Journal of Applied Economics and Business Studies, Volume.4, Issue 3 (2020) 15-54 https://doi.org/10.34260/jaebs.442

Journal of Applied Economics
and Business Studies (JAEBS)

Journal homepage: https://pepri.edu.pk/jaebs

ISSN (Print): 2523-2614

ISSN (Online) 2663-693X

Suffering Silence While Exposed to Workplace Bullying:

The Role of Psychological Contract Violation,

Benevolent Behavior and Positive Psychological Capital

Namra Jamshaid1* & Sadia Arshad2
1Research Scholar at Kinnaird College for Women University, Lahore, Pakistan
2 Lecturer at Kinnaird College for Women University, Lahore, Pakistan

ABSTRACT

Becoming impediment to organizational functioning in several ways, the

prevalence of workplace bullying costs much to organizations. As in the

current transition phase of Pakistan, the intentions to leave doesn’t manifest
in actual turnover rates. Hence the current study is conducted to analyze

the passive coping strategies of employees in the face of workplace bullying.

It is theorized that the relationship is mediated by psychological contract
violation. Moreover, it is predicted that the process of mediation is stronger

for individuals who report high levels of benevolent behavior and perceives
psychological capital to be low.

Data is collected from 359 young doctors and nurses of three government

administered hospitals. Results indicate a significant bullying-silence
relationship where psychological contract violation plays a role of partial

mediator. Moreover, benevolence and PsyCap are powerful moderators to
alter the already established relationship. Conclusions of the current study

are further elaborated in terms of their practical contribution and future

directions. Workplace bullying is an organizational reality. Hence efforts to
make an entire bullying-free environment is next to impossible. So, in

addition to make an effort in ending up this maltreatment, managers must

limit its consequences by understanding its dynamics. Reduce the bullying

culture and save precious resources i.e. potential employees.

Keywords
Workplace

Bullying,

Psychological

Contract

Violation

(PCV),

Benevolent

Behavior,

Employee

Silence,

Positive

Psychological

Capital

(PsyCap)

1. Introduction

A consequential concern faced by contemporary working environments is the event

of maltreatment in work settings. Representing a major HR issue provided its antagonist

influence on career outcomes, productivity of targets or even the witness [(Salin, 2013)

* namrajamshaid95@gmail.com

Namra Jamshaid & Sadia Arshad

validates the impact of workplace bullying beyond the perpetrator-target relationship,

whereas Salin and Notelaers (2020) observes a significant difference in work-related

attitudes of bystanders, who witness uncivil behavior and subsequently develop the

feelings of betrayal and anger. Hence, it supports the notion of negatively impacting

witnesses], the evolvement of the concept has reached a degree where it has been

identified and recognized as one of the hot topics in the field of management and

organizational psychology of 21st century. Following the issue, a major challenge

remains for the HR professionals in the development of strategies, procedures and

processes required in resolving such profoundly perplexing and strenuous events where

management of its consequences which perhaps takes the form of bad morale and

turnover of the victim stands in question. (Fox & Cowan, 2015).

While taking various forms, a processual and escalating exposure to predominantly

psychological mistreatment makes target tough to retaliate in kind normally due to the

power disparity amidst the perpetrator and victim. (Einarsen et al., 2011). As reported,

97% individuals experience some kind of psychological mistreatment in their entire

work experience (Fox & Stallworth, 2005). As establishing cut off points between

occasional adverse encounters and actual bullying is hard, academic literature, surveys

and reports all indicate the rise in the rate of occurrence of workplace bullying in recent

years (e.g., 27%, Workplace Bullying Institute Survey, 2014) and hence its

pervasiveness makes it a global phenomenon to warrant researcher and practitioner

attention.

The rate of global unemployment, according to International Labor Office ((ILO),

2019) hit a historic high of 170 million, as well its increase is anticipated in the near

future. Chung and Van Oorschot (2010) proves that the economic and labor market

conditions of countries influence the individual’s perception of uncertainties (turnover

intentions) and higher redundancy rates enhance the perceived risk of job insecurity (in

terms of losing) and hence diminishing the probability of finding another valuable job.

Entailing the detrimental effects of unfavorable episodes on the target’ self-

confidence, self- image and on job satisfaction, it is understandable that the one exposed

might have decreased commitment and engagement and considers leaving his job,

(McCormack et al., 2009) whereas studies already established a link between exposure

to workplace bullying and intentions to leave (Jiang et al., 2012), but such relationships

hold partial confirmation within the present time research. Majority of those expressing

their intentions to make a turnover do not leave immediately for any exogenous or

endogenous reason (Hom et al., 2012). When intentions are not manifested in terms of

actual employee’s turnover, it hence gives an ascent to various models conjecturing

Journal of Applied Economics and Business Studies, Volume.4, Issue 3 (2020) 15-54 https://doi.org/10.34260/jaebs.442

numerous processes to explain this discrepancy resulting in other form of deviant

behaviors. Hence the concept of employee silence- a deliberate practice to withhold

information, ideas, opinions, and concerns that might be crucial for organizational

success (Rai & Agarwal, 2018), is directed to study as a recent and utmost substantial

passive coping strategy by employees in response to workplace mistreatment. As it

encounters high costs for organizations, understanding its mechanism is imperatively

crucial.

As the implementation of strategies by organizations like massive layoffs and

reduction of labor costs are changing the traditional employment arrangements, this

study proposes a detrimental change in employees’ psychological contracts (the feeling

of insecurity of an individual over one’s job (in any economic downturn) leads towards

the apprehension of a compromised psychological contract (lack of reciprocity) (Piccoli

& De Witte, 2015)). This economic crisis possesses new challenges for companies, and

such downturn aggravates the feelings of insecurity leading to the perceptions of lack

of reciprocity, compromising the psychological contracts of employees. As Pakistan’s

economy is presently passing through the transition phase, rapidly increasing populace,

high inflation and swelling unemployment, patterns of employment are rapidly shifting

from long-term to temporary, casual and piece- rate contracts (Ghayur, 2009; Costa &

Neves, 2017), simultaneously giving a pertinent context for studying psychological

contract violation. Such violations have become a recurrent experience of many

employees provided the gigantic change in working patterns. Hence understanding the

reactions in response to these violations is contemporary concern for academics and

employers both.

Particularly in the health care settings, meeting budgets and quality targets upshots

in pressure situations instigating leaders to bully their subordinates, and hence

benevolent employees are expected to be exceedingly affected by bullying experience

and perceived violations plays a significant role in amplifying their withdrawal

behavior. Being a collectivistic country, altruism and trust is considered implicit in all

the social relationships including the relationship of employer-employee. Such cultural

profile is rule oriented and highly supports the inequalities of power and wealth, and to

pursue any issue or to report mistreatment on the employer’s part is considered as a

disloyal and unacceptable behavior by authority holders (Khan et al., 2013) even in the

face of violation of one’s psychological contract. This picture regarding the

relationship’s potential nature best sets in public services (Islam, 2004) where negative

instead of generalized reciprocal norms are expected. Therefore in the health care

settings, being benevolent in nature is as important as anything, so studying such

Namra Jamshaid & Sadia Arshad

individual’s reactions to mistreatment is a fascinating call to answer. Hence this research

offers notions of reciprocity in a significant institutional and cultural context.

As the study also requires to fix what is already broken, the development of positive

strengths within individuals (PsyCap, Luthans et al., 2007) may help in improving tools

to cope with this entire negativity, hence characterizing as a potential safeguard and a

powerful buffer. Combined with a progressively general move in the course of past 10

years towards the resource model of stress, it perhaps is timely to look for the role of

resources (hope, resilience, optimism, and self-efficacy) rather than deficits in

connection with interpersonal mistreatment.

The contribution of this research to the existing literature is threefold. First, it

broadens the existing knowledge on the deleterious impact of workplace bullying and

one of the few attempts to examine employees’ passive coping strategies in response to

this negative social behavior at work floor rather than leaving or intending to leave the

organization. Second, by incorporating psychological contract violation of employees

as an intervening mechanism, this study seeks to determine why victims of bullying

engage in silence behaviors. Third, this study sheds light on two important boundary

conditions that constrains the mediated relationship. It is argued that benevolent

employees (more affected by workplace bullying), who are highly subjected to violation

of their psychological contracts, if contains positive resources (psychological capital)

within themselves, can mitigate their tendency to engage in silent behaviors. Therefore,

this research not only complements the extant literature but also highlights the role of

positive strengths within individuals and its impact on bullying outcome relationship.

Hence, the amalgamation of proposed variables and their relationships remains an

important oversight and a first empirical study to the best of authors’ knowledge.

The synergetic effect of workplace bullying on employee silence offers a very

fascinating area of inquiry in organizational behavior. To address the problem, overall

study is broken down into the study objectives as:

a) To investigate the general relationship between workplace bullying and employee

silence

b) To explore the intervening effects of psychological contract violation in the

relationship between workplace bullying and employee silence and

c) To explore the cross level conditional indirect effects of benevolent behavior and

PsyCap on the workplace bullying- employee silence relationship via PCV.

Specifically, the study aims at investigating the bullying-silence relationship via

PCV across levels of benevolent behavior and PsyCap.

Journal of Applied Economics and Business Studies, Volume.4, Issue 3 (2020) 15-54 https://doi.org/10.34260/jaebs.442

2. Literature review

2.1 Workplace Bullying

Bullying at work means offending, harassing, socially excluding someone or

negatively affecting someone’s work tasks. To apply bullying to a particular activity,

interaction or process, it has to occur repeatedly and regularly (e.g., weekly) and over a

period of time (e.g., about six months). (Einarsen et al., 2011).

Events where a person being exposed to aggression and negative behaviors at work

predominantly affect the psychological state of the target (Leymann, 1996) through

humiliation, intimidation and/or punishment by the perpetrator (Einersen et al., 2020) is

the concept’s defining line among variety of forms of interpersonal mistreatment

researched till yet mainly aggression, harassment, emotional abuse, incivility (Zapf,

2004; Hershcovis, 2011). While an intention to harm and negativity in actions is

common to workplace bullying or any other interpersonal maltreatment, persistency and

power disparity holds the position for two distinguishing features to bullying.

