vandekerckhove, W., and M. R. Commers. 2003. Downward workplace mobbing:
a sign of the times? Journal of Business Ethics, 45(1): 41-50.
Vartia-Väänänen, M. 2003. Workplace bullying: A study on the work environment,
well-being and health. Ph.D. thesis, Univ. Helsinki: 57 pp.
Vartia, M. 1996. The sources of bullying–psychological work environment and
organizational climate. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 5(2): 203-214.
Vartia, M. A. 2001. Consequences of workplace bullying with respect to the well-
being of its targets and the observers of bullying. Scandinavian Journal of
Work, Environment & Health: 63-69.
Vickers, M. H. 2006. Writing what's relevant: Workplace incivility in public
administration-A wolf in sheep's clothing. Administrative Theory and
Praxis, 28(1): 69-88.
Vigoda-Gadot, E. 2007. Leadership style, organizational politics, and employees'
performance: An empirical examination of two competing models.
Personnel Review, 36(5): 661-683.
Viswesvaran, C. 1993. Modeling job performance: Is there a general factor? Rep.
223
Defence Personnel Security Research Center, Iowa, Aug. 1993.
Viswesvaran, C., and D. S. Ones. 2000. Perspectives on models of job
performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8(4): 216-
226.
Viswesvaran, C., F. L. Schmidt, and D. S. Ones. 2005. Is there a general factor in
ratings of job performance? a meta-analytic framework for disentangling
substantive and error influences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1):
108.
Hippel, W., and K. Gonsalkorale. 2005. ―That is bloody revolting!‖ Inhibitory
control of thoughts better left unsaid. Psychological Science, 16(7): 497-
500.
Walter, F., C. K. Lam, G. S. Van der Vegt, X. Huang, and Q. Miao. 2015. Abusive
supervision and subordinate performance: instrumentality considerations in
the emergence and consequences of abusive supervision. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 100(4): 1056.
Walumbwa, F. O., F. Luthans, J. B. Avey, and A. Oke. 2011. Retracted:
Authentically leading groups: the mediating role of collective psychological
capital and trust. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(1): 4-24.
Wang, H., Y. Sui, F. Luthans, D. Wang, and Y. Wu. 2014. Impact of authentic
leadership on performance: role of followers' positive psychological capital
and relational processes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(1): 5-21.
Watson, D., and L. A. Clark. 1984. Negative affectivity: the disposition to
experience aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96(3): 465.
Wei, F., and S. Si. 2013. Tit for tat? Abusive supervision and counterproductive
224
work behaviors: the moderating effects of locus of control and perceived
mobility. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 30(1): 281-296.
Westhues, K. 2003. The mobbings at Medaille College in 2002. New York
Academe, 30(1): 8-10.
Wheeler, A. R., J. R. Halbesleben, and K. Shanine. 2010. Eating their cake and
everyone else's cake, too: resources as the main ingredient to workplace
bullying. Business Horizons, 53(6): 553-560.
Williams, L. J., and S. E. Anderson. 1991. Job satisfaction and organizational
commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role
behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3): 601-617.
Wornham, D. 2003. A descriptive investigation of morality and victimisation at
work. Journal of Business Ethics, 45(1): 29-40.
W.G. Hopkins. 2008. Research designs: choosing and fine-tuning a design for your
study. Sportscience, 12(1): 1-3.
Wright, T. A. 2003. Positive organizational behavior: an idea whose time has truly
come. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(4): 437-442.
Xiaqi, D., T. Kun, Y. Chongsen, and G. Sufang. 2012. Abusive supervision and
lmx: leaders' emotional intelligence as antecedent variable and trust as
consequence variable. Chinese Management Studies, 6(2): 257-270.
Yam, K. C., R. Fehr, F. T. Keng-Highberger, A. C. Klotz, and S. J. Reynolds.
2016. Out of control: a self-control perspective on the link between surface
acting and abusive supervision. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(2):
292.
Yamada, D. 2004. The role of the law in combating workplace mobbing and
225
bullying. Rep. Workplace Mobbing in Academe: Reports from Twenty
Universities, Istanbul, Apr. 2004.
Yamada, D. C. 2004. Crafting a legislative response to workplace bullying.
Employee Rights and Employment Policy Journal, 8(1): 475-521.
Yaman, E. 2009. Yönetim psikolojisi açısından işyerinde psikoşiddet-mobbing.
Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.160 pp.
Youssef, C. M., and F. Luthans. 2007. Positive organizational behavior in the
workplace the impact of hope, optimism, and resilience. Journal of
Management, 33(5): 774-800.
Zabrodska, K., and P. Kveton. 2013. Prevalence and forms of workplace bullying
among university employees. Employee Responsibilities and Rights
Journal, 25(2): 89-108.
Zapf, D., J. Escartín, S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, and M. Vartia. 2011. Empirical findings
on prevalence and risk groups of bullying in the workplace - bullying and
harassment in the workplace. Developments in Theory, Research, and
Practice, 2: 75-106.
Zellars, K. L., B. J. Tepper, and M. K. Duffy. 2002. Abusive supervision and
subordinates' organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87(6): 1068.
Zhang, Y., and T. C. Bednall. 2016. Antecedents of abusive supervision: A meta-
analytic review. Journal of Business Ethics, 139(3): 455-471.
226
APPENDIX-I
DATA COLLECTION
be filled by branch manager)
Dear Faculty Member
I will be grateful to you for your response on the attached questionnaire related to the
workplace mistreatment and psychological capital. The purpose of this research study is to
investigate the relationship between various types of mistreatment and on-job behavior.
Confidentiality
The information collected through this questionnaire will be kept confidential and will only
be used for the research study purpose. Under no circumstances, your responses will be
made available to anyone. Information from this survey will be compiled for using
aggregated results across all the respondents and across different universities.
Survey Guidelines
Please respond the question by ticking the appropriate box, circling the relevant option or
write your response in the provided space. This is not a TEST and obviously there are no
right or wrong answers but opinions. Kindly answer the survey questions frankly and
honestly. Your true and honest responses are highly valuable to reach the true findings of the
research study.
Please answer each question and return the filled questionnaire as soon as possible.
Further, in case of any query/ comment related to this study, please feel free to contact the
researcher.
Many thanks for your help.
Jawwad Ahmad, PhD Scholar
University Institute of Management Sciences
PirMehr Ali Shah Arid Agriculture University Rawalpindi
Email: [email protected]
Cell No. 0300-532 3032
227
(Questionnaire for data collection from Respondent)
ID: ____________
Dear Respondent,
Thank you for agreeing to be a part of this research initiative. You are requested to please spare your
precious time and fill the questionnaire. I assure you that the information obtained from this survey
will not be disclosed and will only be used for research purposes.It will be appreciated if questionnaire may please be completed candidly, keeping in view your work experience.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Please tick one option
Gender: i. Male ii. Female
Age group 20-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56 and above
Nature of Organization:i. Public Sector/ autonomous body ii. Private sector
Experience in
years
1-3 3-6 6-9 10 and above
For each item of the statements below, please indicate the extent to which you agree or
disagree with the following statements by ticking (√) the appropriate number as per following
rating scale where:
1. Never 2. Rarely 3.Sometimes 4. Often 5. Very often
1. Individuals at workplace including your junior and senior colleagues or any
staff member putyou down or is/are condescending (arrogant) to you. 1 2 3 4 5
2. Individuals at workplace including your junior and senior colleagues or any
staff member pay little attention to your statement or show little interest in
your opinion.
1 2 3 4 5
3. Individuals at workplace including your junior and senior colleagues or any
staff membermake demeaning or derogatory (insulting/ offensive) remarks
about you.
1 2 3 4 5
4. Individuals at workplace including your junior and senior colleagues or any
staff memberaddress you in unprofessional terms, either publicly or
privately.
1 2 3 4 5
5. Individuals at workplace including your junior and senior colleagues or any
staff memberignore or exclude you from professional camaraderie
(company).
1 2 3 4 5
6. Individuals at workplace including your junior and senior colleagues or any
staff memberdoubt your judgment on a matter over which you have 1 2 3 4 5
228
responsibility.
7. Individuals at workplace including your junior and senior colleagues or any
staff member make unwanted attempts to draw you into a discussion of
personal matters.
1 2 3 4 5
For each item of the statements below, please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with
the following statements by ticking (√) the appropriate number as per following rating scale where:
1=I cannot remember him/her ever using this behavior with me
2=He/she very seldom uses this behavior with me
3=He/she occasion- ally uses this behavior with me
4=He/she uses this behavior moderately often with me
5=He/she uses this behavior very often with me
1. My boss/supervisor ridicules (taunts) me 1 2 3 4 5
2. My boss/supervisor tells me my thoughts or feelings are stupid 1 2 3 4 5
3. My boss/supervisor gives me the silent treatment 1 2 3 4 5
4. My boss/supervisorputs me down in front of others 1 2 3 4 5
5. My boss/supervisorinvades (enter) my privacy 1 2 3 4 5
6. My boss/supervisorreminds me of my past mistakes and failures 1 2 3 4 5
7. My boss/supervisordoesn't give me credit for jobs requiring a lot of
effort
1 2 3 4 5
8. My boss/supervisorblames me to save himself/herself embarrassment 1 2 3 4 5
9. My boss/supervisorbreaks promises he/she makes 1 2 3 4 5
10. My boss/supervisorexpresses anger at me when he/she is mad for an-
other reason
1 2 3 4 5
11. My boss/supervisormakes negative comments about me to others 1 2 3 4 5
12. My boss/supervisoris rude to me 1 2 3 4 5
13. My boss/supervisordoes not allow me to interact with my coworkers 1 2 3 4 5
14. My boss/supervisortells me I'm incompetent 1 2 3 4 5
15. My boss/supervisorlies to me 1 2 3 4 5
For each item of the statements below, please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with
the following statements keeping in view same type of incident happened with you in the last three
months from your colleagues and any individual in organizationby ticking (√) the appropriate
number as per following rating scale: 1= Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Uncertain, 4=Agree
and 5=Strongly Agree
1. Individuals at workplace including your junior and senior colleaguesor peers
make persistent attemptsto belittle (put down) and undermine your work. 1 2 3 4 5
2. Individuals at workplace including your junior and senior colleaguesor peers
make persistent unjustified criticism and monitoring of your work. 1 2 3 4 5
3. Individuals at workplace including your junior and senior colleaguesor peers
make persistent attempts to humiliate you in front of colleagues. 1 2 3 4 5
4. Individuals at workplace including your junior and senior colleaguesor peers
intimidate (Threaten) use of discipline/competence procedures. 1 2 3 4 5
5. Individuals at workplace including your junior and senior colleaguesor peers
undermining your personal integrity. 1 2 3 4 5
229
6. Individuals at workplace including your junior and senior colleaguesor peers
make destructive innuendo (suggestion) and sarcasm (mockery) to you. 1 2 3 4 5
7. Individuals at workplace including your junior and senior colleaguesor peers
made verbal and non-verbal threats against you. 1 2 3 4 5
8. Individuals at workplace including your junior and senior colleaguesor peersmake
inappropriate jokes about you 1 2 3 4 5
9. Individuals at workplace including your junior and senior colleaguesor peers
persistently tease you. 1 2 3 4 5
10. Individuals at workplace including your junior and senior colleaguesor peersmake
physical violence to you. 1 2 3 4 5
11. Individuals at workplace including your junior and senior colleaguesor peersmake
violence to property 1 2 3 4 5
12. Individuals at workplace including your junior and senior colleaguesor
peerswithholds necessary information from you 1 2 3 4 5
13. Individuals at workplace including your junior and senior colleaguesor
peersfreeze out and ignores you. 1 2 3 4 5
14. Individuals at workplace including your junior and senior colleaguesor peersmake
unreasonable refusal of applications for leave, training or promotion 1 2 3 4 5
15. Individuals at workplace including your junior and senior colleaguesor peersput
undue pressure to you to produce work. 1 2 3 4 5
16. Individuals at workplace including your junior and senior colleaguesor peersset
impossible deadlines. 1 2 3 4 5
17. Individuals at workplace including your junior and senior colleaguesor
peerschange your tasks without telling you. 1 2 3 4 5
18. Individuals at workplace including your junior and senior colleaguesor peersmake
constant undervaluing of your efforts. 1 2 3 4 5
19. Individuals at workplace including your junior and senior colleaguesor peersmake
persistent attempts to demoralize you 1 2 3 4 5
20. Individuals at workplace including your junior and senior colleaguesor
peersremovesyour areas of responsibility without consultation 1 2 3 4 5
For each item of the statements below, please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the
following statements by ticking (√) the appropriate number as per following rating scale where:1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Somewhat disagree, 4 = Somewhat agree, 5 = Agree, 6 =
Strongly Agree
1. I feel confident analyzing a long-term problem to find a solution. 1 2 3 4 5 6
2. I feel confident representing my work area in meetings with
management.
1 2 3 4 5 6
3. I feel confident contributing to discussions about the company’s strategy. 1 2 3 4 5 6
4. I feel confident helping to set targets/goals in my work area. 1 2 3 4 5 6
5. I feel confident contacting people outside the company (e.g.,suppliers,
student’s parents and customers) to discuss problems.
