1. Nawaz Sharif Medical College, Pakistan; maryammajeed536@gmail.com
2. Nawaz Sharif Medical College, Pakistan; rubabali096@gmail.com
3. Kinnaird College for Women University, Pakistan; aimen17032019@gmail.com
4. Nawaz Sharif Medical College, Pakistan; aqsajabeen@gmail.com

*             Correspondence: maryammajeed536@gmail.com

Keywords: workplace, bullying, medical staff, job performance

1. INTRODUCTION

Workplace bullying is a condition, when it be-comes difficult for an employee to defend himself/ herself against the harassment which he/ she is facing persistently over a prolonged period of time [1]. Unlike the other conditions of more incidental workplace mistreatment like physical violence and incivility, workplace bullying is not a single act of harassment, bothering, annoying, conflict or irritation, but it is an ongoing repeatedly psychological aggression where an employee finds it difficult to tolerate the abuse [2]. As it is a negative interpersonal behavior it originates when there is a formal or informal imbalance of power [3]. The victims of workplace bullying are faces uncertainty of their own ego, indivi-duality and value in these dangerous working environments including their psychological and physical discomfort [4]. The estimates show that the prevalence of workplace bullying is 15%, indicating that as many as 15% employees are exposed to some degree of workplace bullying in their lives [5]. It is justifiable from researches that workplace bullying increases the chances of decreased work performance, which may then affect the other outcomes of employees [6]. Many studies found that impaired mental and somatic health, post-traumatic stress disorder, job commitment and satisfaction, sickness absence & sleep problems are affected by workplace bullying [7-12]. If the victim tries to complain or make an effort to defend, is most probably met with attack or silence. Workplace bullying is seen as serious work-place violence since its recognition in 1980s [13]. There is a negative outcome of workplace bullying on employee’s work efficiency and quality leading to a huge damage to the organization and its growth [14-15]. For better understanding of workplace bullying and its impact on performance of employees, an updated knowledge is mandatory. This systematic review is aimed to find out the impact of workplace bullying on the performance of employees. This systematic review will help the policy makers and employers to get deep insight that how adversely their employee’s performance is affected by workplace bullying and which necessary are necessary to alleviate workplace bullying.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

Suggested reporting elements for meta-analyses and systemic reviews We used PRISMA checklist 2020 for data analysis and reporting. We looked through the PakMediNet, Pub Med, and Google Scholar databases. It limited the search to articles published between January 2013 and June 2023. A search was done on July 25, 2023. In every database, we employed these terms along with Boolean operators (job performance AND workplace bullying). The articles that were found through relevant database searches met the inclusion criteria listed below. Articles discussing the effects of workplace bullying on job performance as well as those published in the last ten years, worldwide, in the English language, and in cross-sectional studies and surveys are all included. The following pieces were not included. Articles whose full text versions were not accessible are likewise not included. The three writers separately reviewed the abstracts and titles in accordance with the eligibility requirements after eliminating duplicates. The following step was reading the entire content of the chosen articles. Three writers each read the chosen articles on their own. The other authors review the papers to confirm their eligibility in case of any doubt. Data Extraction: A PRISMA flow sheet was created and PRISMA standards were followed in order to extract the information. The selection criteria were followed in order to collect all pertinent data. The authors, publication dates, nation, area, study design, and sample size are all listed in the summary table. More particular information was provided regarding the organization’s data, performance evaluations, bullying assessments, and other outcomes and their relationships. The writers’ thorough over-review of the data chosen in the first phase was made easier by the table format.

3. RESULTS

The authors’ process for choosing the papers is depicted in Figure 1’s PRISMA flow diagram. Three databases were searched by the writers (Google Scholar. PakMediNet, PubMed, and MEDLINE) and found 1893 articles. The authors eliminated 131 duplicate entries from these initial records. After reviewing the abstracts and titles, we applied the following exclusion criteria to the total number of publications, bringing it down to 341. Publications written in languages other than English were likewise not included. After retrieving the remaining 308 articles in their entirety, 308 of them were ultimately read in full, and the last 10 articles that satisfied the inclusion requirements were chosen. Hospitals, clinics, healthcare organizations, sizable retail and wholesale businesses, manufacturing, education, banking, telecommunication, tour firms, and enterprises are among the organizations covered by these studies. Physicians, nurses, other hospital employees, businessmen, bankers, lab operators, educators, and workers from other industries are among the study participants and employees. Islamabad [20], Lahore [21], and Rawalpindi [25] are the locations of three of the included studies from Pakistan; Barbados [16] is one from the Caribbean region; Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, Philippines [17], Norway [18], Mid-Missouri, (USA) [19], New Zealand [22], and Tianjin, Jiangsu, and Hainan [24] & Kunming [23] are two from China. The negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised, which has 22 items, was used in seven of the included studies to assess bullying [16, 18–22]. The Customer Bullying Scale, created by Shao and Skarlicki (2014), was utilized in several studies as a single item with a definition [17] (18 items). [23], Einarsen et al. (2009), revised by Jiang et al. (2011), negative behavior questionnaire (4 questions) 24] & bullying at work measured with an instrument (43 items) developed by Brotheridge and Lee (2010) [25]. Various studies assessed job performance and other outcomes using varying scales. It was discovered from the included publications that bullying at work has a detrimental effect on job performance, either directly or indirectly.