Persistence of behaviors inappropriate in nature including repetition (occurrence

must be on regular basis (frequency), duration (over a time period) and patterning

(involvement of variety of behaviors) are the key features to bullying. Many acts under

maltreatment, relatively common in workplaces, when occur in isolation may be

considered as a sign of uncivil behavior (Lim & Cortina, 2005) but when persisted

towards a particular target for a certain duration, causes severe harm as it becomes an

extreme source of social stress (Zapf, 1999). Although the negativity this treatment

entails is essential to the concept, the core characteristic isn’t the nature of the behaviors

per se, but the persistency involved in one’s experience (Einarsen et al., 2003). Hence

the duration and frequency is considered as much for emphasis as it is on what and how

it is done.

Additionally, the existence of power disparity between the perpetrator and target

whereby the increasing difficulty for the latter to defend himself is core to bullying. The

conceptualization of power imbalance is derived from the perpetrator’s informal power,

organizational position, the difference between the personality traits of both or the

dependency of target on perpetrator (Hoel & Cooper, 2001; Samnani, 2013; Aquino &

Thau, 2009; Zabrodska et al., 2016).

2.2 Workplace Bullying and Employee Silence

Circumstances motivating employees to speak up rather on factors that inhibit their

willingness to share potentially useful information has remained the prior research’

main focus (Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009; Liang, Farh, & Farh, 2012), and

Namra Jamshaid & Sadia Arshad

provided its hostile consequences, understanding the reasons of silence and its

occurrences in workplaces is crucial (Harlos, 2016). Dysfunctional relationships with

supervisors have been researched reasoning employee silence, in a huge body of work,

when responding to workplace mistreatment (Morrison, 2014; Greenberg & Edwards,

2009; Duan et al., 2018; Jahanzeb & Fatima, 2018). A male respondent at information

systems sheds light on his experience to becoming silent “I raised a concern about some

policies and I was told that I was becoming a troublemaker. I would have pursued [the

issue] further but presently I can’t afford to risk my job. This has made me go into a

detached mode, making me a ‘yes man’”. Such behaviors being target sensitive,

mistreatment victims barely report or react against the perpetrator (supervisors in most

cases) due to the reason of the committer being in a position well for counter revenge,

the dependency of the victim on the offender for resources as opportunities for

advancement or continued employment (Xu et al., 2015, Tepper et al., 2009) or the

perception of senior management to not support such reports (Roscigno et al., 2009)

which eventually leads victim compromising on creativity and commitment and

adopting withdrawal behaviors (Guo et al., 2018). It is evident from the past literature

that bullying at workplace occurs in many organizations throughout the world (Einarsen

et al., 2020) particularly in the Asian firms, whereby its intensity is relatively high and

it adversely affects employees’ outcomes (Sheehaan, McCabe & Garavan, 2020).

Approach- inhibition theory of power by Keltner et al. (2003) elucidates that where

individuals with higher positions endowed with more power uplifts the positive

emotions of others, it also stimulates their approach behaviors. Individuals with lower

power and positions on the other hand attend more to threats and monitor more

preventative and inhibited behaviors (e.g. silence). This concept of power imbalance, as

suggested by Morrison and Rothman (2009), when inherent in the organizational roles,

makes silence for employees such a significant common experience as an adopting

strategy. As different hierarchical positions are assumed by supervisors and

subordinates, the former simultaneously have more control on resources (Sturm &

Antonakis, 2015; Anderson & Brion, 2014). Considered as a general belief of

asymmetric powers between employer and employee within an employment

relationship (Offe & Wiesenthal, 1980), consequently, silence is considered as the best

approach to adopt when employees face maltreatment such as workplace bullying.

Conservation of resources theory (COR) proposes the organization of human

behavior around acquisition and accumulation of resources. Moreover, what valued is

strived to be obtained, retained and protected by people (Hobfoll, 1989) known as

“resources”. Such resources can take form of objects (food, tools, shelter), conditions

Journal of Applied Economics and Business Studies, Volume.4, Issue 3 (2020) 15-54 https://doi.org/10.34260/jaebs.442

(dignity, status, security, social control), personal characteristics (skills, beliefs,

efficacy) and energies (knowledge, time, money) where the central tenet lies on the

primacy of resource loss, suggesting the intensity of resource loss over resource gain

and the psychological harm for individuals associated with it. In case when a person’s

resources are threatened, an actual loss of resource, or the expected return on resource

investment does not materialize, stress is presumed to occur. Encompassing a

motivational element as well, the tenet further submits the engagement of depleted

individuals in behaviors helping them avoiding further resource loss or minimizing any

probable threat to their resources (Halbesleben et al., 2014).

The mum effect, by Rossen and Tesser (1970) was used to describe the lack of

ability to communicate undesirable information in job settings due to the fear of

jeopardizing interpersonal relationships. Furthermore, deaf ear syndrome became under

consideration for exploring the phenomenon from managerial perspective which

precludes employees from speaking up by Peirce et al. (1998). M. Knoll et al. (2019)

claim these approaches where opinions and genuine information is deliberately

suppressed to be informative but relatively fragmented. Hence different classifications

have been raised to understand the concept in depth.

Among the new proposition of Brinsfield’s (2013) silence classification based on

supervisor-subordinate relationship in response to workplace bullying, Rai and

Agrawal’s (2018) recent study endorses the strategical use of silence for victims to

escape the adverse consequences allied with speaking up (defensive silence), for the

protection of their relationships with supervisors (relational silence) and an approach to

indicate their consent to organizational circumstances (ineffectual silence).

2.2.1 Workplace Bullying and Defensive Silence

Fearing the consequences allied with speaking up, such silence is a key motivator

allowing one to deliberately omit their voices (Brinsfield, 2013). Employees being

hesitant to communicate about issues at work (Milliken et al., 2003), victims of

mistreatment tend to remain silent particularly due to the fear of destructive

ramifications concomitant with speaking up, especially in case where perpetrator holds

a status higher than the victim (Aquino et al., 2006). Considering power disparity as the

distinguishing feature to such maltreatment, victims consider themselves incapable in

elevating their voice, and hence opt for defensive silence. Speaking up per se requires

extra time and energy, from the COR perspective, which comes at individual cost and

risk and those intending to speak up stimulate their potential loss of resources (Xu et al.,

2015). Hence the interpersonal mistreatment’ extant literature proposes such victims at

the risk of being labeled as trouble makers, simultaneously at the menace of losing any

Namra Jamshaid & Sadia Arshad

desirable professional opportunity or personal resources (Harvey et al. 2007; Xu et al.

2015).

Dyne et al. (2003) condition the fearfulness of an individual in a working

environment where one attempts to shield oneself from potential threats for the

occurrence of defensive silence. Employees particularly deem supervisors engaging in

mistreatment when they display some hostile behaviors as humiliating employees in

public or menacing them with the intimidation of job loss (Tepper, 2000). While

wielding their status power over followers (Aryee et al., 2007), power imbalance

between the victim and perpetrator reasons the reluctance of taking any aggressive

actions by the sufferers fearing the loss of valued resources or receiving admonishments

to their insolent behaviors (Tepper et al., 2009). Kish-Gephart et al. (2009) theorize fear

of perpetuity in these hostile behaviors, when inflicted by the authoritative in hierarchy,

add to the consequence of remaining silent. The emotional state of mind activates

employee’s self- protective mechanism i.e. “to lay low” (Xu et al., 2015). Confronting

perpetrator verbally further provokes them resulting in deployment of high magnitude

of mistreatment.

2.2.2 Workplace Bullying and Relational Silence

Avoiding harm within a relationship and tending to maintain interactions for any

relational concerns delineate the root of relational silence (Brinsfield, 2013),

nevertheless lacks cooperative and altruistic motives (Dyne et al., 2003). Prior

examination submits that, in addition to losing professional opportunities and other

valuable resources, voice may too, in some way trouble the status quo or pressure

current interpersonal relationships. Raising of one’s voice increases the likelihood of

questioning the position of an authority figure, subsequently deteriorating the victim’s

bond with that authoritative figure (Li & Sun, 2015), that, in effect, costs employee

additional available resources hence contributing to further depletion of resources. (Ng

& Feldman, 2012). As to avoid one’s supervisor is rarely an alternative over the long

haul, maintaining and enduring the relationship with them remains the only rational

choice (Whitman et al., 2014).

Merkin (2006) argues that in a culture where individuals entail low power distance

values, engaging in face threatening conflicts for expressing themselves clearly is a

stress free task. Whereas high power distant individuals, Asian cultures in particular,

interpret challenges, interventions and confrontations as behaviors inappropriate to

themselves. Reluctant in verbally expressing negative emotions (Fernández et al.,

2000), members fear not being in agreement with, approaching and engaging with their

Journal of Applied Economics and Business Studies, Volume.4, Issue 3 (2020) 15-54 https://doi.org/10.34260/jaebs.442

supervisors and persist tending to remain peaceful, cooperative and obedient. Indirect

messages are used considering face issues. Such communication tactics in response to

bullying at workplaces exhibit relational silence. Due to the dependency of employees’

resources on supervisors, engagement in such behaviors is a more realistic

communication strategy as compared to engagement in retaliatory behaviors having

potential to exacerbate a relationship, as per COR theory (Tepper et al., 2007).

However, research proves a psychical or psychological distance from supervisors and

victims of mistreatment, in this situation engaging in surface acting, considering it as a

way to cope the adverse relationship (Wu & Hu, 2013). Moreover, victims respond by

reconciliation behaviors designed to reestablish the unappealing relationship on power

dependence account (Aquino et al., 2006), hence verifying mistreatment’s detrimental

effects.