1 2 3 4 5 6
6. I feel confident presenting information to a group of colleagues. 1 2 3 4 5 6
7. If I should find myself in a jam at work, I could think of many ways to
get out of it.
1 2 3 4 5 6
230
8. At the present time, I am energetically pursuing my work goals. 1 2 3 4 5 6
9. There are lots of ways around any problem. 1 2 3 4 5 6
10. Right now I see myself as being pretty successful at work. 1 2 3 4 5 6
11. I can think of many ways to reach my current work goals. 1 2 3 4 5 6
12. At this time, I am meeting the work goals that I have set for myself. 1 2 3 4 5 6
13. When I have a setback at work, I have trouble recovering from it,
moving on.
1 2 3 4 5 6
14. I usually manage difficulties one way or another at work. 1 2 3 4 5 6
15. I can be “on my own,” so to speak, at work if I have to. 1 2 3 4 5 6
16. I usually take stressful things at work in stride. 1 2 3 4 5 6
17. I can get through difficult times at work because I have experienced
difficulty before.
1 2 3 4 5 6
18. I feel I can handle many things at a time at this job. 1 2 3 4 5 6
19. When things are uncertain for me at work, I usually expect the best. 1 2 3 4 5 6
20. If something can go wrong for me work-wise, it will. 1 2 3 4 5 6
21. I always look on the bright side of things regarding my job. 1 2 3 4 5 6
22. I’m optimistic about what will happen to me in the future as it pertains to
work.
1 2 3 4 5 6
23. In this job, things never work out the way I want them to. 1 2 3 4 5 6
24. I approach this job as if “every cloud has a silver lining.” ( never feel
hopeless )
1 2 3 4 5 6
Thanks
231
(Questionnaire for data collection from Peers)
ID:____________
Dear Respondent,
Thank you for agreeing to be a part of this research initiative. You are requested to please spare your
precious time and fill the questionnaire. I assure you that the information obtained from this survey
will not be disclosed and will only be used for research purposes.It will be appreciated if questionnaire may please be completed candidly, keeping in view your work experience.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Please tick one option
1. Gender: i. Male ii. Female
Age group 20-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56 and above
For each item of the statements below, please indicate the extent to which you agree or
disagree with the following statements by ticking (√) the appropriate number keeping in view
the behavior of your colleagues on a five-point Likert type frequency scale with 1 being
“never” and 5 being “Everyday”.
1. Purposely wasted organizational materials/supplies 1 2 3 4 5
2. Complained about insignificant things at work 1 2 3 4 5
3. Told people outside the job what a worthless place you work for
1 2 3 4 5
4. Came to work late without permission 1 2 3 4 5
5. Stayed home from work and said you were sick when you weren’t
1 2 3 4 5
6. Insulted someone about their job performance 1 2 3 4 5
7. Made fun of someone’s personal life 1 2 3 4 5
8. Ignored someone at work 1 2 3 4 5
9. Started an argument with someone at work 1 2 3 4 5
10. Insulted or made fun of someone at work 1 2 3 4 5
232
(Questionnaire for data collection from Supervisor)
ID:____________
Dear Respondent,
Thank you for agreeing to be a part of this research initiative. You are requested to please spare your
precious time and fill the questionnaire. I assure you that the information obtained from this survey
will not be disclosed and will only be used for research purposes.It will be appreciated if questionnaire may please be completed candidly, keeping in view your work experience.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Please tick one option
1. Gender: i. Male ii. Female
Age group 20-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56 and above
For each item of the statements below, please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree
with the following statements by ticking (√) the appropriate number as per following rating scale.
Please tick appropriate box keeping in view the individual working under your supervision.
Nev
er
Rar
ely
Som
etim
es
Oft
en
Alw
ays
1. Helps others who have been absent. 1 2 3 4 5
2. Willingly give time to help others who have work-related problems.
1 2 3 4 5
3. Adjust work schedule to accommodate other employees’ requests for time off.
1 2 3 4 5
4. Go out of the way to make newer employees feel welcome in the work group.
1 2 3 4 5
5. Show genuine concern and courtesy toward coworkers, even under the most demanding business or personal situations.
1 2 3 4 5
6. Give up time to help others who have work or non-work problems.
1 2 3 4 5
7. Assist others with their duties. 1 2 3 4 5
8. Share personal property with others to help their work.
1 2 3 4 5
233
9. Attend functions that are not required but that help the organizational image.
1 2 3 4 5
10. Keep up with developments in the organization. 1 2 3 4 5
11. Defend the organization when other employees criticize it.
1 2 3 4 5
12. Show pride when representing the organization in public.
1 2 3 4 5
13. Offer ideas to improve the functioning of the organization.
1 2 3 4 5
14. Express loyalty toward the organization. 1 2 3 4 5
15. Take action to protect the organization from potential problems.
1 2 3 4 5
16. Demonstrate concern about the image of the organization.
1 2 3 4 5
For each item of the statements below, please indicate the extent to which you agree or
disagree with the following statements by ticking (√) the appropriate number as per following
rating scale. Please tick appropriate box keeping in view the individual working under your
supervision.
Stro
ngl
y D
isag
ree
Dis
agre
e
Un
cert
ain
Agr
ee
Stro
ngl
y A
gree
17. Adequately complete assigned duties 1 2 3 4 5
18. Fulfillsresponsibilities specified in his/ her job description.
1 2 3 4 5
19. Perform tasks that are expected by him/her 1 2 3 4 5
20. Meet formal performance requirements of his job 1 2 3 4 5
21. Neglect aspects of the job obligated to perform 1 2 3 4 5
22. Engage in activities that will directly affect his performance
1 2 3 4 5
23. Fail to perform essential duties 1 2 3 4 5
234
APPENDIX-II
List of Modules covered in HEC Master Trainers-Faculty Professional Development
Program
1. Assessment & Evaluation
2. Microteaching, Cycle - I
3. Communication Skills
4. Citizenship & Demography of Pakistan
5. National Digital Library Program (HEC)
6. Plagiarism Detection and Prevention
7. Academic Writing Skills for Research
8. Research Methodology
9. SPSS
10. Academic Planning and Management
11. “ABC” Time and Team Management
12. CLUE – Competent (English) Language Usage Essentials
13. Emotional Intelligence
14. Violence against women
15. Education and life
16. Teaching as a profession
17. Academic Planning
18. Microteaching, Cycle - II
19. ICT and E-Learning
20. Leadership
21. Entrepreneurship
22. Human Resource Management
235
APPENDIX-III
Investigating Workplace Mistreatment among Faculty Members of Pakistani
Universities: Towards Administrative Solutions
Abstract
This study aims to investigate workplace mistreatment (workplace incivility, abusive
supervision, workplace mobbing) among faculty serving in various universities of Pakistan.
The data was collected from 408 faculty members working in public and private sector
universities in Pakistan. Prevalence of workplace mistreatment among faculty members was
identified. Especially, workplace mobbing was found to be significantly higher among public
sector teachers as well as the female faculty. Recommendations for university management
and Higher Education Commission are discussed.
Keywords: Workplace mistreatment, Workplace incivility, Abusive supervision, Workplace
mobbing
1. Introduction
The role of higher education indeed is not only vital in economic growth and
development of country but also for a knowledge-based economy. There is a substantial
growth in higher education sector in Pakistan from last few years which has resulted in
socioeconomic and cultural development of the country. Most importantly, teaching in
universities has emerged as a prestigious and prized profession in Pakistan. The Higher
Education Commission (HEC) has taken many reforms in line with the Government of
Pakistan vision 2025 such as: Excellence in Leadership, Governance and Management of
Universities, Increase in number of faculty with highest academic qualifications, enhanced
quality of curricula, research innovation and commercialization, increase equitable access to
236
higher education. These reforms were taken with the aim to align Human Resource
Development with Economic Development and to create knowledge based economy in
Pakistan. In higher educational context faculty is considered among the most important
stakeholders for the reforms to be successful. However, the faculty members working in
universities in Pakistan face lack of procedural and distributive justice, leadership styles and
bullying at workplace which results in lower job attitudes and job performance (Ahmad et al.,
2017; Atta & Khan, 2015; Iqbal, Aziz, & Tasawar, 2012; Ismail & Ali, 2016; Qureshi et al.,
2015).
In line with social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), faculty members when perceive
mistreatment at workplace, they withdraw positive behaviors and get involved in deviant
behavior at workplace. Research has classified different types of workplace mistreatments
which can been distinguished based on intensity, magnitude, frequency, intention and
perpetrator such as “abusive supervision”, “bullying”, “incivility”, “interpersonal deviance”,
“retaliation”, “mobbing” etc. (Hershcovis, 2011). Mistreatment has negative effects on work
attitudes such as organization commitment, job involvement and work behaviors such as
Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Parzefall & Salin,
2010; Tepper, 2000). At the same time, workplace mistreatment has also results in outcomes
such as cynicism, intention to quit and the extent to turnover from the organization (Kim,
Cohen, & Panter, 2015). Therefore, it is imperative to study mistreatment at workplace
including educational institutions.
This paper aims to study three types of mistreatments i.e. workplace incivility,
abusive supervision and workplace mobbing. These three types of mistreatment are different
in terms of frequency, magnitude and perpetrator. The objective of this paper is to study the
mistreatment in faculty members working in universities in Pakistan. The paper also aims to
237
study the different types of mistreatment among faculty members based on their gender and
type of organization i.e. public or private sector universities.
The paper is organized in the following order. After introduction, the literature review
is presented including current status of higher education sector reforms in Pakistan,
definitions of constructs, their antecedents and consequences. Subsequently, methodology of
the research is discussed including sample technique, data collection, descriptive and items
adapted to measure the variables. Afterwards, the results of the study are presented. In last
section the findings, discussion, limitations, future research directions and administrative
solutions involving university management and higher education commission are discussed.
2. Literature Review:
Since the inception of Higher Education Commission, Pakistan in 2002, there has
been a tremendous growth in higher education sector in Pakistan. This resulted in increase in
number of universities in Pakistan. Currently, 183 universities are operating in Pakistan
including public and private sector universities and degree awarding institutions. Fig-1 shows
the number of faculty currently serving in universities in Pakistan including Ph.D faculty
members. There is increase of 11 % in number of faculty member from 2012-13 – 2013-14
and increase of 7% in faculty members from 2013-14 – 2014-15 per year. Currently, 37,397
full time faculty members including more than 10,000 Ph.D qualified faculty member are
working in universities in Pakistan (HEC, 2016)
In higher educational context faculty is considered among the most important
stakeholders for the reforms to be successful. Therefore, faculty development is one of the
priority areas of HEC. Due to its immense importance, HEC has a full fledge training
program known as “Master Trainers-Faculty Professional Development Program”. The
238
duration of the program is 08 weeks and is designed to develop andragogy skills including
teaching, research and management skills. The Master Trainers trained by HEC then conduct
similar type of training in their respective universities and degree awarding institutes. . HEC
has trained more than 900 faculty members as master trainers. The training material for
Master Trainer Program, Higher Education Commission covers a number of modules some of
which are pedagogical while others are related to management and administration. The list of
modules covered during the training is provided in appendix. The training has components of
Emotional Intelligence and Violence against women which relate to Workplace mistreatment.
Mistreatment is defined as “unwanted and unsolicited offense in behaviors that
violates a right to respectful treatment” (Harlos, 2010). Mistreatment at workplace has been
identified an emergent psychological risks in the workplace (Hodgins, 2014).Workplace
mistreatment is a wide-ranging term apprehending variety of abuses and insults experienced
by workers at workplaces including discriminations, uncivil and disrespectful treatment,
personalized abuse or irrational treatments. Blau (1964) asserted in his social exchange
theory that people establish and maintain relationships in prospective exchange for socio-
economic affiliated benefits with their employers. Lavelle, Rupp, and Brockner (2007)
further elaborate on Blau (1964) statement that social exchange relationships can nurture
cordial and productive feelings among all organizational members. Consequently ,in order to
monitor and ensure fair treatment or otherwise social relationship can suffer setback due to
mistreatment of employs emanating from their negative behavioral response other members
in the joining the relationship. In the light of Social Exchange Theory, perception of
mistreatment by employees at work place resulted in poorer mental health such as stress,
anxiety, depression, negative motions (Cortina, Magley, Williams, & Langhout, 2001;
Einarsen, 2000; Kivimäki et al., 2012; Lallukka, Rahkonen, & Lahelma, 2011; Nielsen,
239
Tangen, Idsoe, Matthiesen, & Magerøy, 2015) at individual level and negative consequences
to organization such as organizational effectiveness, employee performance, job satisfaction
and reduced well-being (Cortina et al., 2001; Fox & Stallworth, 2010; Hershcovis, 2011;
Lim, Cortina, & Magley, 2008; Pearson, Andersson, & Wegner, 2001; Salin, 2013).
Incivility in the workplace is defined as “low-intensity, deviant behavior with
ambiguous intent to harm the target, in violation of workplace norms for mutual
respect”(Andersson & Pearson, 1999). Uncivil comportments are being impolite and ill-
mannered, and showing dearth of esteem for others” (Andersson & Pearson, 1999). Work
overload, scarcity of resources and fear of job loss due to any organizational change may
become the probable reasons of workplace incivility (Johnson & Indvik, 2001).