4. DISCUSSION

The study’s findings demonstrate that bullying at work has a direct or indirect impact on workers’ ability to do their jobs well. This systematic review’s numerous investigations have demonstrated that modifiers are also involved in them. The relationship between workplace bullying and task performance is mediated by job satisfaction, according to Devonish D. (2013). The relationship between workplace bullying and organizational citizenship behavior is mediated by depression, and the relationship between workplace bullying and interpersonal counterproductive work behavior is mediated by both job satisfaction and depression [16]. These results are in line with earlier studies that discovered bullying at work as a stressor affects workers’ behavior at work, which can then cause unfavorable behaviors, anxiety/depression, unproductive work environments, and job dissatisfaction [26]. Positive acts were categorized into five clusters by Hewett R. et al. (2016): continuously targeted, regularly targeted, occasionally targeted, and not targeted. The first category included bullying related to the workplace. Upon conducting a direct analysis of the correlation between these negative acts, the clusters discovered that those who encountered more frequent negative acts reported poorer levels of performance and well-being. When they looked at the same relationship with “self-labeled as being bullied,” they discovered that higher performance was reported from persistent targets, and lower levels of well-being and performance were linked to those who reported experiencing more frequent negative acts [17]. This investigation is significant because it supports the earlier reasoning that negative workplace behaviors can be viewed as beneficial for employee development or performance enhancement, but only in circumstances where workers have confidence that such behaviors are not intentional or intended to cause them harm [27]. According to Oslen E. et al. (2017), workplace pressures, demands, and ethical quandaries might worsen job satisfaction and performance as well as raise the incidence of bullying18. Long-term bullying was shown to have a detrimental effect on workers’ health, which subsequently affected those workers’ performance in multiple ways [28]. According to Wright W et al. (2015), medical errors and bullying that is person-related have a substantial correlation with behavioral and psychological responses [19]. Research supports the idea that assigning extra work without acknowledgment lowers morale and causes job discontent, both of which have an impact on the quality of care [29]. A 2018 study by Naseer S et al. in Pakistan on two distinct groups found that bullying at work has an impact on job performance in one group but not the other [20]. The explanation for this lies in the disparity in authority within various cultural settings. Bullying occurs when there is a significant power imbalance, and victims start to accept it as usual. Therefore, it has no effect on how well they do at work. Furthermore, this study found that when bullying and job performance are examined with perceived organizational support acting as a moderator, different results are obtained. The presence of a moderator of perceived organizational support attenuates the inverse connection between bullying at work and job performance. This assertion aligns with the “conservation of resources theory,” which postulates that the possession of resources enables an individual to manage demands and mitigate unfavorable consequences. Bullying at work has no influence on job performance, but it does have a detrimental impact on job stress, according to a study done in the banking industry in Pakistan. Bullying at work can have a negative impact on employees’ physical or mental health, thus it cannot be fully disregarded [21]. Cooper-Thomas H. et al. (2013) came to the conclusion that anti-bullying initiatives taken by businesses reduce the negative effects of workplace bullying on their liability and well-being. In addition, they found that performance is less affected by bullying because of the perception of organizational support. Additionally, when there is no corporate support and there is high levels of bullying, employee performance suffers. In contrast, when organizational supports are successful, employee performance stayed the same at the same levels of bullying [22]. Organizations can thereby lessen the effects of bullying at work by implementing a less formal strategy for perceived organizational support. 2019’s Gao H et al. Research on the effects of bullying by customers on the job happiness and performance of employees in tourism companies revealed a negative correlation between the two; however, the influence is lessened when “job satisfaction” serves as a moderator with the other two variables. This study also shows that because internal locus of control employees have high degrees of self-awareness23, they are more likely to experience job dissatisfaction from clients bullying them. Ashraf F et al. (2013) likewise came to the conclusion that bullying of doctors at work has a negative impact on job performance. Additionally, they put out the intriguing new finding that workers with high emotional intelligence are better equipped to handle bullying and, as a result, perform better [25].

5. CONCLUSION

According to the study’s findings, bullying at work may have a direct or indirect effect on how well employees perform on the job, whether or not mediators are present. While a few investigations support the idea that workplace bullying actually improves employees’ work performance, the majority of studies found an adverse association between bullying and job performance. Therefore, additional investigation is needed in the future in various firms with diverse cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds in order to improve worker efficiency while maintaining optimal health.