2.2.3 Workplace Bullying and Ineffectual Silence

A common belief that raising voice will not be effective in causing change in the

sense of a focal problem, circumstance or concern and will not have a constructive effect

on the situation is the dimension’s defining line (Brinsfield, 2013). Engagement in such

counterproductive silence is practiced as an implied tool to showing a sincere

recognition of organizational circumstances, a sense of resignation, a relinquishment of

hope for change and taking situations for granted (Pinder & Harlos, 2001). Repetition

and endurance in these deleterious acts lead employees to assume their unavoidability

in their organization or the reluctance of managers and supervisor in resolving such

issues. As a consequence, perceptions regarding possible improvements are

deleteriously impacted of employees (D’Cruz et al., 2014). Anchoring the COR’s

perspective, as per Halbesleben et al (2014) sufferers may embrace ineffectual silence

as a mean to shielding their resources, which might take any form of time, effort and

energy from supplementary depletion resulting in the engagement of voice behaviors

probably not likely to procure benefits. Evidences support that disgruntled employees

prefer not to voice their concerns and disappointments as they perceive no positive

effect on the situation will transpire (Wang & Hsieh, 2013).

Hence Timing and Johnstone’s (2015) postulation is also in line with the above

evidences by which anti-democratic personality characterizes individuals choosing to

remain silent as they value obedience for authority and an interaction with dominant

figure requires their submissiveness and hence generating conditions conducive to

ineffectual silence. Hence articulation of all the facts validate the suggestion that;

H1: Workplace bullying is significantly related to employee silence (defensive,

relational and ineffectual).

Namra Jamshaid & Sadia Arshad

2.3 The Mediating Role of PCV in the Bullying-Silence Relationship

Workplace bullying has an association with employee silence. A perspective of

social exchange theory is introduced to develop an understanding by which mechanism

these two phenomena are linked together. In understanding workplace behavior, social

exchange theory (SET) (Blau, 1964) acts as one of the most significant paradigm

(Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Social exchange, in essence, is a set and series of

interaction generating obligations. One party’s trust that even in the non-presence of a

formal contract, the benefits received will be reciprocated is placed on the other.

Abiding by certain rules of exchange, parties involved to the relationship develop

mutual commitment, trusting and loyalty over time, which stands at the core of this

theory. The rule of reciprocity; central to researchers’ focus elucidates that actions of

one party are contingent upon the actions of the other. It connotes that in any work

settings, employees repay a favorable working conditions and environment through

constructive job related behaviors and attitudes. Whereas downward adjustments are

likely to be the consequence of those behaviors and attitudes for the unfavorable

treatment (Parzefall & Salin, 2010).

Psychological contracts have been started approaching from another perspective of

COR theory from a developing body of research. It proposes that unfavorable events at

workplaces route to a loss esteemed intrinsic resources. The psychological stress leads

them to perceive this as a violation consequently triggering strong negative emotional

reactions (Lapointe et al., 2013; Kiazad et al., 2014; Priesemuth & Taylor, 2016). As

within the COR framework (Hobfoll, 2001), dignity, fairness and respect are

categorized as resources, the persistency in these uncivil acts such as persistence

criticism, being belittled and yelled at and at a perpetual position of receiving insulting

remarks have the nerve to drain employees’ intrinsic resources resulting in helplessness,

frustration and restlessness (Brotheridge & Lee, 2010) -referred to a state of

psychological resource depletion. Such experiences weaken reserved resources

rendering them vulnerable against further loss of resource consequential to bullying.

Such deep distressful situations deplete employees’ energy and other resources either

consciously or unconsciously preoccupying them with actions aimed at conserving

remaining resources (Agarwal & Bhargava, 2014). Hence alleviating this psychological

discomfort, remaining silent is employee’s highest preference in protecting the residual

resources (Ng & Feldman, 2012).

Current research has surveyed the crucial mediating role of PCV in analyzing the

employees’ responses to workplace mistreatment (Salin & Notelaers, 2017; Rai &

Agarwal, 2018). Research advocates the maltreatment from the supervisor’s end is

Journal of Applied Economics and Business Studies, Volume.4, Issue 3 (2020) 15-54 https://doi.org/10.34260/jaebs.442

contemplated as a conspicuous workplace event fracturing the employer-employee

contract (Kernan et al., 2016). To survive PCV, Rai and Agarwal (2018) report silence

as the most potential employee response. Recent work also proves the experience of

mistreatment evokes fear and anger as the negative emotions and in turn, behaviors

associated to avoidance and self- protection in subordinates like silence (Nifadkar et al.,

2012). Hence ample indications gives confirmation to workplace mistreatment when

channeled through PCV, fosters employee silence. Hence, it can be suggested that;

H2: PCV mediates the relationship between workplace bullying and employee silence

(defensive, relational and ineffectual).

2.4 The Moderating Role of Benevolent Behavior in Bullying-PCV Relationship

A perspective from the equity theory (Adams, 1965) situations that individuals seek

an equitable balance typically between their personal contributions and what they obtain

from the organization. Unfolding in another way, based on the reciprocity expectations

in social relationships, parties involved have likely an expectation to be repaid in kind.

A more in return is expected by the individuals who significantly invest in any

relationship within a work context and are therefore, more sensitive towards any form

of neglect or bad treatment by the employer (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005).

Previous research on breach and violation of psychological contracts reveals the

individual differences as the foundation to their reaction towards this emotional damage

and hence personal disposition embraces great importance (Raja et al., 2004). A

proposition by Huseman et al. (1987) inculcates a personality variable such as equity

sensitivity elucidates the individual differences while reacting to inequity. Individuals

high on equity sensitivity want more than others for prescribed level of input. In a

nutshell, these can be labeled as outcome oriented individuals (Sauley & Bedeian,

2000). On the other end of the spectrum, some individuals pay more attention to their

inputs, and in the exchange relationships. Such individuals are less sensitive to the

equity issues and are the ones low on equity sensitivity.

In light of the above, it is interpreted that entitled have preference over output/input

ratios exceeding those in comparison with others and hence concentrates on “getting

more than giving”. Contrasting this, benevolents focus remains on “giving more than

getting”. Maintenance of relationships with employers and finding satisfactions in

contributing expertise and diverse talents to their organizations is the highlighting virtue

of such individuals. Research ascertains the fact that benevolents have a different

reactions to the perceived violations (Kickul & Lester, 2001). Their satisfaction with

their jobs is reported with a greater decrease and more negative effects compared to the

Namra Jamshaid & Sadia Arshad

other individuals relating to outcomes as autonomy and control (intrinsic outcomes)

while a less strong reaction to the violations involving extrinsic outcomes in the form

of rewards and benefits is observed. Engagement in excessive monitoring, ridiculing,

humiliating, withdrawal of valued tasks or insulting- as are nested in a concept of

workplace bullying, hence exposure to such perilous acts may, thus, have an ability to

change the meaningfulness of work itself in numerous ways. Consequently, a decrease

in personal worth, autonomy and sense of accomplishment is detected of the targets

(MacIntosh et al., 2010). In line with the previous research, when reporting exposure to

workplace bulling, their basic needs are thwarted (Trépanier, Fernet, & Austin, 2013)

hence exhibiting a great effect to their intrinsic outcomes, something to which

benevolents stands highly sensitive (Kickul & Lester, 2001).

Provided the particular focus on the intrinsic outcomes particularly for the

benevolent employees and the norms of reciprocity, it is argued in this study due to the

norms of reciprocity, those individuals supporting and helping others can reasonably

have an expectation of more in return from the organization. The “more” is directed

towards relationship quality and intrinsic outcomes (sense of accomplishment and

feelings of personal worth) rather than fringe benefits. The key line “giving more than

getting” represents a high contribution of such employees in terms of skills and efforts

and expects less monetary rewards but equal or high psychological rewards from

supervisors/leaders. Being a victim to such mistreatment in exchange to their input

might cause a severe blow to their worldview hence letting the perceptions of

psychological contracts into question. Hence a compelling rationale is provided to the

proposed relationship. Therefore,

H3: The relationship between workplace bullying and perceived psychological contract

violation is moderated by benevolent behavior.

2.5 The Moderating Role of PsyCap in the PCV-Employee Silence Relationship

In order to mitigate the deleterious negative impacts of contract violation (through

bullying) and employee silence, the positive internal resources of employees are

proposed to be a coping strategy towards the adverse situations. Positive psychological

capital (PsyCap) - a positive psychological state of an individual that is open to

development (Luthans et al., 2008), a second-order factor of four positive resources

comprising a shared variance and hence acts as an integration in the mechanism of

which these resources share in common (Avey et al., 2011) is theoretically and

empirically validated, and entails a constructive outcome bigger than the individual

impact of each component (Norman et al., 2010)

Journal of Applied Economics and Business Studies, Volume.4, Issue 3 (2020) 15-54 https://doi.org/10.34260/jaebs.442

Hope delineates its basis on an intuitively created feeling of accomplishment of goal

directed energy (agency) and planning to meeting goals (pathways) followed by an

individual’s positive motivational state (Snyder & Lopez, 2002). Agency, providing a

deep insight, inculcates the motivation and energy towards goal direction for remaining

successful at a given task provided in a specific work context. Whereas the latter

component, “pathway”, is considered as a mean and a way in the accomplishment of

tasks and goals and hence collectively forming the will and way in such

accomplishment. Suggestions by Snyder et al. (1996) theory and research claim that one

component standing alone is not adequate. Together the will to succeed in any particular

task along with a viable mean to accomplish task defines and operationalizes the

possession of hope. In workplace research, it has been found to positively influence

performance (Youssef & Luthans, 2007), satisfaction (Peterson & Luthans, 2003) and

negatively to deviance (Costa & Neves, 2017).

Resilience, a positive adaption and coping strategy in the face of risk and significant

adversity (Masten & Reed, 2002). Adaption to the workplace, a psychological capacity

to bounce- back or rebound from uncertainty, failure, adversity or even positive change,

increased responsibility and progress expounds the nature of the component (Luthans,

2002). Resilience can therefore be described by coping responses not only to hostile

events but also to the extremely positive events.