Technological facilitation can support incivility to spread more broadly and more quickly
than in the past, (Giumetti et al., 2013; Pearson, Andersson, & Porath, 2000). Incivility also
has negative effect on employee experiences of job satisfaction, OCB, job performance and
positive effect on intentions to quit, burnout and CWB (Cortina et al., 2001; Penney &
Spector, 2008; Spence Laschinger, Leiter, Day, & Gilin, 2009; Taylor, Bedeian, & Kluemper,
2012).
Abusive supervision is a subcategory of destructive leadership and refers to
“subordinates’ perceptions of the extent to which their supervisors engage in the sustained
display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical contact” (Tepper,
2000). Other definition refers sustained emotional or psychological mistreatment of
subordinate (Harvey, Stoner, Hochwarter, & Kacmar, 2007). The antecedents of abusive
supervision includes such as leadership style, stress and emotional intelligence (Mawritz,
Mayer, Hoobler, Wayne, & Marinova, 2012; Zhang & Bednall, 2016). The outcomes of
abusive supervision are not only destructive to subordinate but also influence organization as
240
a whole.Lowerer level of job satisfaction, job performance are the outcomes of abusive
supervision (Martinko, Harvey, Brees, & Mackey, 2013).
The term mobbing is described as a malevolent endeavor to force someone out
of the workplace by accusing, humiliating, generally harassing, and/or emotionally abusing
that person (Davenport, Schwartz, Elliott, & Önertoy, 2003). Mobbing is a particular type of
mistreatment and refers to a combined effort by colleagues in a work setting to isolate,
chastise and demean a particular employee (Westhues, 2003). The research has revealed that
certain personality traits may serve as antecedents to mobbing (Lane, 2013). In addition
chaotic and unorganized work places create an environment that promotes power struggles
may help explain the types of conditions that are ripe for a mobbing episode to occur (Johan
Hauge, Skogstad, & Einarsen, 2007). On other hand the consequences of mobbing range
from individual suffering to lost productivity, tarnished reputations, lack of production, and
high-turnover rates (Westhues, 2003).
3. Methodology:
The data was collected from 408 faculty members working in 26 universities in
Pakistan through purposive sampling. 64.5 % of participants were male while 35.5% were
female. 63.5% of the sample had age between 26-35 years. 79% of the faculty members were
from public sector universities. More than 70% of the sample had 4 years or above
experience of working in university.
Workplace incivility was measured by adapting scale developed by Cortina et al.,
(2001) containing 07 items on a 5-point Likert scale (1=Never to 5=Very often). Example
items include: “Doubt your judgment on a matter over which you have responsibility” and
“Pay little attention to your statement or show little interest in your opinion”. Abusive
241
Supervision was measured by adapting scale developed by (Tepper, 2000) containing 15-
items on a 5 point likert scale (1= Strongly Disagree to 5= Strongly Agree). Example items
include: “My immediate supervisor makes negative comments about me to others” and “My
immediate supervisor expresses anger at me when he/she is annoyed for another reason”.
Workplace Mobbing was measured by adapting scale developed by (Quine, 2001)
containing 20-items on a 5 point likert scale (1= Never to 5=Always). Example items include:
“persistent attempts to humiliate you in front of colleagues” and “made verbal and non-verbal
threats against you”. All statistical tests were conducted using SPSS and AMOS.
4. Result and Analysis
Table- 1 shows the correlation of variables with each other and reliability values of
variables. The result shows that workplace incivility has positive significant association with
workplace mobbing and abusive supervision. Likewise, workplace mobbing and abusive
supervision also have significant association with each other. The reliability of variables was
measured through Cronbach’s alpha.
Table 1: Correlation Matrix
Variable Mean SD
Mobbing Incivility Abusive Supervision
Workplace Mobbing 2.295 0.697 1 (0.952) - -
Workplace Incivility 1.720 0.620 0.304** 1(0.801) -
Abusive Supervision 1.694 0.580 0.338** 0.397** 1(0.902)
*p < 0.10, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.001
Cronbach Alpha Values in parenthesis
The values of Cronbach’s alpha for workplace mobbing, Incivility and abusive
supervision are above 0.7 which means that reliability of all the variables is satisfactory.
242
Mean values of Workplace Mobbing, Abusive Supervision and Incivility reflect considerable
prevalence of the workplace mistreatment among faculty members of Pakistani universities.
Comparison with similar workplace mistreatment studies shows that these values are higher
than mean scores found in the literature (Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007; Tepper, 2000; Zellars,
Tepper, & Duffy, 2002).
Table 2 shows the results of t-Test conducted based on the Organization Type i.e.
Public and Private Sector. Differences among perceptions of workplace incivility and abusive
supervision are insignificant. However, perception of workplace mobbing among the public
sector respondents is found to be significantly higher than their counterparts in the private
sector.
Table 2: T-Test based on Organization Type
Organization
Type
Mean
Score
Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
t-
statistic
Incivility Public Sector 1.7287 .62517 .03351
.632 Private Sector 1.6738 .59229 .07646
Abusive
Supervision
Public Sector 1.6937 .58789 .03151 -.064
Private Sector 1.6989 .56735 .07324
Workplace
Mobbing
Public Sector 2.3187 .67527 .03620 1.623
Private Sector 2.1608 .80565 .10401
Table 3 shows the comparison of the workplace incivility, abusive supervision and the
mobbing among the male and female faculty members. While workplace incivility is not
significantly different among the two genders, abusive supervision and mobbing was
perceived less by the female respondents which may be attributed to their demure nature and
socialization in a patriarchal culture.
243
Table 3: T-Test based on Gender
Gender Mean
Score
Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
t-
statistic
Workplace
Incivility
Male 1.7083 .63793 .03934 -.538
Female 1.7429 .58771 .04881
Abusive
Supervision
Male 1.7166 .58223 .03590 1.532
Female 1.6543 .58773 .04881
Workplace
Mobbing
Male 2.3380 .68531 .04226 1.664
Female 2.2183 .71399 .05929
5. Discussion
The study investigated workplace mistreatment (workplace incivility, abusive
supervision, workplace mobbing) among faculty members working in universities of
Pakistan. The results of the study revealed that workplace incivility, abusive supervision, and
workplace mobbing exist both in public and private sector universities. The results are
consistent with previous research in which prevalence of bullying, job dissatisfaction; lower
levels of OCB and psychosocial problems were found among faculty members working in
Pakistani universities (Ali & Waqar (2013); Atta & Khan (2015); Abdullah & Akhar (2016);
Ahmad et al., (2017); Malik, Björkqvist, & Österman(2017).
It is also evident that the workplace mobbing is perceived more by the public sector
faculty members. This may be reflective of the prevalent culture in these universities. Union
and group politics are common in the public sector organizations which may be a reason for
teachers feeling targeted and threatened. The findings also support the arguments by Brunetto
et al. (2016) that private sector institutions may be better managed than the public sector with
the administration being more involved in resolving issues of staff .
The results of this study further revealed the differences between the male and female
teachers in terms of abusive supervision and workplace mobbing. Workplace mobbing among
244
the female faculty members have been found to be relatively lower than the male faculty
members, which may be attributed to the male activeness unions and other grouping activities
in the organization. As female members of the organization are less active in group politics
and avoid such activities, they are less prone to be on the receiving side of the workplace
mobbing. The findings of this study are consistent with the previous research by Salin (2013)
in which differences in prevalence of workplace bullying across gender lines were considered
as given requiring difference in training.
The primary limitation of the current study is in terms of the data, which was
collected from universities operating in Punjab, KPK and Islamabad regions of Pakistan.
Future empirical research may be conducted to study coping strategies such as psychological
capital and mindfulness to enable faculty members to handle workplace mistreatment in
universities.
6. Recommendations
The training material of HEC Master Trainer Program is mainly focused on academic
planning, academic management, teaching and research skills required by faculty members to
perform their job. At the same time, consideration has been given to impart entrepreneurial
and leadership skills among faculty and accordingly the modules to develop these skills have
also been included in the training. The training module to address mistreatment at workplace
is unfortunately missing and there is dire need of incorporating a module which can develop
the coping skills and interventions to address this issue. Individually, the teachers often adopt
a variety of coping strategies including seeking support of peer, detachment from offender,
considering issue unimportant, conflict avoidance by talking to friends and family, and
conflict avoidance by reporting to administration. However, according to Cortina & Magley
(2009) most employees are reluctant to report mistreatment and do so only if they perceive
245
mistreatment as immensely stressful, and it if the mistreatment continues for several weeks
and months; however, by that time irreversible individual and organizational damage may
have already been caused. Therefore, the organization’s responsibility to foster a civil
workplace cannot be over emphasized.
The management of universities should devise policies and statues to minimize
workplace mistreatment because it lowers the job performance and organizational citizenship
behavior. These two desirable work behaviors are as important in any organization but as far
as universities are concerned they are the vital behaviors to be displayed at work. If faculty
working in universities will not perform its job well i.e. teaching, research and outreach, it
will not only affect the performance of a university but also the process of overall nation
building. Therefore, it is imperative that strict policies and procedures must be introduced in
the universities to create conducive work environment.
Universities have a legitimate obligation to safeguard employees from mistreatment.
Therefore, following recommendations are made for the management of universities on
proactive basis to handle mistreatment in universities:
i. Each university must have its own mistreatment policy as per guidelines provided
by HEC. The policy should be communicated to all the employees and should be
available online, where zero tolerance of mistreatment must be emphasized.
ii. Device a system through which distributive and procedural justice is ensured in
decision making.
iii. Provide a safe and healthy workplace and learning environment that is free from
bullying and harassment.
iv. Provide equal opportunities to all individuals irrespective of their gender and
246
political affiliation. Internal groupings within departments must be productive for
the organization and not targeted towards favoring or targeting individuals.
v. The immediate head/supervisor should have an extra responsibility to provide
unprejudiced, fair and balanced treatment to faculty members under their
supervision and to lead by example.
vi. The academic heads should intervene actively to stop mistreatment at workplace
where it occurs. The peers should also intervene to stop mistreatment when
observed and report to higher management
vii. Employees should be encouraged to speak to their Head of Departments, and if
the matter is not resolved, they should approach the Registrar or the Vice
Chancellor.
Following recommendations are made for the Higher Education Commission to
address the mistreatment in universities in Pakistan:
i. The Higher Education Commission, Government of Pakistan being regulator
should device mistreatment policy and circulate it to all universities for
implementation.
ii. Training intervention to cope mistreatment at work as a module should be
included in master training faculty development program to train faculty
members to cope mistreatment.
iii. The faculty members from different universities should be trained with
training interventions to cope mistreatment. These trainers then assigned the
task to provide training to faculty in their respective universities.
iv. Special short term training for prevention of mistreatment must be introduced
under HEC- Modern University Governance Program for University
Management (MUG).