REFERENCES

1. Rosander M, Blomberg S. Workplace bullying of immigrants working in Sweden. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. 2022;-33(14):2914-38.
2. Ferris PA, Deakin R, Mathieson S. Workplace bullying policies: A review of best practices and research on effectiveness. Handbooks of Work-place Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment. 2021;6(3):59–84.
3. Ahmad S. Can ethical leadership inhibit work-place bullying across East and west: Exploring cross-cultural Interactional Justice as a mediating mechanism. European Management Journal. 2018-;36(2):223–34.
4. Attell BK, Kummerow Brown K, Treiber LA. Workplace bullying, perceived job stressors, and psychological distress:Gender and race differences in the stress process. Social Science Research. 2017;65(4):210–21.
5. Nielsen MB, Matthiesen SB, Einarsen S. The impact of methodological moderators on preva-lence rates of workplace bullying. A meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psych-ology. 2010;83(4):955–79.
6. Sliter M, SLITER K, Jex S. The employee as a punching bag: The effect of multiple sources of incivility on employee withdrawal behavior and sales performance. Journal of Organizational Beh-avior. 2011;33(1):121–39.
7. Nielsen MB, Einarsen S. Outcomes of exposure to workplace bullying: A meta-analytic review. Work & Stress. 2012;26(4):309–32.
8. Afzal S, Ahmad M. Psychosocial Risk Factors Associated with Hypertension in Females of 18 –49 Years in a Community of Faisalabad. Annals of King Edward Medical University. 2012;18(1): 12.
9. Sana MK, Fatima A, Rafay A, Imran N. Professio-nalism in Hospitals: House Officers and Residents Understanding of Medical Professionalism. Annals of King Edward Medical University. 2020;26(2)-:353-8.
10. Sarah Rehman, Saira Rana & Mehru-Nisa. Knowledge, Influence of Factors, and Management Strategies among Family Members with Behavioral Conditions. Dinkum Journal of Medical Innovations, 2(03):79-84.
11. John Petter. Anti-Depressant Consumption, Patterns, Prevalence, and Risk Considerations among Women in the Fertile Age Range. Dinkum Journal of Medical Innovations, 2(03):85-90.
12. Rabia Saeed. Academic Honesty in Undergraduate Students in Pakistan. Dinkum Journal of Medical Innovations, 2(03):91-96.
13. Ayesha Nasir. Common Bacteria Involved in Fascial Space Infection and Antibiotics Sensitivity. Dinkum Journal of Medical Innovations, 2(03):97-110.
14. Maira Younas & Mehreen Younas. Rehabilitation of Venous Ulcers in Individuals Undergoing the Trendelenburg Technique as Opposed to Trendelenburg with Stab Avulsion. Dinkum Journal of Medical Innovations, 2(03):111-119.
15. Hewett R, Liefooghe A, Visockaite G, Roongrerngsuke S. Bullying at work: Cognitive appraisal of negative acts, coping, wellbeing, and performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 2018;23(1):71–84.
16. Olsen E, Bjaalid G, Mikkelsen A. Work climate and the mediating role of workplace bullying rela-ted to job performance, job satisfaction, and work ability: A study among hospital nurses. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2017;73(11):2709–19.
17. Wright W, Khatri N. Bullying among nursing staff: Relationship with psychological/ behavioral responses of nurses and medical errors: Health Care Management Review. 2015; 40(2): 139-47.
18. Naseer S, Raja U, Syed F, Bouckenooghe D. Com-bined effects of workplace bullying and perceived organizational support on employee behaviors: Does resource availability help? Anxiety, Stress, & Coping. 2018;31(6):654–68.
19. Robert F. Impact of workplace bullying on job performance and job stress. Journal of Manage-ment Info. 2018;5(3):12–5.
20. Cooper‐Thomas H, Gardner D, O’Driscoll M, Catley B, Bentley T, Trenberth L. Neutralizing workplace bullying: The buffering effects of conte-xtual factors. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 2013;28(4):384–407.
21. Gao H, Feng Z, Zhao Z. The impact of customer bullying on employees’ job performance: The locus of control as a moderating effect. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade. 2019;57(5):1333–48.
22. Wu M, He Q, Imran M, Fu J. Workplace bullying, anxiety, and job performance: Choosing between “Passive resistance” or “swallowing the insult”? Frontiers in Psychology. 2020;10(1):2953.
23. Ashraf F, Khan MA. Does emotional intelligence moderate the relationship between workplace bull-ying and job performance? Asian Business & amp; Management. 2013;13(2):171–90.
24. Hutchinson M, Wilkes L, Jackson D, Vickers MH. Integrating individual, Work Group and organiz-ational factors: Testing a multidimensional model of bullying in the nursing workplace. Journal of Nursing Management. 2010;18(2):173–81.
25. Samnani AK, Singh P, Ezzedeen S. Workplace Bullying and employee performance: An attribu-tional model. Organizational Psychology Review. 2013;3(4):337–59.
26. Parzefall MR, Salin DM. Perceptions of and reactions to workplace bullying: A Social Exc-hange Perspective. Human Relations. 2010;63-(6):761–80.
27. Cleary M, Hunt GE, Horsfall J. Identifying and addressing bullying in nursing. Issues in Mental Health Nursing. 2010;31(5):331–5.
28. Power JL, Brotheridge CM, Blenkinsopp J, Bowes-Sperry L, Bozionelos N, Buzády Z, et al. Acceptability of workplace bullying: A compar-ative study on six continents. Journal of Business Research. 2013;66(3):374–8.