Concluded from the discussion of positive psychologist (Seligman, 1988), his

theoretical foundation for optimism states a stable, internal and global attribution

regarding the positive events as achievement of goals, and an external, relatively

unstable and specific cause for the negative events as failed attempt in goal achievement.

Avoiding the criticism of false optimism, positive organizational behavior (POB) forces

on realistic optimism (Luthans, 2002; Luthans et al., 2007; Schneider, 2001). Signifying

it other way, it is not based on an uncontrolled process having an unrealistic assessment.

This state of realistic optimism (opposing to dispositional trait) includes an objective

assessment of what an individual can accomplish, provided the available resources at

that specific time in a specific situation and hence can vary (Peterson, 2000).

Self- efficacy and its positive construction is based on Bandura’s (1997) exhaustive

theory and extensive research and hence a current prominence in linking the construct

to positive psychology (Bandura, 2007). Its application to workplaces states as the

individuals confidence or conviction about one’s abilities in the mobilization of

cognitive resources, motivation and courses of actions required in successful execution

of a specific task within a provided context (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). Particular

relevance to the POB criteria, the enhancement of self- efficacy can be through task

Namra Jamshaid & Sadia Arshad

mastery (a success experience by employee), by modeling (vicarious learning by

observing others, by attainment of positive feedback) and by psychological and

physiological wellness (Bandura, 1997).

Articulation of facts show that employees who perceive themselves high on

psychological capital are more progressively confident in their abilities to accomplish

goals, and therefore, any infringement in their psychological contract might be seen as

a minor hindrance in the quest for their prime goal. Being anticipative and hopeful,

generation of various paths and solutions so as to manage workplace bullying and

violation of psychological contracts. Surveying circumstances as a transitory issue that

will soon be reduced, demonstrating that they are optimistic and hopeful. Resilience in

their attitude helps those facing adversities and should therefore positively cope any

mistreatment particularly workplace bullying and PCV.

Empirical evidences regarding PsyCap demonstrate consistency with performance

(Avey et al., 2011) due to being more energized and pouring extra efforts in tasks is

reflected in outcome. Undesirable behaviors are the ones in which employees high on

PsyCap do not engage because such individuals are more capable of rebounding from

the demand of additional output by recognizing (hope) and considering themselves to

survive the pressure (self- efficacy) as it is just transient and will before long be reduced

(optimism) (Norman et al., 2010), therefore it is tested in this study whether PsyCap

prevent employees involvement in negative behaviors due to the internal resources

within themselves while dealing with situations. Based on its mechanisms and empirical

evidence, it is hypothesized:

H4: The relationship between PCV and employee silence is moderated by PsyCap

An explicit formulation is made based on the assumption that benevolent behavior

and PsyCap conditionally influence the strength of the indirect relationship (Workplace

bullying-Employee silence via PCV), thereby establishing a pattern of a dual stage

moderated mediation among the study variables, hence hypothesizing:

H5: Benevolence and PsyCap moderates the positive relationship between

workplace bullying and employee silence via PCV, such that the indirect relationship

between bullying and silence through violation is stronger when benevolence is high

and PsyCap is low

Journal of Applied Economics and Business Studies, Volume.4, Issue 3 (2020) 15-54 https://doi.org/10.34260/jaebs.442

H3 H4

Figure 2.1 Theoretical framework

3. Methodology

3.1 Research Design Elements

As all variables of interest are under investigation for last many decades, so at this

time the researcher is not required to conduct an initial (exploratory) research or to

generate any qualitative data. The objective nature (quantitative analysis) of data further

enhances the statistical comparisons and summary generation of the findings. The

purpose of the study is correlational in nature hence allowing the statistical test of the

proposed relationship and to know the extent to which these variables might be related.

The type of investigation for the variables under study is quantitative as no open ended

questions are used and no structured and unstructured interviews are conducted.

“Individuals” are considered as unit of analysis as variables are linked to the personality

of individuals and the entire data is obtained purely in natural/ non-contrived settings

hence the interference of the researcher is minimal. The study’s best suited time horizon

is opted, i.e., cross-sectional design as the linkage of variables is only aimed to be

demonstrated at a specific point of time. No second visit or any type of second

observation is taken at any other point of time. Data is collected in four working weeks

and then entered in software for further analysis to come up with the reliable results.

Benevolent behavior

Positive

psychological capital

(PsyCap)

Psychological

Contract Violation

Workplace Bullying
Employee Silence

• Defensive silence

• Relational silence

• Ineffectual silence

Namra Jamshaid & Sadia Arshad

3.2 Population and Sample

As respect and support for others especially patients and embracement of one’s

powers is key to their survival while working under this context and being benevolent

holds a strategical significance for all individuals working within it, any kind of

mistreatment at workplaces will have a detrimental effect on their psychological state,

compromising their positive emotions and confidence and where patients can be one to

face its consequences. Hence government administered hospitals represent all the study

variables effectively. Three main hospitals of Lahore i.e. Mayo Hospital, Ganga Ram

Hospital and Jinnah Hospital are conveniently selected. 359 young junior doctors and

staff nurses of three selected hospitals have been composed as an exact sample size of

the current study through item response theory by Olino et al. (2012).

3.3 Measurement and Scale

Silence (defensive, relational, ineffectual) behaviors are measured by using the 15-

items scale adapted from Brinsfield (2013) representing defensive, relational and

ineffectual silence. Participants are scaled up to the level they get involved in numerous

silence behaviors on a 5-point Likert scale response format i.e. 1= strongly disagree till

5= strongly agree. Sample item: “I feel it was risky to speak up”.

Workplace bullying is measured with a revised version of Negative Act

Questionnaire (NAQ-R) containing 22-items developed by Einarsen et al (2009).

Consisting of three subscales as work-related, person-related and physically

intimidating bullying, combined additively creating an overall workplace bullying scale.

Sample item: “being given task with unreasonable deadlines”. Respondents are asked

to indicate their responses on a 5 point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree)

to 5 (strongly agree).

PCV is measured with 4-item scale adopted from Robinson and Morrison (2000).

Scale items are anchored on a 5 point Likert scale providing range from 1 representing

not at all to 5 representing very much. Sample item include: “I feel betrayed by my

organization”.

Benevolent behavior is measured with 4 items measuring the readiness of

respondents in helping out and giving their time across a diverse set of situations, thus

focusing more on the input side as compared to the preferred outputs. By adopting Van

der Vegt et al (2003) helping scale, the sample item include: “I help others who have

been absent”. Respondents are asked to indicate their responses on a 5 point Likert scale

ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much).

Journal of Applied Economics and Business Studies, Volume.4, Issue 3 (2020) 15-54 https://doi.org/10.34260/jaebs.442

PsyCap is measured with a 24-item scale adopted from Luthans et al (2007). It is a

higher order positive construct which comprises of four-facet constructs namely self-

efficacy, hope, resilience and optimism. Out of 24 items, 21 items are positively phrased

and 3 items are reverse coded. Sample items include: “I always look on the bright side

of things regarding my job”. 5-point Likert scale is provided to record the responses

anchored at 1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree.

4. Results
4.1 Demographics of the study

Out of 359 participants involved in the survey, analysis represents with 52% of the

female respondents and around 48% with males where a major chunk of the total sample

falls below 30 years of age (72%), 25.6% lies between 31 to 35 years while the

remaining falls in 36 and above. About 54.3% of the respondents hold their graduate

degrees, 18% with their post graduate and around 28% under graduate category. Fifty

percent of the respondents have a working tenure below 1 year with their current

supervisors whereas 44.3% have tenured between 1 to 3 years with their respective

supervisors. Five percent with 3-5 years and 0.3 percent have tenured for more than 5

years.

4.2 Descriptive, correlations and reliabilities

On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 indicates strongly disagree and 5 indicates strongly

agree, a value above 2.5 indicates most of the respondents rate themselves above the

average level of mean. While initiating the statistical treatment of the raw data,

reliabilities of the variable are calculated. Reliabilities of all the variables are measured

through calculating Cronbach Alpha. All variables showed above the acceptable values

of reliabilities.

Table 4.1

Correlation matrix and reliabilities

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1.Formal Education 1.91
0.6

7
1

2.Tenure with supervisor 1.61
0.5

.293*

3. Workplace Bullying 3.63
0.5

1
.069 .025

(0.80

)

4. Psychological Contract

Violation
3.90

0.9

4
.056 -.014

.538*

*
(0.77)

5. Benevolent Behavior 3.80
0.9

8
.087 .020

.419*

.361**

(0.81

)

Namra Jamshaid & Sadia Arshad

6. Positive Psychological

Capital
3.51

0.4

8
-.026 -.042

.536*

.653**

.543*

(0.79

)

7. Employee Silence 3.76
0.6

4
.038 -.016

.703*

*
.690**

.457*

.542*

(0.83

)

n = 359, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05

Analysis shows that predictor, mediator, moderators and outcome are significantly

correlated to each other. Specifically, employee silence has a significant and positive

correlation with workplace bullying (r = 0.703, p<0.01). This means that increase in

workplace bullying predicts greater employee silence. Employee silence shows a

positive and significant correlation with psychological contract violation (r = 0.690,

p<0.01), whereas a negative and significant correlation with benevolent behavior and

PsyCap (r = -.457, p<0.05) and (r = -.542, p<0.05) hence giving an initial support to all

hypothesized statements. All the results of correlation matrix are summarized in table

4.1.

4.3 Test of moderation, mediation and conditional indirect effect:

Simple linear regression is used to run test for the first hypothesis with X

(Workplace bullying) predicting Y (Employee silence).

Second, to test hypothesis 2, bootstrapping analysis, being non parametric

simulations and a robust strategy in the estimation of indirect effects (Preacher et al.,

2007) is run to assess mediation (X predicts Y via M). Therefore obtaining the direct

and indirect effects of mediation analysis, model 4 of Hayes Process macro (2018) is

used.

Third, to examine the conditional effects of this dual stage moderated mediation,

PROCESS model 1 is used, alongside simple slope representation.