247
APPENDIX-IV
Hope as a moderator on the relationship workplace mistreatment (workplace incivility, abusive supervision, workplace mobbing) and on-job
behaviors (job performance, OCBO,OCBI, CWBO,CWBI)
Dependent Variables
Job Performance OCBO OCBI CWBO CWBI
β LLCI ULCI β LLCI ULCI β LLCI ULCI β LLCI ULCI β LLCI ULCI
Hope -0.08 -0.33 0.16 0.03 -0.25 0.31 0.03 -0.27 0.32 -0.32 -0.60 -0.03 -0.08 -0.36 0.21
Workplace Incivility -0.77 -1.02 -0.52 -0.68 -0.97 -0.39 -0.72 -1.03 -0.42 0.25 -0.05 0.54 0.42 0.13 0.72
Interaction 0.33 0.21 0.45 0.30 0.16 0.44 0.33 0.19 0.48 -0.10 -0.24 0.05 -0.18 -0.32 -0.04
Hope 0.02 -0.23 0.28 -0.22 -0.51 0.07 -0.22 -0.51 0.07 -0.35 -0.65 -0.05 -0.13 -0.43 0.16
Abusive Supervision -0.64 -0.90 -0.37 -0.96 -1.26 -0.67 -0.96 -1.26 -0.67 0.21 -0.10 0.52 0.34 0.04 0.65
Interaction 0.29 0.16 0.42 0.43 0.28 0.57 0.43 0.28 0.57 -0.09 -0.24 0.06 -0.18 -0.33 -0.03
Hope 0.20 -0.11 0.51 -0.10 -0.45 0.25 -0.07 -0.43 0.29 -0.39 -0.75 -0.04 -0.24 -0.59 0.11
Workplace Mobbing -0.38 -0.64 -0.11 -0.65 -0.95 -0.35 -0.66 -0.97 -0.34 0.11 -0.19 0.42 0.20 -0.11 0.50
Interaction 0.14 0.02 0.26 0.32 0.18 0.45 0.33 0.19 0.47 -0.07 -0.21 0.07 -0.08 -0.21 0.06
248
Optimism as a moderator on the relationship workplace mistreatment (workplace incivility, abusive supervision, workplace mobbing) and on-job
behaviors (job performance, OCBO,OCBI, CWBO,CWBI)
Dependent Variables
Job Performance OCBO OCBI CWBO CWBI
β LLCI ULCI β LLCI ULCI β LLCI ULCI β LLCI ULCI β LLCI ULCI
Optimism -0.04 -0.27 0.19 0.02 -0.24 0.29 0.07 -0.21 0.34 -0.37 -0.63 -0.11 -0.07 -0.34 0.20
Workplace Incivility -0.75 -0.99 -0.50 -0.70 -0.99 -0.41 -0.73 -1.02 -0.44 0.26 -0.02 0.54 0.44 0.15 0.73
Interaction 0.31 0.19 0.42 0.30 0.16 0.44 0.33 0.20 0.47 -0.12 -0.26 0.01 -0.18 -0.32 -0.05
Optimism 0.03 -0.21 0.27 -0.06 -0.33 0.22 0.10 -0.19 0.38 -0.37 -0.65 -0.10 -0.13 -0.42 0.15
Abusive Supervision -0.65 -0.91 -0.39 -0.79 -1.09 -0.50 -0.71 -1.01 -0.40 0.24 -0.05 0.54 0.35 0.05 0.65
Interaction 0.29 0.17 0.42 0.33 0.18 0.47 0.28 0.14 0.43 -0.13 -0.27 0.01 -0.18 -0.32 -0.03
Optimism 0.10 -0.20 0.40 -0.10 -0.44 0.25 -0.04 -0.39 0.31 -0.45 -0.79 -0.12 0.02 -0.33 0.36
Workplace Mobbing -0.48 -0.75 -0.21 -0.66 -0.96 -0.35 -0.66 -0.97 -0.35 0.11 -0.19 0.41 0.43 0.13 0.74
Interaction 0.18 0.06 0.29 0.30 0.17 0.43 0.32 0.18 0.45 -0.08 -0.21 0.05 -0.18 -0.31 -0.05
249
Resilience as a moderator on the relationship workplace mistreatment (workplace incivility, abusive supervision, workplace mobbing) and on-
jobbehaviors (job performance, OCBO,OCBI, CWBO,CWBI)
Dependent Variables
Job Performance OCBO OCBI CWBO CWBI
β LLCI ULCI β LLCI ULCI β LLCI ULCI β LLCI ULCI β LLCI ULCI
Resilience -0.06 -0.28 0.17 -0.03 -0.29 0.24 -0.04 -0.31 0.24 -0.27 -0.54 -0.01 -0.28 -0.54 -0.02
Workplace Incivility -0.76 -1.01 -0.51 -0.73 -1.02 -0.44 -0.79 -1.09 -0.48 0.27 -0.02 0.57 0.22 -0.07 0.51
Interaction 0.32 0.21 0.43 0.32 0.19 0.45 0.35 0.22 0.49 -0.12 -0.25 0.01 -0.10 -0.23 0.03
Resilience 0.03 -0.20 0.26 -0.09 -0.35 0.17 0.00 -0.27 0.28 -0.28 -0.55 -0.02 -0.29 -0.55 -0.02
Abusive Supervision -0.66 -0.92 -0.41 -0.84 -1.13 -0.55 -0.78 -1.09 -0.48 0.27 -0.03 0.57 0.20 -0.09 0.50
Interaction 0.28 0.16 0.40 0.32 0.19 0.46 0.28 0.14 0.42 -0.11 -0.25 0.03 -0.11 -0.24 0.03
Resilience 0.09 -0.18 0.37 -0.14 -0.46 0.18 -0.17 -0.50 0.16 -0.24 -0.56 0.08 -0.16 -0.47 0.16
Workplace Mobbing -0.49 -0.76 -0.23 -0.71 -1.02 -0.41 -0.77 -1.09 -0.46 0.25 -0.06 0.56 0.31 0.00 0.61
Interaction 0.18 0.07 0.29 0.31 0.19 0.43 0.34 0.22 0.47 -0.12 -0.25 0.00 -0.13 -0.25 0.00
250
Self efficacy as a moderator on the relationship workplace mistreatment (workplace incivility, abusive supervision, workplace mobbing) and on-
job behaviors (job performance, OCBO,OCBI, CWBO, CWBI)
Dependent Variables
Job Performance OCBO OCBI CWBO CWBI
β LLCI ULCI β LLCI ULCI β LLCI ULCI β LLCI ULCI β LLCI ULCI
Self-Efficacy -0.09 -0.36 0.19 -0.09 -0.42 0.24 -0.20 -0.55 0.14 -0.31 -0.65 0.02 -0.03 -0.36 0.29
Incivility -0.83 -1.09 -0.57 -0.80 -1.12 -0.49 -0.96 -1.28 -0.63 0.29 -0.02 0.61 0.50 0.19 0.81
Interaction 0.40 0.25 0.54 0.38 0.21 0.55 0.47 0.29 0.65 -0.12 -0.29 0.06 -0.23 -0.40 -0.06
Self-Efficacy 0.08 -0.20 0.36 -0.25 -0.58 0.08 -0.18 -0.52 0.16 -0.21 -0.54 0.12 -0.02 -0.35 0.31
Abusive Supervision -0.65 -0.92 -0.38 -0.97 -1.29 -0.66 -0.96 -1.28 -0.63 0.39 0.07 0.71 0.50 0.18 0.81
Interaction 0.34 0.19 0.49 0.47 0.29 0.64 0.44 0.26 0.62 -0.20 -0.38 -0.02 -0.29 -0.47 -0.12
Self-Efficacy 0.12 -0.21 0.46 -0.14 -0.54 0.25 -0.18 -0.59 0.23 -0.13 -0.53 0.26 0.16 -0.23 0.55
Mobbing -0.50 -0.77 -0.23 -0.68 -1.00 -0.36 -0.74 -1.07 -0.41 0.37 0.05 0.68 0.56 0.25 0.88
Interaction 0.22 0.09 0.35 0.35 0.19 0.50 0.39 0.23 0.55 -0.20 -0.36 -0.04 -0.27 -0.42 -0.12
https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051818767391
Journal of Leadership &Organizational Studies2019, Vol. 26(1) 73 –86© The Authors 2018Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissionsDOI: 10.1177/1548051818767391journals.sagepub.com/home/jlo
Article
Abusive supervision (“ . . . subordinates’ perceptions of the extent to which their supervisors engage in the sustained dis-play of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical contact”; Tepper, 2000, p. 178) is a type of work-place mistreatment that has gained momentum in research and practice. Indeed, “the boss” may be one of the major factors that can lead employees to experience stress in their jobs (Michie, 2002) and literature shows far-reaching conse-quences of abusive supervision for employee attitudes and behavior (Martinko, Harvey, Brees, & Mackey, 2013). In addition to affecting employee well-being, abusive supervi-sion affects employees’ discretionary behavior. Abusive supervision predicts reductions in positive discretionary behaviors (e.g., Xu, Huang, Lam, & Miao, 2012) such as organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). These desir-able OCBs can entail behaviors such as helping colleagues (individual-directed OCB; OCBI) or attending nonmanda-tory organizational meetings (organization-directed OCB; OCBO). Abusive supervision also relates positively to neg-ative discretionary behaviors (Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007),
such as counterproductive work behaviors (CWB). CWBs can entail behaviors such as ridiculing or embarrassing coworkers (individual-directed CWB) or leaving work early and taking longer breaks (organization-directed CWB).
Recent research suggests that, when employees have better resources to cope with abuse, they may show less of the detrimental behavioral effects (e.g., Frieder, Hochwarter, DeOrtentiis, 2015; Nandkeolyar, Shaffer, Li, Ekkirala, & Bagger, 2014). Working from such findings, we sought to examine a potential mechanism linking abusive supervision to its outcomes. From such findings, it follows that abusive supervision constitutes a resource-consuming factor (Harris,
767391 JLOXXX10.1177/1548051818767391Journal of Leadership & Organizational StudiesAhmad et al.research-article2018
1Pir Mehr Ali Shah Arid Agriculture University, Rawalpindi, Pakistan2University of Education, Lahore, Pakistan3Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands
Corresponding Author:Jawwad Ahmad, Pir Mehr Ali Shah Arid Agriculture University, Shamsabad, Rawalpindi, Pakistan. Email: [email protected]
A Resource Perspective on Abusive Supervision and Extra-Role Behaviors: The Role of Subordinates’ Psychological Capital
Jawwad Ahmad1, Muhammad Razzaq Athar1, Rauf I Azam2, Melvyn R. W. Hamstra3 , and Muhammad Hanif1
AbstractAbusive supervision (perceived enduring hostile verbal and nonverbal behavior) results in a host of detrimental consequences for the individual subordinate and for the organization. In the current research, we tested whether abusive supervision relates negatively to beneficial extra-role behaviors of subordinates (individual-directed and organization-directed citizenship behaviors; OCBI and OCBO) and positively to deviant extra-role behaviors of subordinates (individual-directed and organization-directed counterproductive work behavior; CWBI and CWBO). Moreover, reasoning from a resource perspective, we examined whether subordinates’ psychological capital (PsyCap: hope, resilience, self-efficacy, and optimism) mediates these relations. PsyCap is a resource variable that is amenable to situational influences such as leadership. This makes PsyCap align with a theoretically viable, but previously not explicitly tested, mechanism underlying the effects of abusive supervision. We conducted a time-lagged, multisource study among 408 university faculty members. Abusive supervision and PsyCap were measured at Time 1 from focal participants. At Time 2, data for OCBs were collected from their supervisors and data for CWBs were collected from their peers. Results indicate that PsyCap mediated the relations between abusive supervision and OCBI, OCBO, CWBI, and CWBO. Shedding light on this process helps researchers and practitioners develop ways in which to mitigate the consequences of abusive supervision, for example, by seeking to develop PsyCap using different resources.
Keywordspositive organizational behavior, employee behaviors, human resources, leadership behavior
74 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 26(1)
Kacmar, & Zivnuska, 2007; Kacmar, Whitman, & Harris, 2013). Abuse, in and of itself, is a stressful event that indi-viduals need to deal with. Moreover, given the definition of abusive supervision as enduring, coping requires resources expenditure. In turn, a lack of resources implies reduced ability to engage in constructive behaviors, such as OCBs, and a lack of resources increases negative behaviors, such as CWBs (Fox, Spector, & Miles, 2001).
Research has examined related variables such as strain and burnout that arise from abusive supervision (e.g., Carlson, Ferguson, Hunter, & Whitten, 2012). Working from a resource perspective (Hobfoll, 1989), we examine whether psychological capital (PsyCap; Luthans, Avolio, Avey, & Norman, 2007) mediates the relations between abusive supervision and extra-role behaviors. PsyCap is a resource-variable of resilience, optimism, hope, and self-efficacy and affects behavioral and performance outcomes (Avey, Reichard, Luthans, & Mhatre, 2011). Individuals with high PsyCap have a strong belief in their ability to regulate goal pursuit, they form positive anticipations in dealing with challenging situations and they positively influence and contribute in harmonizing adverse situations (Luthans et al., 2007). Moreover, PsyCap is a resource (Luthans & Youssef, 2004), that, rather than being a stable trait, it is susceptible to situational influences. This implies that situational, resource-exhausting factors may be associ-ated with decreases in PsyCap as well. Specifically, we
propose that abusive supervision is negatively related to PsyCap, which mediates the relation between abusive supervision and OCBs and CWBs (see Figure 1).
This research provides several contributions. First, we examine PsyCap as one resource that may contribute to the outcomes associated with abusive supervision. Doing so broadens accounts for the outcomes of abusive supervision, which aids understanding of this process. Second, this study contributes to the PsyCap literature. A core premise of the concept of PsyCap is that PsyCap is amenable to outside influences. Support for our hypotheses would yield indirect support for this basic notion as it would tentatively suggest that PsyCap is associated negatively with resource-expend-ing situational variables such as abusive supervision. Hence, this research addresses a call for better understanding the antecedents of PsyCap (e.g., Avey, 2014). Finally, this research has practical implications. Abusive supervision is thought to constitute a serious threat and to have spillover effects to organizational functioning as well as to the well-being of individuals. If the current proposition is supported, it indicates specific practical advice for dealing with, or mitigating, the consequences of abusive supervision. That is, understanding the mechanism underlying the effects of abusive supervision will allow intervention into a specific process as well. Such knowledge may enable developing ways in which individuals can restore or strengthen their PsyCap through other sources, such as training and
Figure 1. Conceptual framework of psychological capital as a mediator of the links between abusive supervision and OCBs and CWBs.Note. OCB = organizational citizenship behavior; CWB = counterproductive work behavior; OCBI = individual-directed OCB; OCBO = organization-directed OCB; CWBI = individual-directed CWB; CWBO = organization-directed CWB.
Ahmad et al. 75
development (e.g., Luthans, Avey, & Patera, 2008), which might be one way of mitigating consequences.
Abusive Supervision
The abusive supervision concept was introduced by Tepper (2000), stating that abusive supervision involves hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors, but not physical contact (which is part of violence). According to this conceptualiza-tion, abusive supervision is a sustained pattern, and abusive supervision centers on the perception of the subordinate concerning such things as public mockery, invasion of pri-vacy, wrongful blame, rudeness, breach of promises, self-ishness, and discrimination in information sharing procedures. This implies that a behavior may be abusive in one context, but not in another, and it entails that abusive supervision is a subordinate-level construct. Abusive super-vision is particularly insidious because targets of abuse may often be unable to change their position, implying they often (need to) stay in these situations without the prospect of improvement.