Fourth, to run the conditional indirect effect of the dual stage moderated mediation,

PROCESS model 21 is used. According to Preacher et al. (2007), the strength of the

independent variable (workplace bullying) on the outcome variable (employee silence)

via mediator (PCV) differs across different levels of the moderators (benevolent

behavior and PsyCap; +-1SD about mean respectively, respectively).

Table: 4.2

Results of regression analysis
Mediator (PCV)

Outcome (Employee Silence)

β B S.E(B) 95% CL β B S.E(B) 95% CL

S.R.M (H1)

WB 0.703 0.873** 0.047 [0.781-0.965]

R2 0.494

Simple mediation model (4) (H2)

Journal of Applied Economics and Business Studies, Volume.4, Issue 3 (2020) 15-54 https://doi.org/10.34260/jaebs.442

WB 0.738 1.356** 0.066
[1.227-

1.484]
0.099 0.123** 0.044 [0.036-0.209]

PCV 0.817 0.553** 0.023 [0.506-0.599]

WB via PCV 0.603 0.750** 0.058 [1.040-1.351]

Simple moderation model (1) (H3)

Stage 1 moderation

WB 0.151** 0.036
[0.081-

0.222]

BB 0.815** 0.019
[0.777-

0.853]

WB*BB 0.110** 0.018
[0.074-

0.145]

R2 0.935

∆R2 0.017

Simple moderation model (1) (H4)

Stage 2 moderation

PCV 0.531** 0.023 [0.489-0.574]

PsyCap -0.112** 0.041 [0.030-0.193]

PCV*PsyCap -0.083** 0.022 [0.040-0.126]

R2 0.807

∆R2 0.018

β: standardized regression coefficients; B: unstandardized regression coefficients; SE

(B): standard error of B; CI: confidence interval; PCV: psychological contract;

PsyCap: positive psychological capital; **p < .01

4.3.1 Workplace bullying-Employee silence relationship

Employee silence shows a positive and statistically significant relationship with

workplace bullying (B = 0.873, p<0.01) along with a 95% confidence interval of

[LLCI=0.781, ULCI=0.965], showing with every unit increase in workplace bullying,

0.873 units in employee silence is predicted. As values of the confidence interval are

significantly different from zero, hence confirming the significance of the relationship.

The results conclude that moving higher on bullying scale predicts greater level of

employee silence and vice versa. The R2 value of 0.494 shows that workplace bullying

alone explains 49.4% variance in employee silence. These results are consistent with

the recent literature available on workplace bullying (i.e. Rai & Agarwal, 2018). Hence

the statistical analysis supports H1.

4.3.2 Mediating role of PCV in Workplace bullying-Employee silence relationship

In order to test the mediating effect of psychological contract violation in the

bullying-silence relationship, the significance of independent variable on mediator is

tested first. Hence workplace bullying shows a positive and significant relationship with

PCV (B = 1.356, p<0.01) along with a 95% confidence interval of [LLCI=1.227,

ULCI=1.484]. Second, the significance of mediator on dependent variable is tested.

PCV again shows a positive and significant relationship with employee silence when

controlling for workplace bullying (B = 0.553, p<0.01) along with a 95% confidence

Namra Jamshaid & Sadia Arshad

interval of [LLCI=0.506, ULCI=0.599]. Third, the significant indirect effect supported

the mediating role of PCV on bullying-silence relationship (0.750, p<0.01) with a 95%

confidence interval of [LLCI=1.040, ULCI=1.351]. Additionally, after the mediator

being controlled, the association between bullying-silence (0.123, p<0.01) remain

significant with a drop in beta value suggesting partial mediating effect of PCV in

bullying-silence relationship.

4.3.3 Moderating role of benevolent behavior in Bullying-PCV relationship

Benevolent behavior shows a significant interaction term (B= 0.110, p< 0.01) with

a 95% confidence interval of [LLCI=0.074, ULCI=0.145]. The change in value of R2

(∆R2 = 0.017) also validate the significant predicting power of moderator variable.

Moreover, analysis shows that 93.5% variance in PCV is explained by the interaction

term. The variation in the moderating effect of benevolent behavior in Bullying-PCV

relationship can be observed in figure 1. Hence the coefficients of regression term along

with graphical representation validate the moderating role of benevolent behavior in

Bullying-PCV relationship. Alongside, its moderating role is higher at high levels

workplace bullying and at lower level its role becomes insignificant.

Figure: 4.1: Moderating role of benevolent behavior in Bullying-PCV relationship

4.3.4 Moderating role of PsyCap in PCV-Silence relationship

PsyCap shows a significant interaction term (B= -0.083, p< 0.01) with a 95%

confidence interval of [LLCI=0.040, ULCI=0.126]. The change in value of R2 (∆R2 =

0.018) also validate the significant predicting power of moderator variable. Moreover,

analysis shows that 80.7% variance in employee silence is explained by the interaction

term. The variation in the moderating effect of PsyCap in PCV-Silence relationship can

be observed in figure 2. Hence the coefficients of regression term along with graphical

1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

Low IV High IV

P
C

Low Moderator High Moderator

Low WB High WB

Journal of Applied Economics and Business Studies, Volume.4, Issue 3 (2020) 15-54 https://doi.org/10.34260/jaebs.442

representation validate the moderating role of PsyCap in PCV-Silence relationship.

Alongside, its moderating role is lower at high levels of contract violation and at lower

level its role becomes higher.

Figure: 4.2 Moderating role of PsyCap in PCV-Silence relationship

4.3.5 Moderated Mediation Results for Workplace Bullying on Employee Silence

via PCV across different levels of Benevolent behavior (moderator 1) and PsyCap

(moderator 2)

To evaluate the dual-stage moderated mediation, following three conditions

suggested by Hayes (2018) are tested:

(a) A significant indirect effect should be observed.

(b) Two significant interactions should be observed: First between the independent

variable and moderator 1 in predicting mediator. Second, mediator and the

moderator 2 in predicting the outcome variable.

to dependent variable via mediator at different levels (high and low) of moderator

1 and moderator 2, hence being the central condition for the existence of moderated

mediation. It determines either mediator’s strength differs with different levels of

moderators (Hayes, 2018).

The results of hypothesis 2 demonstrates the significant indirect relationship in

bullying-silence via PCV and hence meeting the first condition. In observing second

condition , results show that there is a significant interaction term between the

independent variable and moderator 1 in predicting the mediator variable (B= 0.110, p<

0.01) and an interaction between the mediator and moderator 2 in predicting the

1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

Low IV High IV

E
M

P
LO

Y
E

E
S

IL
E

N
C

Low Moderator High Moderator

Low PCV High PCV

Namra Jamshaid & Sadia Arshad

dependent variable (B= -0.083, p< 0.01)is also found significant hence fulfilling

condition 2. .

Next, to examine condition 3, Hayes’ (2018) PROCESS macro for SPSS (model 21)

is used. Moderators are operationalized based on+-1SD about its mean score.

Results: looking at high levels of benevolent behavior, a significant indirect effect

is found for those individuals who perceive PsyCap as being low or moderate, the

indirect effect of workplace bullying on employee silence via PCV is significant. For

those individuals who are low on benevolent behavior, no significant indirect

relationship is found because regardless of the level of psychological capital in

employees, zero is in the confidence interval of the bootstrap analysis. So if individuals

are low on benevolent behavior, doesn’t matter the level of psychological capital. If

individuals are high on benevolent behavior and observes psychological capital as low

or moderate within themselves, the indirect effect of workplace bullying on employee

silence via PCV is significant.

Table: 4.3: Moderated Mediation Results for Bullying-Silence relationship via

PCV across different levels of benevolent behavior (moderator 1) and PsyCap

(moderator 2)

Moderator1 Moderator2

Conditional

Indirect

effect

Bootstrap

SE
Bootstrap LLCI

Bootstrap

ULCI

M1_PCV -0.9871 -0.4807 0.0177 .0157 -.0113 .0496

M1_PCV -0.9871 0.0000 0.0207 .0180 -.0131 .0572

M1_PCV -0.9871 0.4807 0.0237 .0205 -.0152 .0651

M1_PCV 0.0000 -0.4807 0.0620 .0185 .0313 .1028

M1_PCV 0.0000 0.0000 0.0727 .0200 .0390 .1166

M1_PCV 0.0000 0.4807 0.0833 .0224 .0453 .1331

M1_PCV 0.9871 -0.4807 0.1064 .0256 .0648 .1643

M1_PCV 0.9871 0.0000 0.1246 .0268 .0817 .1860

M1_PCV 0.9871 0.4807 0.1429 .0299 -.0953 .2132

5. Discussion and Conclusion

Anchored in the conservation of resource (COR) theory, this study’s aim is to

analyze the passive coping strategies of employees in the face of workplace bullying.

Social exchange theory (SET) theorizes the relationship to be mediated by PCV, and

this empirical study lend support to the proposition. Moreover, the results revealed that

the process of mediation is stronger for individuals who report themselves at a higher

level of benevolence and perceives psychological capital to be low. Hence the cross

level moderation is mediated.

Journal of Applied Economics and Business Studies, Volume.4, Issue 3 (2020) 15-54 https://doi.org/10.34260/jaebs.442

Taking a step beyond from previous literature examining bullying-turnover

relationship (Salin & Notelaers, 2017), this research studies the establishment of passive

coping strategies in response to workplace bullying and the mechanism to explain this

relationship. It is proved that the perception of violation of psychological contract

depicts a partial mediation effect between bullying and silence relationship.

Psychological contract- the perceived obligations in an employer-employee relationship

based on its highly subjective interpretation and a sense of its violation strongly effect

behaviors of employees and seems to partially explain some deleterious effects

associated to bullying in this study. An escalated deleterious interaction with a

wrongdoer result in resource loss, consequently developing feelings of PCV by increase

psychological distress. Hence aiming to conserve the remaining resources, such passive

strategies are adopted by employees, hence indicating both the direct and indirect effect

of workplace bullying on silence of employees.

Additionally, individual differences are also highlighted through the findings.

Among individuals reporting behaviors high on benevolence and perceive themselves

low on PsyCap, the relation between workplace bullying and employee silence via PCV

is stronger, hence providing with a more nuanced picture of employees’ reactions.

Typically, social relations have an involvement of reciprocity, congruous with equity

theory’s perspective (Adams, 1965) revolving around the concept that an impartial

balance is seek by individuals between their own contributions and what are they

receiving from the organization, which, in turn, is in line with research findings

illustrating that the one’s highly committed to their work are sensitive to layoff

processes (Brockner et al., 1992). Employees investing in pro- social behavior are

highly expected of a respectful treatment in return, and pertain adverse negative

reactions when that is not the case. Benevolents have been proved to care less about pay

and benefits or any external outcomes (Kickul & Lester, 2001), instead have been

noticed that their strong reactions to breaches involves autonomy and control. Hence it

is supported in this study’s findings that for such employees, bullying behaviors strongly

effect perception of psychological violations. Though benevolent behavior moderated

the relationship, the effect of moderation is minimal. The possible reason for this would

be that when exposure to negative acts are reached to a certain threshold, negative

behaviors of employees are equally high, regardless of the levels of benevolence

reported by employees.

Further possible explanation of the findings is acknowledged. Benevolent actions,

generally endorsed positively both formally and informally by managers, not only

reflect personal disposition, but is used as the response trying to offset or to cope with

Namra Jamshaid & Sadia Arshad

bullying. Although such interpersonal mistreatment results in deterioration of

benevolence, few victims attempt to prove their worth and accordingly plan to stop the

negative practices they are exposed to- by being exceptionally responsive, friendly and

cooperative. Even being sick, they turn up to work to prove their loyalty and dedication

and prevent themselves being marked as maligner (Hoel et al., 2011). Congruent with

the experimental studies demonstrating that the one who experience ostracism tends to

have a better performance in cognitive ability, tasks in an attempt to demonstrate their

worth (Jamieson et al., 2010). Nevertheless, when such attempts to being helpful for

offsetting bullying becomes ineffective, it may be that employees who have attempted

this path becomes more cynical, resulting in a stronger sense of violation of the

psychological contract and a stronger intention to remain silent. The moderation effects

of PsyCap are significant but small. Results demonstrates employees high on PsyCap

depicts lower silent behaviors and vice versa as they have additional resources helping

to overcome daily problems and are better able to interpret situations (Chadwick &

Raver, 2013). This further suggests that positive psychological state of an individual

can reduce the degree of employee adverse outcomes but cannot completely mitigate

the consequences of such mistreatment.

6. Limitations and Directions

First, a cross- sectional design is used by which inferences are not drawn about

workplace bullying-outcomes’ causal relationship. It is likely that the directions of

reciprocal relations reported at a single time and different points in time are not always

in the same directions. Having benevolence and PsyCap are just as likely to modify an

individual’s appraisal of the situation as an experience of mistreatment especially

workplace bullying is likely to reduce the resilience of an individual with time.

However, it can be concluded that positive psychological state have a tendency to reduce

employee silence.

Second, the sample comprised mostly young junior doctors and staff nurses. In light

of differences in experience of the sample, it is concluded that those having a higher

experience and having higher job positions should also be incorporated in the study

sample to yield different results. Different government and private hospitals should too

be incorporated for generalizing results to the entire health care sector.

Third, a full three-wave cross lagged longitudinal analysis should be designed

among the study variables helping to identify a causal order making relationships more

robust and decreasing the threat of CMV is another major limitation of the study. In

Journal of Applied Economics and Business Studies, Volume.4, Issue 3 (2020) 15-54 https://doi.org/10.34260/jaebs.442

estimation 25% of the variance in any relationship is because of CMV (Buckley et al.,

1990).

Several promising future research directions are presented in this study. This study

shows employees’ own exposure to negative acts results in violation of their

psychological contracts and an increase in employee silence. A potential avenue for

future research is to analyzing the extent to which witnessing others who are subjected

to negative treatment results in their psychological contracts and their consequent

passive reactions. As research shows that witnesses consequent in poor health and

higher stress levels (Salin, 2014). Reason behind this could be speculated as witnessing

bullying, too, shatters the beliefs of justice of the observer. As examination on layoffs

demonstrates its impeding impacts not just on the ones legitimately influenced by it yet

in addition who observes it (Kets de Vries & Balazs, 1997). Parallel to this, a researcher

also hypothesized that occurrence of bullying followed by absence of organizational

strides to stop is perceived as infringement of psychological contract from the

bystanders’ perspective as well (Parzefall & Salin, 2010). This remains to have an

empirical validation.

Future studies could also have an examination on other possible mediators in

bullying-silence relationship. Targets are plausible to not only encounter resentment,

frustration and anger but other negative feelings in the form of fear, emotional

exhaustion and lack of psychological safety (Brinsfield, 2013; Kiewitz et al., 2016) is

also expected. provided the Pakistan’s socio- cultural milieu, analyzing the moderating

roles of collectivism and power distance holds position for a very promising future

research avenue. Few studies, according to Srivastava et al (2019) have been conducted

to test underlying mechanism for workplace outcomes in response to silence of

employees, hence an extensive research involving various central mechanisms and

boundary conditions remains a valuable direction for future researchers.

Academic literature, surveys and reports all indicate the increase in the frequency of

workplace bullying in recent years (e.g., 27%, Workplace Bullying Institute Survey,

2014). Hence its detrimental effects largely costs to employees and organizations both,

raising voices and speaking up for the concerns in an effort to reduce is a sensible

approach to adopt. Finding of the current study, however, suggests that employees, in

response to mistreatment, prefer to remain silent, hence inhibiting mistreatments within

work contexts and promotion of voice behaviors within employees serves as a key tool.

Previous research also proves the increased awareness on the nature, form, causes and

consequences of bullying, clear imposition of policies such as “zero tolerance for

mistreatment at work” and “managing with respect” and clear protocols in order to

Namra Jamshaid & Sadia Arshad

report bullying serves as potential deterrents. Management lax attitude and non-

supportive HR policies (Noronha & D’Cruz, 2009) are some prime reasons for the

adoption of silence behaviors. A well- formulated and efficiently enforced anti- bullying

strategies promote more active participation of HR in organizations.

Employees, particularly in high power distant cultures like Pakistan are hesitant to

straightforwardly report incidences. To counter this, reporting arrangements like

hotlines and mobile applications like STOP it should be adopted by organizations while

maintaining the anonymity of the victim. For employees to share work related problems,

organizational ombudsman should be established that operates outside the traditional

hierarchy. Through this, employees’ identities should also remain confidential hence

protecting any sort of tension or damage either supervisor, helping employees

combatting bullying by raising voices against it. In addition to fostering an intolerant

environment for bullying through organizational practice, a close monitoring of

supervisors’ behaviors followed by providing mechanisms to employees such as

employee surveys and grievance procedures to report is a significant tool to reduce its

severity.

All except, workplace bullying is an organizational reality. Hence efforts to make

an entire bullying-free environment is next to impossible. So, in addition to make an

effort in ending up this maltreatment, managers must limit its consequences by

understanding its dynamics. As research shows that the relationship between bullying-

silence is preceded by particular reactions as frustration and anger (PCV) enhancing the

victim’s psychological distress due to resource loss, it is important for managers and

HR professionals to be sensitive for such cues and measures for relieving employees

from these negative emotions should be timely fashioned. Provision of psychological

consultation services, where victims are heard, a supportive workplace environment

which fosters interpersonal networks providing ample social support and opportunities

for job enhancement in order to cope with negative situations will definitely serve the

purpose.

References

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in experimental social

psychology, 2, 267-299.

Agarwal, U. A., & Bhargava, S. (2014). The role of social exchange on work outcomes:

a study of Indian managers. The International Journal of human resource

management, 25(10), 1484-1504.

Journal of Applied Economics and Business Studies, Volume.4, Issue 3 (2020) 15-54 https://doi.org/10.34260/jaebs.442

Anderson, C., & Brion, S. (2014). Perspectives on power in organizations. Annual

review of organizational psychology and organizational behavior, 1(1), 67-97.

Aquino, K., & Thau, S. (2009). Workplace victimization: Aggression from the target's

perspective. Annual review of psychology, 60.

Aquino, K., Tripp, T. M., & Bies, R. J. (2006). Getting even or moving on? Power,

procedural justice, and types of offense as predictors of revenge, forgiveness,

reconciliation, and avoidance in organizations. Journal of applied

psychology, 91(3), 653.

Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., Sun, L. Y., & Debrah, Y. A. (2007). Antecedents and outcomes

of abusive supervision: test of a trickle-down model. Journal of applied

psychology, 92(1), 191.

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(2), 127-152.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Bandura, A. (2007). An agentic perspective on positive psychology. In S. J. Lopez (Ed.),

The science of human flourishing, New York: Praeger.

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life Wiley New York.

Brinsfield, C. T. (2013). Employee silence motives: Investigation of dimensionality and

development of measures. Journal of organizational behavior, 34(5), 671-697.

Brockner, J., Tyler, T. R., & Cooper-Schneider, R. (1992). The influence of prior

commitment to an institution on reactions to perceived unfairness: The higher

they are, the harder they fall. Administrative science quarterly, 241-261.

Brotheridge, C. M., & Lee, R. T. (2010). Restless and confused: Emotional responses

to workplace bullying in men and women. Career development

international, 15(7), 687-707.

Buckley, M. R., Cote, J. A. and Comstock, S. M. (1990). Measurement errors in the

behavioral sciences: The case of personality/attitude research. Educational and

psychological measurement, 50(3), 447-474.

Chadwick, I. C., & Raver, J. L. (2013). Continuously improving in tough times:

Overcoming resource constraints with psychological capital. Academy of

management proceedings, 1, 13895.

Namra Jamshaid & Sadia Arshad

Chung, H., & van Oorschot, W. (2010). Employment insecurity of European individuals

during the financial crisis: A multi-level approach. Reconciliation of work and

welfare in europe working paper, 14.