Abusive supervision decreases satisfaction and commit-ment, and increases turnover intentions, stress, burnout, physical symptoms, and feelings of frustration and help-lessness (Tepper, Henle, Lambert, Giacalone, & Duffy, 2008). Task performance also suffers (Jian, Kwan, Qiu, Liu, & Yim, 2012) as do other variables such as behaviors indi-viduals engage in that are not part of formal roles such as citizenship behaviors that either help colleagues (OCBI) or help the organization (OCBO; see X. Y. Liu, & Wang, 2013). Moreover, abusive supervision may predict increases in CWB, toward colleagues (CWBI; e.g., ridiculing and embarrassing others) and toward the organization (CWBO; e.g., leaving work early and taking longer breaks; see Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007). Research has provided several explanations for these findings and in the current research we rely on the notion that abusive supervision forms a stress factor in employees’ environment, which may affect subor-dinates psychological resources (Hobfoll, 1989).
A Resource Perspective
Conservation of resources theory states that people who are confronted with stress will seek to minimize the net loss of resources. Resources are valued for two reasons. First, resources have instrumental value: they help people attain valued outcomes. Second, resources have symbolic value: they help people to define who they are (Hobfoll, 1989). This model, accordingly, posits the existence of a quantity of resources that help people attain their objectives. This quantity can be depleted, replenished, or compensated. Resources used for pursuing one goal may not be available to pursue other goals. Furthermore, people use resources relatively strategically. Hence, they might seek to replenish
resources by trying to tap into other sources or saving resources by withholding effort.
Abusive supervision affects subordinates’ resources in terms of (a) the time and effort that goes into managing their work environment and supervisor, (b) subordinates’ sense of (loss of) control over their environment, and (c) the necessity of dealing with the emotional impact of abuse. First, in the presence of an abusive supervision, time and effort may be required simply to prevent as much as possible the abusive behavior from occurring, leaving employees too preoccupied to engage in extra-role behav-ior (Harris et al., 2007; Kacmar et al., 2013). Second, los-ing sense of control is a direct consequence of abusive behavior such as being denied a say in decisions affecting one’s own situation (Tepper, 2000) and such as the threat to withhold resources necessary for job performance (Harris et al., 2007). Third, the outcomes of stress, anxiety, burn-out, and so forth (Carlson et al., 2012; Harvey, Stoner, Hochwarter, & Kacmar, 2007), indicate that abusive super-vision in itself is something that requires coping. Indeed, research indicates that abusive supervision prompts subor-dinates’ engagement in emotional labor (i.e., “acting”; Carlson et al., 2012).
Recent research also shows several other indications that abusive supervision is resource demanding. First, abusive supervision predicts subordinates’ tendency to engage in certain coping behaviors (Yagil, Ben-Zur, & Tamir, 2011). Second, employees’ tendency to use certain coping strate-gies plays a moderating role in the abusive supervision pro-cess (Nandkeolyar, Shaffer, Li, Ekkirala, & Bagger, 2014). Third, subordinates’ ability to manage resources moderates the link between abusive supervision and detrimental out-comes (Frieder et al., 2015). Abusive supervision, thus, directly implies reduced control over subordinates’ own situation; they are less able to effect changes and actions, implying that their resources to do their jobs are reduced. It also implies that targets of abuse need to cope with this behavior, leaving reduced resources for constructive behav-iors. Thus, abusive supervision may predict reduced OCBs.
There is also reason to hypothesize involvement of resources in the relations between abusive supervision and CWBs. First, considering the negative behaviors toward colleagues (CWBI), Duffy, Ganster, Shaw, Johnson, and Pagon (2006) argued that the insidious nature of undermin-ing behaviors that the abusive supervisor shows, will conse-quently hinder employees’ ability to maintain a good impression in front of their coworkers. Likewise, Schat, Frone, and Kelloway (2006) argued that the irritation, anger, frustration, and helplessness that subordinates of an abusive supervision feel, relate to aggression toward coworkers (Spector, 1998). Second, considering behavior toward the organization (CWBO), variables such as somatic com-plaints, resulting from an inability to cope and generally representing an exhaustion of mental and physical resources,
76 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 26(1)
might explain why individuals call in sick when they are not really sick, take extra breaks, and leave work early. In addi-tion, telling other people outside the organization that it is a lousy place to work and complaining about insignificant things likely also results from experiencing the work place as exhausting.
While our contention is not that the justice explanation is incorrect, the argumentation leads us to conclude that there may also be a resource mechanism in the link between abu-sive supervision and certain extra-role behaviors. Other negative behaviors, perhaps even more insidious, such as theft and fraud, may nevertheless be better explained by the motivation to retaliate, invoking a justice or exchange mechanism. We sought to contribute to the literature on abusive supervision by testing a resource perspective. Specifically, we suggest that a logical candidate for this resource is PsyCap (Luthans et al., 2007; Youssef & Luthans, 2007), which has been proposed as a key resource variable in the human capital of organizations due to its influence on individual performance (Avey et al., 2011).
Psychological Capital as a Mediator
PsyCap is a composite characteristic consisting of resil-ience, optimism, hope, and self-efficacy. High levels of PsyCap means
. . . having confidence (self-efficacy) to take on and put in the necessary effort to succeed at challenging tasks; (2) making a positive attribution (optimism) about succeeding now and in the future; (3) persevering toward goals and, when necessary, redirecting paths to goals (hope) in order to succeed; and (4) when beset by problems and adversity, sustaining and bouncing back and even beyond (resilience) to attain success. (Luthans et al., 2007, p. 3)
PsyCap implies the resource to think of many ways to reach goals, to recover from troubles and setbacks, to take stress-ful events in stride.
Meta-analyses by Avey et al. (2011) showed positive relations between PsyCap and desirable employee attitudes (job satisfaction, organizational commitment, psychologi-cal well-being), and between PsyCap and desirable employee behaviors and performance. Negative relations were found between PsyCap and undesirable attitudes such as cynicism, turnover intentions, stress, and anxiety. PsyCap also holds specific relevance for the prediction of extra role, discretionary behaviors, both positive and negative. First, according to broaden and build theory (Fredrickson, 2001), positivity, such as the hope and optimism of PsyCap, has a broadening effect on people’s behavioral repertoires and increases the potential for proactive, extra-role behaviors such as spontaneously helping colleagues and voluntarily attending organizational events. This indicates that lower levels of PsyCap (associated with abusive supervision)
should be, in turn, also associated with lower levels of OCBI and OCBO. Second, having a high level of PsyCap is associated with a reduction in CWBs because such optimis-tic and positive states lead people to behave in a friendly, rather than nasty, way, toward other colleagues. Resources also partly serve to define how the person defines and feels about him or herself, which, in the case of PsyCap, means defining the self as a hopeful and optimistic person. Hence, PsyCap is unlikely to result in behaviors that hurt the orga-nization or that hurt the coworkers. Indeed, these relation-ships have been supported in prior research in meta-analysis (see Avey et al., 2011).
Importantly, however, a major proposed practical bene-fit of PsyCap (see Luthans & Youssef, 2004) is that it has developmental potential, meaning people (or supportive environments) can increase this resource. For example, PsyCap has been shown to change over time (Peterson, Luthans, Avolio, Walumbwa, & Zhang, 2011) and vari-ables such as supportive climate are positively related to PsyCap (Luthans, Norman, Avolio, & Avey, 2008). Conversely, this also implies that stressors may affect PsyCap in detrimental ways. Indeed, recent research shows that stressful work environments (L. Liu, Chang, Fu, Wang, & Wang, 2012) and employment uncertainty (Epitropaki, 2013) are associated with reductions in PsyCap. In con-trast, PsyCap has been found to mediate relations between positive leadership behaviors and beneficial outcomes (e.g., Gooty, Gavin, Johnson, Frazier, & Snow, 2009). Generally, then, we propose a negative relationship between abusive supervision which is a persistent, sustained stressor and PsyCap a resource with developmental potential. Therefore, we tested the following five hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: Abusive supervision is negatively related to PsyCap.Hypothesis 2: PsyCap mediates the negative relation of abusive supervision and OCB1.Hypothesis 3: PsyCap mediates the negative relation of abusive supervision and OCBO.Hypothesis 4: PsyCap mediates the positive relation of abusive supervision and CWBI.Hypothesis 5: PsyCap mediates the positive relation of abusive supervision and CWBO.
It may be important to note that, with regard to our model, there may be similarities between arguing for mod-eration versus for mediation of PsyCap (see Li, Wang, Yang, & Liu, 2016). PsyCap being a mediator between abu-sive supervision and its outcomes in no way implies that abusive supervision is the only determinant of PsyCap. Indeed, individuals may draw resources from a variety of sources and it is likely that parts of PsyCap that are not associated with abusive supervision would allow individu-als to cope better with abusive behavior (which would imply
Ahmad et al. 77
a moderator; see Cunningham, DiRenzo, & Mawritz, 2013). We consider this possibility exploratively and discuss the issue of how to approach this in more detail below. Hence, we formulated an additional research question:
Research Question 1: Does the element of PsyCap that is not associated with abusive supervision per se moder-ate the link between abusive supervision and OCBs and CWBs?
Method
Design
Social desirability and common source biases might arise from measurement of independent and dependent variables from the same source, both of which can lead to invalid or inflated results. We sought to remedy such concerns by using a multisource design. Furthermore, it may be argued that CWB represents a type of behavior employees hide from their supervisor, implying colleagues may be a more reasonable source for CWB-measurements. Focal individu-als, faculty members, completed questionnaires of abusive supervision (about their supervisor) and their own PsyCap at Time 1. Then, at Time 2, data for focal individuals’ CWBs were collected by asking a colleague of these individuals to rate the relevant items, while data for OCBs were collected from focal individuals’ supervisors. Focal participants, at Time 1, also received a cover letter before agreeing to par-ticipate in the study, which explained the procedure for the whole study, including that they would later be rated by their immediate supervisor and by a peer.
There are 183 universities operating in Pakistan and 37,428 academic staff members are working in these uni-versities. Out of 183 universities, 26 institutions were ran-domly selected. All selected universities have websites on which information about all academic staff is available, which we utilized to prepare department-wise lists of aca-demic staff. Only departments with more than 15 academic staff members were shortlisted for data collection. The per-manent faculty members who had at least 2 years of experi-ence in the department were shortlisted for data collection. Using the above criteria, 600 academic staff members were shortlisted. Since the respondents were academic staff, they all had adequate English language skills; therefore, the questionnaires were administered in English. A cover letter was attached with each questionnaire stating the objective of the research and ensuring the confidentiality of the responses. Each questionnaire was allocated a unique code for identification of the focal faculty member. Data were collected through personal visits of the researcher to these academic institutions. A time period of 1 week was given to the faculty members for completion of the questionnaire. After 1 week, the questionnaires were collected.
Out of 600 distributed questionnaires distributed, 523 were returned (87.17%). Out of 523 questionnaires, 38 incomplete questionnaires were excluded. In the next step, questionnaires for OCBO and OCBI of the 485 fac-ulty members were distributed to their supervisors who were the Dean, Chairman, and Heads of Academic Departments and were personally requested by the researcher to participate in data collection. Indeed, 20 supervisors completed a maximum of 15 questionnaires and 6 supervisors completed a maximum of 20 question-naires to measure OCBO and OCBI of faculty members. For CWBO and CWBI, questionnaires were distributed to their peers. These questionnaires were coded with the same code that had been allocated to respondents at Time 1 of the data collection process. As peer-raters, only those employees who had at least 5 years of experience work-ing in the department were selected to complete the ques-tionnaire. The peers were randomly selected from a list of all coworkers serving in same department. The maximum number of faculty members in a department was 30. Out of 485 sets of questionnaires that had been distributed, 427 (sets or parts of sets of) questionnaires were returned to the researcher. Out of those, 19 were excluded due to missing one part of the complete set (supervisor rating or peer rating). Thus, the overall response rate for complete sets of focal individuals, supervisors, and peers was 408 out of 600, 68%.
Participants
Participants were 408 faculty members from universities in Pakistan (35.0% female; 1.2% did not indicate gender). Participants’ age was measured with five categories: 20 to 25 years (11.0%), 26 to 35 years (63.5%), 36 to 45 years (19.1%), 46 to 55 years (3.9%), and 56 years and older (0.5%), and there were eight nonrespondents (2.0%). We also recorded participants’ work experience with four cate-gories: 1 to 3 years (21.6%), 4 to 6 years (28.7%), 7 to 9 years (17.4%), or 10 years and older (9.1%), but many par-ticipants did not complete this question (28.2%).
Measures
Abusive Supervision. We used Tepper’s (2000) instrument consisting of 15 items such as “My supervisor expresses anger at me when he/she is mad for another reason.” Partici-pants responded to these items (M = 1.69, SD = 0.58; α = .90) on the same scale as used in the original questionnaire, where 1 meant “I cannot remember him/her ever using this behavior with me,” 2 meant “He/she very seldom uses this behavior with me,” 3 meant “He/she occasionally uses this behavior with me,” 4 meant “He/she uses this behavior with me moderately often,” and 5 meant “He/she uses this behav-ior very often with me.”