Costa, S., & Neves, P. (2017). Job insecurity and work outcomes: The role of

psychological contract breach and positive psychological capital. Work &

Stress, 31(4), 375-394.

Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary

review. Journal of management, 31(6), 874-900.

D'Cruz, P., Noronha, E., & Beale, D. (2014). The workplace bullying-organizational

change interface: Emerging challenges for human resource management. The

international journal of human resource management, 25(10), 1434-1459.

De Vries, M. F. K., & Balazs, K. (1997). The downside of downsizing. Human

relations, 50(1), 11-50.

Duan, J., Bao, C., Huang, C., & Brinsfield, C. T. (2018). Authoritarian leadership and

employee silence in China. Journal of Management and Organization, 24(1),

62.

Dyne, L. V., Ang, S., & Botero, I. C. (2003). Conceptualizing employee silence and

employee voice as multidimensional constructs. Journal of management

studies, 40(6), 1359-1392.

Einarsen, S. V., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (2020). Bullying and Harassment

in the Workplace: Theory, Research and Practice. CRC Press.

Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Cooper, C. (Eds.). (2003). Bullying and emotional abuse in

the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice. CRC Press.

Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Notelaers, G. (2009). Measuring exposure to bullying and

harassment at work: Validity, factor structure and psychometric properties of the

Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised. Work & stress, 23(1), 24-44.

Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (2011). The concept of bullying and

harassment at work: The European tradition. Bullying and harassment in the

workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice, 2, 3-40.

Fernández, I., Carrera, P., Sánchez, F., Paez, D., & Candia, L. (2000). Differences

between cultures in emotional verbal and non-verbal

reactions. Psicothema, 12(1), 83-92.

Journal of Applied Economics and Business Studies, Volume.4, Issue 3 (2020) 15-54 https://doi.org/10.34260/jaebs.442

Fox, S., & Cowan, R. L. (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., & Stallworth, L. E. (2009). Building a framework for two internal

organizational approaches to resolving and preventing workplace bullying:

Alternative dispute resolution and training. Consulting psychology journal:

practice and research, 61(3), 220.

Ghayur, S. (2009). Evolution of the industrial relations system in Pakistan, PPC policy

paper series.

Greenberg, J., & Edwards, M. S. (Eds.). (2009). Voice and silence in organizations.

Emerald group publishing.

Guo, L., Decoster, S., Babalola, M. T., De Schutter, L., Garba, O. A., & Riisla, K.

(2018). Authoritarian leadership and employee creativity: The moderating role

of psychological capital and the mediating role of fear and defensive

silence. Journal of Business Research, 92, 219-230.

Halbesleben, J. R., Neveu, J. P., Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., & Westman, M. (2014).

Getting to the “COR” understanding the role of resources in conservation of

resources theory. Journal of management, 40(5), 1334-1364.

Harlos, K. (2016). Employee silence in the context of unethical behavior at work: A

commentary. German Journal of Human resource management, 30(3-4), 345-

355.

Harvey, P., Stoner, J., Hochwarter, W., & Kacmar, C. (2007). Coping with abusive

supervision: The neutralizing effects of ingratiation and positive affect on

negative employee outcomes. The leadership quarterly, 18(3), 264-280.

Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process

analysis: A regression based approach (2nd ed.).

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.

Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing

stress. American psychologist, 44(3), 513.

Hoel, H., & Cooper, C. L. (2001). Origins of bullying: Theoretical frameworks for

explaining workplace bullying. Building a culture of respect, 21-38. CRC Press.

Namra Jamshaid & Sadia Arshad

Hoel, H., Sheehan, M. J., Cooper, C. L., & Einarsen, S. (2011). Organisational effects

of workplace bullying. Bullying and harassment in the workplace:

Developments in theory, research, and practice, 129-148.

Hom, P. W., Mitchell, T. R., Lee, T. W., & Griffeth, R. W. (2012). Reviewing employee

turnover: focusing on proximal withdrawal states and an expanded

criterion. Psychological bulletin, 138(5), 831.

Huseman, R. C., Hatfield, J. D., & Miles, E. W. (1987). A new perspective on equity

theory: The equity sensitivity construct. Academy of management review, 12(2),

222-234.

Islam, N. (2004). Sifarish, sycophants, power and collectivism: Administrative culture

in Pakistan. International review of administrative sciences, 70(2), 311-330.

Jahanzeb, S., & Fatima, T. (2018). How workplace ostracism influences interpersonal

deviance: The mediating role of defensive silence and emotional

exhaustion. Journal of Business and Psychology, 33(6), 779-791.

Jamieson, J. P., Harkins, S. G., & Williams, K. D. (2010). Need threat can motivate

performance after ostracism. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 36(5),

690-702.

Jiang, K., Liu, D., McKay, P. F., Lee, T. W., & Mitchell, T. R. (2012). When and how

is job embeddedness predictive of turnover? A meta-analytic

investigation. Journal of applied psychology, 97(5), 1077.

Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and

inhibition. Psychological review, 110(2), 265.

Kernan, M. C., Racicot, B. M., & Fisher, A. M. (2016). Effects of abusive supervision,

psychological climate, and felt violation on work outcomes: A moderated

mediated model. Journal of leadership & organizational studies, 23(3), 309-

321.

Khan, A. K., Quratulain, S., & Crawshaw, J. R. (2013). The mediating role of discrete

emotions in the relationship between injustice and counterproductive work

behaviors: A study in Pakistan. Journal of business and psychology, 28(1), 49-

61.

Kiazad, K., Seibert, S. E., & Kraimer, M. L. (2014). Psychological contract breach and

employee innovation: A conservation of resources perspective. Journal of

occupational and organizational psychology, 87(3), 535-556.

Journal of Applied Economics and Business Studies, Volume.4, Issue 3 (2020) 15-54 https://doi.org/10.34260/jaebs.442

Kickul, J., & Lester, S. W. (2001). Broken promises: Equity sensitivity as a moderator

between psychological contract breach and employee attitudes and

behavior. Journal of business and psychology, 16(2), 191-217.

Kiewitz, C., Restubog, S. L. D., Shoss, M. K., Garcia, P. R. J. M., & Tang, R. L. (2016).

Suffering in silence: Investigating the role of fear in the relationship between

abusive supervision and defensive silence. Journal of applied

psychology, 101(5), 731.

Kish-Gephart, J. J., Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., & Edmondson, A. C. (2009). Silenced

by fear: The nature, sources, and consequences of fear at work. Research in

organizational behavior, 29, 163-193.

Knoll, M., Hall, R. J., & Weigelt, O. (2019). A longitudinal study of the relationships

between four differentially motivated forms of employee silence and

burnout. Journal of occupational health psychology, 24(5), 572.

Lapointe, É., Vandenberghe, C., & Boudrias, J. S. (2013). Psychological contract

breach, affective commitment to organization and supervisor, and newcomer

adjustment: A three-wave moderated mediation model. Journal of vocational

behavior, 83(3), 528-538.

Leymann, H. (1996). The content and development of mobbing at work. European

journal of work and organizational psychology, 5(2), 165-184.

Li, Y., & Sun, J. M. (2015). Traditional Chinese leadership and employee voice

behavior: A cross-level examination. The leadership quarterly, 26(2), 172-189.

Liang, J., Farh, C. I., & Farh, J. L. (2012). Psychological antecedents of promotive and

prohibitive voice: A two-wave examination. Academy of management

journal, 55(1), 71-92.

Lim, S., & Cortina, L. M. (2005). Interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace: the

interface and impact of general incivility and sexual harassment. Journal of

applied psychology, 90(3), 483.

Luthans, F. (2002). The need for and meaning of positive organizational

behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of

industrial, occupational and organizational psychology and behavior, 23(6),

695-706.

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(3), 541-572.

Namra Jamshaid & Sadia Arshad

Luthans, F., Norman, S. M., Avolio, B. J., & Avey, J. B. (2008). The mediating role of

psychological capital in the supportive organizational climate—employee

performance relationship. Journal of organizational behavior, 29(2), 219-238.

MacIntosh, J., Wuest, J., Gray, M. M., & Cronkhite, M. (2010). Workplace bullying in

health care affects the meaning of work. Qualitative health research, 20(8),

1128-1141.

Masten, A. S., & Reed, M. G. J. (2002). Resilience in development. Handbook of

positive psychology, 74, 88.

McCormack, D., Casimir, G., Djurkovic, N., & Yang, L. (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.

Merkin, R. S. (2006). Power distance and facework strategies. Journal of intercultural

communication research, 35(2), 139-160.

Milliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W., & Hewlin, P. F. (2003). An exploratory study of

employee silence: Issues that employees don’t communicate upward and

why. Journal of management studies, 40(6), 1453-1476.

Morrison, E. W. (2014). Employee voice and silence. Annual review of organizational

psychology and. Organizational behavior, 1(1), 173-197.

Morrison, E. W., & Rothman, N. B. (2009). Silence and the dynamics of power. Voice

and silence in organizations, 6, 111-134.

Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2012). Employee voice behavior: A meta‐analytic test of

the conservation of resources framework. Journal of organizational

behavior, 33(2), 216-234.

Nifadkar, S., Tsui, A. S., & Ashforth, B. E. (2012). The way you make me feel and

behave: Supervisor-triggered newcomer affect and approach-avoidance

behavior. Academy of management journal, 55(5), 1146-1168.

Norman, S. M., Avey, J. B., Nimnicht, J. L., & Graber Pigeon, N. (2010). The interactive

effects of psychological capital and organizational identity on employee

organizational citizenship and deviance behaviors. Journal of leadership &

organizational studies, 17(4), 380-391.

Noronha, E., & D'Cruz, P. (2009). Employee identity in Indian call centres: The notion

of professionalism. SAGE Publications India.

Journal of Applied Economics and Business Studies, Volume.4, Issue 3 (2020) 15-54 https://doi.org/10.34260/jaebs.442

Offe, C., & Wiesenthal, H. (1980). Two logics of collective action: Theoretical notes on

social class and organizational form. Political power and social theory, 1(1), 67-

115.