78 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 26(1)
Psychological Capital. We used Luthans et al.’s (2007) instru-ment consisting of 24 items (M = 2.26, SD = 0.42; α = .91). Example items are as follows: “If I should find myself in a jam at work, I could think of many ways to get out of it,” “When I have a setback at work, I have trouble recovering from it” (reversed item), “I always look on the bright side of things regarding my job,” and “I feel confident presenting information to a group of colleagues.” We used the same response scale as used in the original version of the ques-tionnaire, from 1 to 6 (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = somewhat disagree, 4 = somewhat agree, 5 = agree, 6 = strongly agree). The items were averaged to form the com-posite scale.
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. We used Lee and Allen’s (2002) 16-item OCB questionnaire. Participants’ supervi-sors completed the items on a scale from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Eight items such as “Helps others who have been absent” measured OCBI (M = 3.44, SD = 0.65; α = .82) and eight items such as “Attends functions that are not required but that help the organizational image” measured OCBO (M = 3.44, SD = 0.62; α = .79).
Counterproductive Work Behaviors. We used the 10-item scale by Spector, Bauer, and Fox (2010) to assess the CWBs. For each participant, a colleague responded to these items, on a scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (every day). Five items such as “Insulted or made fun of someone at work” were used to measure CWBI (M = 2.58, SD = 0.58; α = .53) and five items such as “Stayed home from work and said they were sick when they weren’t,” were used to measure CWBO (M = 2.59, SD = 0.60; α = .57). The Cronbach’s alphas are relatively low, but item-rest correlations suggested that there were no particularly poor-performing items.
Results
Measurement Model Analysis and Common Method Variance
We examined our six-factor (abusive supervision, PsyCap, OCBI, OCBO, CWBI, and CWBO) measurement model in a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and constructed sev-eral comparison models. Scale items were used as indica-tors of the latent variables and we allowed the latent variables to correlate. The hypothesized six-factor model fit the data well, χ2 = 2115.66, df = 2,000, p = .036, compara-tive fit index (CFI) = .984, incremental fit index (IFI) = .984, Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) = .983, root mean score error of approximation (RMSEA) = .012. The hypothesized model also compared favorably to a three-factor model in which the variables were combined according to the source of the data (one factor for abusive supervision and PsyCap, a second factor for OCBO and OCBI, and a third factor for
CWBI and CWBO), χ2 = 2948.93, df = 2,013, p < .001, CFI = .872, IFI = .873, TLI = .867, RMSEA = .034, and, Δχ2 = 833.27, Δdf = 13, p < .001.
We tested three other comparison models. In the first, four factors were created whereby the first factor was abu-sive supervision, the second was PsyCap, the third factor combined OCBI and OCBO, and the fourth combined CWBI and CWBO. The fit of this model, χ2 = 2126.32, df = 2,009, p = .034, CFI = .984, IFI = .984, TLI = .983, RMSEA = .012, was not significantly worse than that of the hypothesized model, Δχ2 = 10.66, Δdf = 9, p = .300, which suggests that the OCBs and the CWBs might also be considered to constitute two factors, rather than four. To examine whether this was more pronounced for the OCBs than for the CWBs (or vice versa), we tested two five-fac-tor models wherein either the OCBs or the CWBs repre-sented one factor, while the other represented two factors. A model distinguishing the two forms of OCB, but not dis-tinguishing the two forms of CWB, did not provide a better or worse fit than the hypothesized six-factor model, χ2 = 2116.82, df = 2,005, p = .041, CFI = .985, IFI = .985, TLI = .984, RMSEA = .012, and Δχ2 = 1.16, Δdf = 5, p = .950. A model distinguishing the two forms of CWB, but not dis-tinguishing the two forms of OCB showed only slightly, but not significantly, worse fit than the hypothesized model, χ2 = 2125.18, df = 2,005, p = .031, CFI = .984, IFI = .984, TLI = .983, RMSEA = .012, and Δχ2 = 9.52, Δdf = 5, p = .090. All in all, the models that distinguish between the two forms of OCB and the two forms of CWB exhib-ited no significantly worse (but also no better) fit than the models not making such distinctions. Given the theoretical distinction between the variables, we continued our analy-ses using the four separate variables.
We examined whether common method variance (CMV) might be an issue in our data (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). First, the results of a principal components analysis that was set to extract one factor indicated that one factor explained 22.94% of the variance. Second, the hypothesized six-factor model com-pared favorably with a model in which all items loaded onto one factor, χ2 = 3970.35, df = 2,015, p < .001, CFI = .732, IFI = .734, TLI = .723, RMSEA = .049, and Δχ2 = 1854.69, Δdf = 15, p < .001.
Third, we conducted another CFA with a latent CMV factor added to our hypothesized six-factor model, χ2 = 2002.85, df = 1,936, p = .142, CFI = .991, IFI = .991, TLI = .990, RMSEA = .009, which fit the data better than the hypothesized model, Δχ2 = 112.81, Δdf = 64, p < .001. However, a comparison of the standardized regression coefficients for the hypothesized model versus those for the latent CMV factor model indicated that the difference between the coefficients in only one item was larger than 0.200. These analyses suggest that CMV was not a major concern.
Ahmad et al. 79
Analytic Strategy and Hypothesis Tests
The 408 academics were supervised by 26 supervisors. While this suggests, it may be important to examine, whether multilevel analysis is justified (e.g., separating leader-level effects and individual-level effects), abusive supervision is considered an individual-level construct (Tepper, 2000). An analysis of the variance in abusive supervision that could be attributed to the leader level showed the intraclass correlation to be 0.006%, and, F(25, 382) = 1.10, p = .342, indicating abusive supervision should not be aggregated.
Individual cases are nested, nevertheless. We control for this with dummy variables as doing so enables dealing with a potential limitation of the study design, which is that we were unable to collect demographic data from supervisors. An analysis that includes dummy variables for the supervi-sors provides a conservative test in terms of controlling for supervisor characteristics, as any variance associated with constructs that vary at the supervisor level is systematically partialed out. We did this instead of a random intercept because we had no other way to control for supervisor char-acteristics, yet this also captures all variance associated with the supervisor level and a random intercept would thus not add anything. Given our sample size, the reduction in statistical power due to these dummy variables was assumed not to be dramatic. We also tested these same models using a random intercept and the results were the same up to three decimals of the coefficients.
Table 1 presents descriptive statistics of the theoretical variables and the zero-order correlations and Table 2 pro-vides an overview of different sets of hypotheses tests. We conducted analyses without control variables, with gender and age of the employees, and, finally, with gender and age as control variables and while including the dummy variables for the supervisors (as age was assessed with five categories,
four dummy variables were modelled). We examined the dif-ferent relations involved in the hypothesized mediation and we statistically tested for mediation by employing the Monte Carlo (bootstrapping) technique implemented by Preacher and Hayes (2004), using 5,000 resamples and 95% confi-dence intervals, and examining whether confidence intervals included zero. Regardless of the type of control variables included, the results are highly consistent (see Table 2). To illustrate, we explain the results of the analyses that were conducted without control variables.
PsyCap. Supporting Hypothesis 1, abusive supervision was significantly negatively related to PsyCap. Β = −0.44, SE
Β
= 0.03, β = −.62, t(406) = −15.87, p < .001.
OCBI. Abusive supervision negatively related to OCBI, Β = −0.43, SE
Β = 0.05, β = −.39, t(406) = −8.49, p < .001. When
including PsyCap as an additional predictor, PsyCap posi-tively related to OCBI, Β = 0.80, SE
Β = 0.08, β = .51, t(405)
= 9.76, p < .001, and the link between abusive supervision and OCBI was no longer significant, Β = −0.08, SE
Β = 0.06,
β = −.07, t(405) = −1.37, p = .173. Bootstrapping analysis indicated support for Hypothesis 2, that PsyCap mediates the relation between abusive supervision and OCBI: the indirect effect was Β = −0.35, SE
Β = 0.04; the confidence
interval did not include zero [−.44, −.27].
OCBO. Abusive supervision negatively related to OCBO, Β = −0.40, SE
Β = 0.05, β = −.37, t(406) = −8.06, p < .001.
When including PsyCap as an additional predictor, PsyCap positively related to OCBO, Β = 0.75, SE
Β = 0.08, β = .50,
t(405) = 9.38, p < .001, and the link between abusive super-vision and OCBO was no longer significant, Β = −0.07, SE
Β
= 0.06, β = −.08, t(405) = −1.18, p = .241. Bootstrapping indicated support for Hypothesis 3, that PsyCap mediates the relation between abusive supervision and OCBO: the indirect effect was Β = −0.33, SE
Β = 0.04; the confidence
interval did not include zero [−.41, −.25].
CWBI. Abusive supervision positively related to CWBI, Β = 0.21, SE
Β = 0.05, β = .21, t(406) = 4.26, p < .001. When
including PsyCap as an additional predictor, PsyCap nega-tively related to CWBI, Β = −0.68, SE
Β = 0.08, β = −.49,
t(405) = −8.64, p < .001, and the link between abusive supervision and CWBI was no longer significant, Β = −0.10, SE
Β = 0.06, β = −.10, t(405) = −1.71, p = .089. Boot-
strapping analysis indicated support for Hypothesis 4, that PsyCap mediates the relation between abusive supervision and CWBI: the indirect effect was, Β = 0.30, SE
Β = 0.04; the
confidence interval did not include zero [.23, .39].
CWBO. Abusive supervision positively related to CWBO, Β = 0.27, SE
Β = 0.05, β = .26, t(406) = 5.43, p < .001. When
including PsyCap as an additional predictor, PsyCap
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Zero-Order Correlations Between the Theoretical Study Variables.
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Abusive supervision
1.69 0.58 −.90
2. Psychological capital
2.26 0.42 −.62 −.91
3. OCBI 3.44 0.65 −.39 −.56 −.82 4. OCBO 3.44 0.62 −.37 −.54 −.82 −.79 5. CWBI 2.58 0.58 −.21 −.43 −.12 −.10 −.53 6. CWBO 2.59 0.60 −.26 −.50 −.21 −.20 −.47 −.57
Note. OCBI = individual-directed organizational citizenship behavior; OCBO = organization-directed organizational citizenship behavior; CWBI = individual-directed counterproductive work behavior; CWBO = organization-directed counterproductive work behavior.Cronbach’s alphas presented in bold.rs ≥ .20, ps < .001; rs ≥ .10, ps < .05.
80 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 26(1)
negatively related to CWBO, Β = −0.78, SEΒ = 0.08, β =
−.54, t(405) = −9.93, p < .001, and the link between abusive supervision and CWBO was no longer significant, Β = −0.08, SE
Β = 0.06, β = −.08, t(405) = −1.39, p = .165. Boot-
strapping indicated support for Hypothesis 5, that PsyCap mediates the relation between abusive supervision and CWBO: the indirect effect was Β = 0.34, SE
Β = 0.04; the
confidence interval did not include zero [.27, .43].Overall, abusive supervision showed significant direct
relationships with all four outcomes variables (see Table 2). It may be further noted that the links to OCBs were consis-tently stronger than those for CWBs, although all were sig-nificant. Nevertheless, all four relationships became nonsignificant when including the mediator in the model, suggesting full mediation for all outcomes.
Auxiliary: Explorative Results
Although we explicitly hypothesized PsyCap as being a mediator, our argumentation based on the resource perspec-tive also could be interpreted as implying that PsyCap might be a moderator (see Cunningham et al., 2013). First, techni-cally that is, mediation implies also that the absence of the mediator would prevent the effect of the independent vari-able on the outcome variable from occurring. Second, indi-viduals’ PsyCap is influenced by many sources of which abusive supervision is just one. On a theoretical level, it is possible that individuals might be able to deal better with abusive supervision if they accrue resources from other sources. The same variable being a mediator and a modera-tor is problematic; however, since in the theoretical case of full mediation, any effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable is explained by the mediator—including any moderated effect. This is only in the theoretical case, however.
Although one would ideally have an additional vari-able to model mediator and moderator separately, there might be a statistical way to get an initial indication of whether moderation is also present, without jeopardizing
any conclusions about mediation. That is, both mediation and moderation may be true at the same time but apply to different elements of PsyCap. What would be required to explore this possibility would be a version of PsyCap that is cleaned of the variance explained by abusive supervi-sion. To that end, we conducted a regression analysis of PsyCap on abusive supervision and retained the residual variance in PsyCap as a new variable. Hence, this new variable is not associated at all with abusive supervision. The standardized version of this variable, the standard-ized version of abusive supervision, and the interaction between the two, were then entered in a moderated mul-tiple regression analysis as predictors of the four dependent variables.
The interactions were significant for OCBI, Β = 0.13, SE = 0.03, β = .19, t(404) = 4.34, p < .001, and for OCBO, Β = 0.13, SE = 0.03, β = .20, t(404) = 4.47, p < .001, but not for CWBO, Β = 0.01, SE = 0.03, β = .01, t(404) = 0.30, p = .766 and not for CWBI, Β = −0.02, SE = 0.03, β = −.03, t(404) = −0.66, p = .511. Figure 2 provides the graphical interaction for OCBI, and it may be noted that almost the identical pattern holds for OCBO.
Discussion
The purpose of this research was to examine a resource per-spective on the extra-role behaviors associated with abusive supervision. To that end, we tested whether the relations of abusive supervision, on the one hand, with OCBI, OCBO, CWBI, and CWBO, on the other hand, were mediated by subordinates’ PsyCap—a composite individual resource characteristic consisting of the combination of hope, opti-mism, resilience, and self-efficacy. The findings from our study, comprising more than 400 academic staff members, ratings from their supervisors (on OCBI and OCBO) and ratings from their peers (on CWBI and CWBO), supported these hypotheses.
From a resource perspective (Hobfoll, 1989), we argued that the lack of control and the need to emotionally cope
Table 2. Total Effects, Direct Effects, Indirect Effects, and Tests of Mediation Using Bootstrapped Monte Carlo CIs on All Dependent Variables and With Different Sets of Control Variables.
No control variables Age and gender Age, gender, leader-level dummy variables
OCBI OCBO CWBI CWBO OCBI OCBO CWBI CWBO OCBI OCBO CWBI CWBO
X → Y −.43 (.05) −.40 (.05) −.20 (.05) −.27 (.05) −.45 (.05) −.40 (.05) −.20 (.05) −.26 (.05) −.45 (.05) −.40 (.05) −.18 (.05) −.26 (.05)X → M −.44 (.03) −.44 (.03) −.44 (.03) −.44 (.03) −.44 (.03) −.44 (.03) −.44 (.03) −.44 (.03) −.43 (.03) −.43 (.03) −.43 (.03) −.43 (.03)M(X) → Y −.80 (.08) .74 (.08) −.68 (.08) −.78 (.08) −.79 (.08) .73 (.08) −.69 (.08) −.79 (.08) −.82 (.09) −.74 (.08) −.70 (.08) −.78 (.09)X(M) → Y −.08 (.06) −.07 (.06) −.10 (.06) −.08 (.06) −.10 (.06) −.08 (.06) −.11 (.06) −.09 (.06) −.10 (.06) −.09 (.06) −.12 (.06) −.08 (.06)Indirect −.35 (.04) −.33 (.04) −.30 (.04) −.34 (.04) −.35 (.04) −.32 (.04) −.31 (.04) −.35 (.04) −.35 (.04) −.32 (.04) .30 (.04) .33 (.04)95% CI [–.44, –.27] [–.41, –.25] [.23, .39] [.27, .43] [–.44, –.27] [–.41, –.24] [.23, .39] [.27, .44] [–.44, –.27] [–.40, –.24] [.22, .39] [.25, .42]
Note. OCBI = individual-directed organizational citizenship behavior; OCBO = organization-directed organizational citizenship behavior; CWBI = individual-directed counterproductive work behavior; CWBO = organization-directed counterproductive work behavior; CI = confidence interval. Standard errors of the estimated coefficients are included in brackets. Coefficients in bold are significant at p < .001 at the least. None of the other coefficients were significant (ps < .05). M(X) → indicates the effect of PsyCap on the dependent variable while abusive supervision is included in the analysis; X(M) →Y indicates the effect of abusive supervision on the dependent variable while PsyCap is included in the analysis.
Ahmad et al. 81
with abusive supervisory behavior would result in reduced OCBI and OCBO and would result in increased CWBI and CWBO. The necessity to cope with stressors in the environ-ment, in this case abusive supervision, prompts individuals to minimize the loss of resources. This can be done by engaging less in those behaviors that require extra effort and that also cost resources, such as OCBI and OCBO. Similarly, venting in a negative way about the organization or actually trying to cope with resource depletion by taking longer breaks and so forth (CWBO) may also be a result. Furthermore, acting out—not necessarily in retaliation—but out of frustration and anger, toward one’s colleagues (CWBI) is another likely consequence of stress and resource loss. The finding that PsyCap mediates the links between abusive supervision and these beneficial and detrimental extra-role behaviors provides support for this reasoning and, more generally, supports a resource perspective on abusive supervision.
Theoretical Implications
One contribution of this research is the testing of an addi-tional process underlying the outcomes of abusive supervi-sion. Although it should be acknowledged that we are not the first to bring up this resource explanation (Harris et al., 2007; Kacmar et al., 2013), and that research has modeled other related variables such as strain and burnout (e.g., Carlson et al., 2012), we believe specifically examining the state-like resource variable of PsyCap adds to this litera-ture because it suggests something may be done about this detrimental process by intervening. While we explicitly sought to test that PsyCap mediates the outcomes of
abusive supervision, our logic also allows for a moderation hypothesis (see Cunningham et al., 2013; Li et al., 2016). At first glance, one may be skeptical about the same vari-able being treated as a mediator and as a moderator, but a broader resource perspective would indicate that both are reasonable as not all resources are associated with supervi-sion. Individuals accrue resources from other sources as well, and those individuals who do so might be better able to cope with abusive supervision. That is, mediation implies that the absence of the process variable prevents the outcome from occurring. This also can be tested by removing the process and observing that the outcome does not occur even in the presence of the independent variable. Indeed, Cunningham et al. (2013) explicitly noted that PsyCap was a moderator of the outcomes of abusive super-vision and our explorative analyses are in most cases aligned with their proposal.
It should nevertheless be acknowledged that there are potential alternative explanations. For instance, people may experience resource loss as an injustice (cf., Tepper, 2000), which then further brings about the consequences of abu-sive supervision. Moreover, a reciprocity explanation seems to us better suited as an underlying mechanism for certain, even more aggressive, behaviors that we did not examine. For instance, such behaviors as theft, which harm the bot-tom line of an organization, may not so straightforwardly be linked to a resource perspective. These behaviors seem much more retaliatory than they are compensatory. It is interesting to note, in this regard, that PsyCap, in our explor-ative analysis, did not moderate the links between abusive supervision and the CWBs. This could be taken to imply tentative indication that other processes than resources are more important in these more retaliatory behaviors. Nevertheless, the current research suggests that a broader model of the abusive supervisory process may be fruitful and should, perhaps, include different pathways in the occurrence of different types of outcomes. As such, this research contributes to a deeper understanding of the mech-anisms associated with abusive supervision.
This study found that abusive supervision is positively related to CWBI and CWBO, and that it is also negatively related to OCBI and OCBO. This wholly aligns with the literature and corroborates previous findings using a strong methodology in which the dependent variables were gath-ered in a time-lagged design from nonself-report sources. The current study adds to the literature on the association between abusive supervision and its outcomes. Also, the current findings add to the literature on abusive supervision by examining this phenomenon in a large and non-Western sample; doing so adds to the generalizability of the theoreti-cal model and responds to a call for studies on abusive supervision from different cultures (see Kernan, Watson, Chen, & Kim, 2011; Mackey, Frieder, Brees, & Martinko, 2017). This study also adds to knowledge about the
Figure 2. The element in PsyCap that is not affected by abusive supervision as a moderator of the link between abusive supervision and OCBI.Note. OCBI = individual-directed organizational citizenship behavior; PsyCap = psychological capital.
82 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 26(1)
association between abusive supervision and CWBI and CWBO. Quite a few studies support a link between abusive supervision and different forms of CWB (e.g., Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007) but most of these studies have utilized self-reported CWB, deviance, or resistance. Only one or two exceptions in which supervisor ratings of deviance at the group level (Mawritz, Mayer, Hoobler, Wayne, & Marinova, 2012) or peer ratings (Harvey, Harris, Gillis, & Martinko, 2014) have been used for CWB. The use of peer ratings for CWBI and CWBO as in the current research may thus pro-vide strong support for the association between abusive supervision and CWBI and CWBO.
Finally, this research contributes to the literature on PsyCap. The construct of PsyCap implies that individuals can develop this resource. Indeed, research has tested inter-ventions and human resource development practices that effectively increase individuals’ PsyCap (Luthans, Avey, Avolio, Norman, & Combs, 2006; Luthans, Avey, Avolio, & Peterson, 2010; Luthans, Avey, et al., 2008; Luthans, Vogelgesang, & Lester, 2006) and has found that positive leadership behaviors and positive supportive organizational climates may increase it (Gooty et al., 2009; Luthans, Norman, et al., 2008). The other implication is that contex-tual influences may decrease PsyCap, but research on this particular implication is limited (see L. Liu et al., 2012). The current research contributes, accordingly, to the valid-ity of the notion that PsyCap is a resource that can be changed by outside influences. More specifically, however, keeping in mind that our research design does not allow to make claims about causality, it also shows that individuals’ PsyCap may be susceptible to negative influences such as abusive supervision.
Practical Implications
OCBI and OCBO comprise some of the extra effort that individuals might exert at work, significantly benefitting overall organizational functioning. In contrast, CWBI and CWBO can severely harm the organization’s culture and its bottom line and can affect others in the organization in neg-ative ways (Dunlop & Lee, 2004). The current research underscores the severity of the problems associated with abusive supervision in relation to these extra-role behav-iors. The first and foremost implication is, thus, that organi-zations need to detect and minimize the occurrence of abusive supervisory behavior.
Providing insight into the process of resources that may partly underlie the outcomes of abusive supervision may also suggest practical implications. That is, if a resource perspective on this matter is considered, then it also follows that individuals might be able to compensate for these in different, more constructive ways. While the most impor-tant factor is perhaps to attempt to prevent abusive behavior
in the first place, this might not always, and for everyone, be preventable. Individuals and organization might be advised to attempt to develop, and support development of, resources such as PsyCap through other means, which may allow employees to deal better with an abusive supervisor. That is, PsyCap training may be able to enhance individu-als’ PsyCap (e.g., Luthans, Avey, et al., 2008), which could, in turn, buffer the effect of variables such as abusive super-vision. Since abusive supervision is an individual-level per-ception, it may be difficult to detect objectively whether someone is experiencing abusive supervision. Training employees to identify issues themselves, and offering ways of increasing employee PsyCap from other sources such as training might allow individuals who perceive their super-visor as abusive, to deal to some extent with the conse-quences. Our explorative moderation analyses provide some support for the notion that variance in PsyCap not associated with abusive supervision could mitigate its out-comes. Hence, individuals might actively seek for other sources of PsyCap, or training and workshops might be used to help individuals in developing PsyCap resources (see Luthans, Avey, et al., 2008), which could, in turn, help individuals to buffer against the detrimental impact of abu-sive supervision.
PsyCap is a predictor of a range of beneficial affective and performance outcomes (Avey et al., 2011). The current research focused on a set of behaviors that have far- reaching consequences for organizational functioning. Nevertheless, the finding that the relation between abusive supervision and these outcomes may be partly driven by PsyCap suggests that the effects of abusive supervision may likewise be extremely far reaching. The results therefore underscore the importance of combating this negative abu-sive supervision in the work place.
Strengths and Limitations
While this study has several strengths, there are certainly also several limitations. One limitation may be that abusive supervision and PsyCap were rated by the same person. This is a limitation that may be impossible to overcome. Abusive supervision is considered an individual perception and should, accordingly, be rated by the subordinate. The same holds true for people’s PsyCap, which refers to their internal sense of their ability to do something successfully at work. Separating the measurements across time would not have dealt with this, as the source of ratings would still be the same. In this sense, it may be important to note that (although a posteriori) the CFAs indicated that CMV was not a major concern. However, this aspect of the design means we are unable to provide causal claims and the con-clusion of causal mediation should therefore be made with caution.
Ahmad et al. 83
This limitation may be partly offset by the fact that other sources of data were used for the dependent variables. We used peer-ratings for CWBI and CWBO, and supervisors for OCBI and OCBO. The usage of such sources can be considered an important strength of this research and yields confidence that the relations between the independent and dependent variables are solid. In any case, they do not seem to be based on common source bias. However, this strength of the current research does not deal with issues of causality, which is still a matter on which we cannot draw conclusions. On the one hand, it may seem that PsyCap is rather an antecedent of performance outcomes than an out-come of performance, which implies that including PsyCap lends some credence to the directionality of our hypothe-ses. In support of this, Luthans, Avey, et al. (2008) studied the relationship between PsyCap and performance out-comes where the variables were separated in time, which at least lends some support for the temporal order of the occurring variables. On the other hand, it is certainly pos-sible that dysfunctional employee behaviors (or low levels of resources) give rise to abusive supervisory behaviors. However, while this could explain the relationships involv-ing OCBI and OCBO, this is a less plausible alternative explanation for the CWBI and CWBO relations That is, these are particularly behaviors that supervisors might not be able to observe very clearly in that employees will hide these behaviors from supervisors. Moreover, when we con-sider the chain of variables together, reverse causality becomes less plausible for the mediation chain. The notion that performance of employees affects supervisory behav-iors through the perceptions of employees that their own resources are low, is far less logical from a theoretical point of view. While our model logically builds on theory, it is nevertheless not possible to provide causal claims without establishing both temporal and experimental evidence. Finally, while we did not find evidence for common method bias, we note that the correlation between abusive supervi-sion and PsyCap was sizable.
Another limitation of the study is the data collection from academic staff working in universities. The academic organizational structures have unique cultures (with shared governance, faculty who have significant autonomy) as compared with business organizations, which yield findings that could potentially be unique and not broadly generaliz-able. While this element may limit generalizability, it is also interesting to consider it as a salutary element of this research. That is, even in a context in which there might be a relatively higher degree of autonomy, abusive supervision still has a noticeable, detrimental association with impor-tant outcomes.
With regard to the peer-ratings of CWBs, it could be the cases that our method of randomly selecting peer-raters introduced a certain level of measurement inaccuracy in the
form of error. That is, while these peers were selected ran-domly, with the criterion that they should work at the department for more than 5 years, we did not control for how well they knew the focal participant or other indicators of proximity. Another choice could have been to let focal participants themselves choose peers of a certain level of proximity, but allowing them to do so would, in contrast, rather introduce bias. Focal participants are likely to select peers whom they think will provide a positive image of them, yielding positively biased ratings for all participants. Hence, we suggest our choice for selection of the peers by the researchers was the reasonable choice.
Finally, Fox, Spector, Goh, and Bruursema (2007) inves-tigated the convergence between self-ratings and coworker ratings of CWBs. They found little convergence for CWBO, but at the same time they also found that stressor variables predicted both self-ratings of CWBO and peer ratings of CWBO. This implies that both sources could be capturing important elements of this behavior, but that it is unclear which source is addressing which element, or whether one is more accurate than the other. To give an example, only the individual self has completely accurate knowledge about whether they were really sick when they stayed home, so that peers might need to use other sources of information to infer whether individuals were really sick. This implies a limitation of the current research in that the ratings by peers, on CWBO may be inaccurate to some extent, or biased by other variables associated with the peers’ relationship to the participants. Overall, however, the use of different sources, and the examination of several different criterion variables simultaneously, may be seen as salutary characteristics of this study.
Future Research
Taking into accounts the above limitations, the results sug-gest that PsyCap may play a mediating role between abu-sive supervision and employee extra-role behaviors. In doing so, this research opens up possibilities for examining a resource perspective on abusive supervision more deeply. The definition of abusive supervision implies that it is not a one-time behavior, but an enduring pattern. An important avenue for future research is, in that sense, to examine the abusive supervision process over time, and in particular from the point at which the relationship starts until the point at which it ends. For instance, when does abuse exactly become enduring and when does it become resource depleting?
Employees may generally cope with abusive supervision by limiting their resource expenditures in other areas, or by acting hostile out of frustration and anger. However, in many occupations, abuse may spillover into different domains as well. In occupations that involve relationships
84 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 26(1)
with clients and customers, it could be particularly interest-ing to examine underlying mechanisms. One might specu-late that there are many circumstances in which it does not make sense to show dysfunctional behavior toward clients or customers, as doing so would only harm one’s individual performance. Yet if resources are depleted, customer or cli-ent-oriented behaviors that only serve the individual’s own performance may still suffer. More generally, a broader theory of abusive supervision could perhaps include situa-tional moderators for its effect and for the mechanisms that drive such effects.
Given the state-like nature of the concept of PsyCap, it may be reasonable to suspect that people’s PsyCap also var-ies considerably over time, which is something we did not examine in the current research. Future research is thus needed to explicate the influence of variables such as abu-sive supervision on PsyCap and other resource variables, and particularly with regard to how incidents of abuse relate to temporary fluctuations in resources. In addition to creat-ing insight into PsyCap, such research may be important to better understand the enduring nature of abusive supervi-sion and the trajectories that might occur in the abusive supervision process over time.
PsyCap has been consistently shown to have a positive relationship with well-being-related variables (e.g., Avey, Luthans, & Jensen, 2009; , Luthans, Smith, & Palmer, 2010). Given that abusive supervision is detrimental to these types of outcomes, an extended model of abusive supervision and employee outcomes could include health and well-being-related variables in addition to the perfor-mance variables that we studied. Such a model could pro-vide further support for the importance of developing PsyCap in seeking to mitigate the consequences of abusive supervision and doing so would broaden the theoretical model in important ways.
Conclusion
Our study findings suggest that PsyCap mediates the rela-tionship between abusive supervision and discretionary behaviors such as OCBI, OCBO, and deviant behaviors such as CWBI and CWBO. When employees perceive abu-sive supervision at work it is associated with decreases in desirable extra-role behaviors (OCBs) and increases in undesirable, deviant work behaviors in the workplace (CWBs). Specifically, in relation to our main aim and research question, our results suggest that decreases in desirable employee behaviors and increases in undesirable employee behaviors can be attributed, at least in part, to the reduced resources (PsyCap) associated with experiencing abusive supervision. Not only does this provide an expla-nation for the outcomes of abusive supervision and a con-tribution to the knowledge of antecedents of PsyCap but
also tentatively suggest what can be practically done to deal with abusive supervision. Supported by the explor-ative moderation analyses, the results suggest that buffer-ing against the effects of abusive supervision might be served well by, for example through training, enabling the development of PsyCap.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD
Melvyn R. W. Hamstra https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0552-2006
References
Avey, J. B. (2014). The left side of psychological capital: New evi-dence on the antecedents of PsyCap. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21, 141-149.
Avey, J. B., Luthans, F., & Jensen, S. M. (2009). Psychological capital: A positive resource for combating employee stress and turnover. Human Resource Management, 48, 677-693.
Avey, J. B., Luthans, F., Smith, R. M., & Palmer, N. F. (2010). Impact of positive psychological capital on employee well-being over time. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15, 17-28.
Avey, J. B., Reichard, R. J., Luthans, F., & Mhatre, K. H. (2011). Meta-analysis of the impact of positive psychological capital on employee attitudes, behaviors, and performance. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 22, 127-152.
Carlson, D., Ferguson, M., Hunter, E., & Whitten, D. (2012). Abusive supervision and work–family conflict: The path through emotional labor and burnout. Leadership Quarterly, 23, 849-859.
Cunningham, Q. W., DiRenzo, M. S., & Mawritz, M. B. (2013, August). Abusive supervision and employee outcomes: The influence of psychological contract violation and psychologi-cal capital. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Conference 2013, Orlando, FL.
Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., Shaw, J. D., Johnson, J. L., & Pagon, M. (2006). The social context of undermining behav-ior at work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101, 105-126.
Dunlop, P. D., & Lee, K. (2004). Workplace deviance, organi-zational citizenship behavior, and business unit perfor-mance: The bad apples do spoil the whole barrel. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 67-80.
Epitropaki, O. (2013). Employment uncertainty and the role of authentic leadership and positive psychological capital. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2013, 10925. doi:10.5465/AMBPP.2013.10925abstract
Ahmad et al. 85
Fox, S., Spector, P. E., Goh, A., & Bruursema, K. (2007). Does your coworker know what you’re doing? Convergence of self-and peer-reports of counterproductive work behavior. International Journal of Stress Management, 14, 41-60.
Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Miles, D. (2001). Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in response to job stressors and orga-nizational justice: Some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 291-309.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in posi-tive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218-226.
Frieder, R. E., Hochwarter, W. A., & DeOrtentiis, P. S. (2015). Attenuating the negative effects of abusive supervision: The role of proactive voice behavior and resource management ability. Leadership Quarterly, 26, 821-837.
Gooty, J., Gavin, M., Johnson, P. D., Frazier, M. L., & Snow, D. B. (2009). In the eyes of the beholder transformational leader-ship, positive psychological capital, and performance. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15, 353-367.
Harris, K. J., Kacmar, K. M., & Zivnuska, S. (2007). An investi-gation of abusive supervision as a predictor of performance and the meaning of work as a moderator of the relationship. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 252-263.
Harvey, P., Harris, K. J., Gillis, W. E., & Martinko, M. J. (2014). Abusive supervision and the entitled employee. Leadership Quarterly, 25, 204-217.
Harvey, P., Stoner, J., Hochwarter, W., & Kacmar, C. (2007). Coping with abusive supervision: The neutralizing effects of ingratiation and positive affect on negative employee out-comes. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 264-280.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513-524.
Jian, Z., Kwan, H. K., Qiu, Q., Liu, Z. Q., & Yim, F. H. K. (2012). Abusive supervision and frontline employees’ service perfor-mance. Service Industries Journal, 32, 683-698.
Kacmar, K. M., Whitman, M. V., & Harris, K. J. (2013). The lingering impact of abusive supervision. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 18, 51-71.
Kernan, M. C., Watson, S., Chen, F. F., & Kim, T. G. (2011). How cultural values affect the impact of abusive supervi-sion on worker attitudes. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 18, 464-484.
Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 131-142.
Li, Y., Wang, Z., Yang, L. Q., & Liu, S. (2016). The crossover of psychological distress from leaders to subordinates in teams: The role of abusive supervision, psychological capi-tal, and team performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 21, 142-153.
Liu, L., Chang, Y., Fu, J., Wang, J., & Wang, L. (2012). The medi-ating role of psychological capital on the association between occupational stress and depressive symptoms among Chinese physicians: A cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health, 12, 219.
Liu, X. Y., & Wang, J. (2013). Abusive supervision and orga-nizational citizenship behaviour: Is supervisor–subordinate
guanxi a mediator? International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24, 1471-1489.
Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., Norman, S. M., & Combs, G. M. (2006). Psychological capital development: Toward a micro-intervention. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 387-393.
Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., & Peterson, S. J. (2010). The development and resulting performance impact of posi-tive psychological capital. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 21, 41-67.
Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., & Patera, J. L. (2008). Experimental anal-ysis of a web-based training intervention to develop positive psychological capital. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7, 209-221.
Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Avey, J. B., & Norman, S. M. (2007). Positive psychological capital: Measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 60, 541-572.
Luthans, F., Norman, S. M., Avolio, B. J., & Avey, J. B. (2008). The mediating role of psychological capital in the support-ive organizational climate—employee performance rela-tionship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 219-238.
Luthans, F., Vogelgesang, G. R., & Lester, P. B. (2006). Developing the psychological capital of resiliency. Human Resource Development Review, 5, 25-44.
Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2004). Human, social, and now positive psychological capital management: Investing in peo-ple for competitive advantage. Organizational Dynamics, 33, 143-160.
Mackey, J. D., Frieder, R. E., Brees, J. R., & Martinko, M. J. (2017). Abusive supervision: A meta-analysis and empirical review. Journal of Management, 43, 1940-1965.
Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Brees, J. R., & Mackey, J. (2013). A review of abusive supervision research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(Suppl. 1), S120-S137.
Mawritz, M. B., Mayer, D. M., Hoobler, J. M., Wayne, S. J., & Marinova, S. V. (2012). A trickle-down model of abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 65, 325-357.
Michie, S. (2002). Causes and management of stress at work. Occupational & Environmental Medicine, 59, 67-72.
Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reci-procity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1159-1168.
Nandkeolyar, A. K., Shaffer, J. A., Li, A., Ekkirala, S., & Bagger, J. (2014). Surviving an abusive supervisor: The joint roles of conscientiousness and coping strategies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 138-150.
Peterson, S. J., Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Zhang, Z. (2011). Psychological capital and employee per-formance: A latent growth modeling approach. Personnel Psychology, 64(2), 427-450.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended rem-edies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers, 36(4), 717-731.
86 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 26(1)
Schat, A. C., Frone, M. R., & Kelloway, E. K. (2006). Prevalence of workplace aggression in the U.S. workforce: Findings from a national study. In E. K. Kelloway, J. Barling, & J. J. Hurrell (Eds.), Handbook of workplace violence (pp. 47-89). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Spector, P. E. (1998). A control theory of the job stress process. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of organizational stress (pp. 153-169). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Spector, P. E., Bauer, J. A., & Fox, S. (2010). Measurement arti-facts in the assessment of counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior: Do we know what we think we know? Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 781-790.
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 178-190.
Tepper, B. J., Henle, C. A., Lambert, L. S., Giacalone, R. A., & Duffy, M. K. (2008). Abusive supervision and subordinates’ organiza-tion deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 721-732.
Xu, E., Huang, X., Lam, C. K., & Miao, Q. (2012). Abusive supervision and work behaviors: The mediating role of LMX. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 531-543.
Yagil, D., Ben-Zur, H., & Tamir, I. (2011). Do employees cope effectively with abusive supervision at work? An exploratory study. International Journal of Stress Management, 18, 5-23.
Youssef, C. M., & Luthans, F. (2007). Positive organizational behavior in the workplace: The impact of hope, optimism, and resilience. Journal of Management, 33, 774-800.
Author Biographies
Jawwad Ahmad is PhD scholar in University Institute of Management Sciences at Pir Mehr Ali Shah Arid Agriculture University. His research interests are workplace mistreatment, work family conflict, work attitudes, leadership and extra role behaviors.
Muhammad Razzaq Athar is an associate professor in University Institute of Management Sciences at Pir Mehr Ali Shah Arid Agriculture University. His research and teaching interest are employability, performance, training and development.
Rauf I Azam is vice chancellor in University of Education. His research and teaching interest are operational research, consumer behavior, organizational behavior and leadership.
Melvyn R. W. Hamstra is an assistant professor in Organizational Behavior at Maastricht University School of Business and Economics. His research and teaching interests are organizational learning, motivation and performance, and leadership.
Muhammad Hanif is an associate professor in Department of Mathematics & Statistics at Pir Mehr Ali Shah Arid Agriculture University. His area of research interests are statistical inference for stochastic processes, sampling techniques, data analysis and mathematical statistics.