Parzefall, M. R., & Salin, D. M. (2010). Perceptions of and reactions to workplace

bullying: A social exchange perspective. Human relations, 63(6), 761-780.

Peirce, E., Smolinski, C. A., & Rosen, B. (1998). Why sexual harassment complaints

fall on deaf ears. Academy of Management Perspectives, 12(3), 41-54.

Peterson, C. (2000). The future of optimism. American Psychologist, 55, 44–55.

Peterson, S. J., & Luthans, F. (2003). The positive impact and development of hopeful

leaders. Leadership & organization development journal, 24(1), 26-31.

Piccoli, B., & De Witte, H. (2015). Job insecurity and emotional exhaustion: Testing

psychological contract breach versus distributive injustice as indicators of lack

of reciprocity. Work & Stress, 29(3), 246-263.

Pinder, C. C., & Harlos, K. P. (2001). Employee silence: Quiescence and acquiescence

as responses to perceived injustice. Personnel and human resources

management, 331-369.

Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation

hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate behavioral

research, 42(1), 185-227.

Priesemuth, M., & Taylor, R. M. (2016). The more I want, the less I have left to give:

The moderating role of psychological entitlement on the relationship between

psychological contract violation, depressive mood states, and citizenship

behavior. Journal of organizational behavior, 37(7), 967-982.

Rai, A., & Agarwal, U. A. (2018). Workplace bullying and employee silence: A

moderated mediation model of psychological contract violation and workplace

friendship. Personnel review, 47(1), 226-256.

Raja, U., Johns, G., & Ntalianis, F. (2004). The impact of personality on psychological

contracts. Academy of management Journal, 47(3), 350-367.

Robinson, S. L., & Wolfe Morrison, E. (2000). The development of psychological

contract breach and violation: A longitudinal study. Journal of organizational

Behavior, 21(5), 525-546.

Roscigno, V. J., Lopez, S. H., & Hodson, R. (2009). Supervisory bullying, status

inequalities and organizational context. Social forces, 87(3), 1561-1589.

Namra Jamshaid & Sadia Arshad

Rosen, S., & Tesser, A. (1970). On reluctance to communicate undesirable information:

The MUM effect. Sociometry, 253-263.

Salin, D. (2013). Bullying and well-being. Handbook of Unethical Work Behavior:

Implications for Individual Well-Being: Implications for Individual Well-Being,

73.

Salin, D., & Notelaers, G. (2017). The effect of exposure to bullying on turnover

intentions: the role of perceived psychological contract violation and benevolent

behaviour. Work & stress, 31(4), 355-374.

Salin, D., & Notelaers, G. (2020). The effects of workplace bullying on witnesses:

violation of the psychological contract as an explanatory mechanism?. The

International Journal of Human Resource Management, 31(18), 2319-2339.

Samnani, A. K. (2013). Embracing new directions in workplace bullying research: A

paradigmatic approach. Journal of management inquiry, 22(1), 26-36.

Sauley, K. S., & Bedeian, A. G. (2000). Equity sensitivity: Construction of a measure

and examination of its psychometric properties. Journal of management, 26(5),

885-910.

Schneider, S. L. (2001). In search of realistic optimism. American Psychologist, 56,

250–263.

Seligman, M. E. P. (1998). Learned optimism New York: Pocket Books.

Sheehan, M., McCabe, T. J., & Garavan, T. N. (2020). Workplace bullying and

employee outcomes: a moderated mediated model. The International Journal of

Human Resource Management, 31(11), 1379-1416.

Snyder, C. R., & Lopez, S. J. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of positive psychology. Oxford

university press.

Snyder, C. R., Sympson, S. C., Ybasco, F. C., Borders, T. F., Babyak, M. A., & Higgins,

R. L. (1996). Development and validation of the State Hope Scale. Journal of

personality and social psychology, 70(2), 321.

Srivastava, S., Jain, A. K., & Sullivan, S. (2019). Employee silence and burnout in India:

the mediating role of emotional intelligence. Personnel Review, 48(4), 1045–

1060

Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A

meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 124(2), 240.

Sturm, R. E., & Antonakis, J. (2015). Interpersonal power: A review, critique, and

research agenda. Journal of Management, 41(1), 136-163.

Journal of Applied Economics and Business Studies, Volume.4, Issue 3 (2020) 15-54 https://doi.org/10.34260/jaebs.442

Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of management

journal, 43(2), 178-190.

Tepper, B. J., Carr, J. C., Breaux, D. M., Geider, S., Hu, C., & Hua, W. (2009). Abusive

supervision, intentions to quit, and employees’ workplace deviance: A

power/dependence analysis. Organizational behavior and human decision

processes, 109(2), 156-167.

Tepper, B. J., Moss, S. E., Lockhart, D. E., & Carr, J. C. (2007). Abusive supervision,

upward maintenance communication, and subordinates' psychological

distress. Academy of management journal, 50(5), 1169-1180.

Timming, A. R., & Johnstone, S. (2015). Employee silence and the authoritarian

personality: A political psychology of workplace democracy. International

journal of organizational analysis, 23(1), 154-171.

Trépanier, S. G., Fernet, C., & Austin, S. (2013). Workplace bullying and psychological

health at work: The mediating role of satisfaction of needs for autonomy,

competence and relatedness. Work & stress, 27(2), 123-140.

Van Der Vegt, G. S., Van De Vliert, E., & Oosterhof, A. (2003). Informational

dissimilarity and organizational citizenship behavior: The role of intrateam

interdependence and team identification. Academy of management

journal, 46(6), 715-727.

Walumbwa, F. O., & Schaubroeck, J. (2009). Leader personality traits and employee

voice behavior: mediating roles of ethical leadership and work group

psychological safety. Journal of applied psychology, 94(5), 1275.

Wang, Y. D., & Hsieh, H. H. (2013). Organizational ethical climate, perceived

organizational support, and employee silence: A cross-level

investigation. Human relations, 66(6), 783-802.

Whitman, M. V., Halbesleben, J. R., & Holmes IV, O. (2014). Abusive supervision and

feedback avoidance: The mediating role of emotional exhaustion. Journal of

organizational behavior, 35(1), 38-53.

Wu, T. Y., & Hu, C. (2013). Abusive supervision and subordinate emotional labor: The

moderating role of openness personality. Journal of applied social

psychology, 43(5), 956-970.

Xu, A. J., Loi, R., & Lam, L. W. (2015). The bad boss takes it all: How abusive

supervision and leader–member exchange interact to influence employee

silence. The leadership quarterly, 26(5), 763-774.

Namra Jamshaid & Sadia Arshad

Youssef, C. M., & Luthans, F. (2007). Positive organizational behavior in the

workplace: The impact of hope, optimism, and resilience. Journal of

management, 33(5), 774-800.

Zabrodska, K., Ellwood, C., Zaeemdar, S., & Mudrak, J. (2016). Workplace bullying as

sensemaking: An analysis of target and actor perspectives on initial hostile

interactions. Culture and organization, 22(2), 136-157.

Zapf, D. (1999). Organisational, work group related and personal causes of

mobbing/bullying at work. International journal of manpower, 20(1), 70-85.

Zapf, D. (2004). Negative social behavior at work and workplace bullying. The fourth

international conference on bullying and harassment in the workplace, 25.

Journal of Applied Economics and Business Studies, Volume.4, Issue 3 (2020) 15-54 https://doi.org/10.34260/jaebs.442

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

Dear Sir\Madam,

This survey is being conducted to analyze the impact of Workplace bullying on Employee

silence. The results will have no effect what so ever upon your final grades. Your anonymity

will be strictly retained and results will be used for research purposes only. Thank you for your

time and cooperation!

1. General Information:

2. Please place a tick in one option for each statement to rate
yourself on below given criteria at the state of workplace

bullying. S
tr

o
n

g
ly

D
is

a
g

r
e
e

D
is

a
g

r
e
e

N
e
u

tr
a

A
g

r
e
e

S
tr

o
n

g
ly

A
g

r
e
e

WB1
Someone withholding information which affects your

performance.
1 2 3 4 5

WB2 Being ordered to do work below your level of competence. 1 2 3 4 5

WB3 Having your opinions ignored. 1 2 3 4 5

WB4 Being given tasks with unreasonable deadlines. 1 2 3 4 5

WB5 Excessive monitoring of your work. 1 2 3 4 5

WB6 Pressure not to claim something to which by right you are

entitled (e.g. sick leave, holiday entitlement, and travel

expenses).

1 2 3 4 5

WB7 Being exposed to an unmanageable workload. 1 2 3 4 5

WB8 Being humiliated or ridiculed in connection with your work. 1 2 3 4 5

WB9 Having key areas of responsibility removed or replaced with

more trivial or unpleasant tasks.

1 2 3 4 5

WB1

Spreading of gossip and rumors about you. 1 2 3 4 5

WB1

Being ignored or excluded. 1 2 3 4 5

WB1

Having insulting or offensive remarks made about your person,

attitudes or your private life.

1 2 3 4 5

WB1

Hints or signals from others that you should quit your job. 1 2 3 4 5

WB1

Repeated reminders of your errors or mistakes. 1 2 3 4 5

WB1

Being ignored or facing a hostile reaction when you approach. 1 2 3 4 5

WB1

Persistent criticism of your errors or mistakes. 1 2 3 4 5

a) Gender: A) Male B) Female
b) Formal Education: (1) Undergraduate (2) Graduate

(3) Post graduate

c) Age: (1) Below 30 (2) 31– 35 (3) 36 years or above

d) Working tenure under this supervisor (1) below 1 year (2) 1-3 years (3) 3-5 years (4) 5 years or more

Namra Jamshaid & Sadia Arshad

WB1

Practical jokes carried out by people you don’t get along with. 1 2 3 4 5

WB1

Having allegations made against you. 1 2 3 4 5

WB1

Being the subject of excessive teasing and sarcasm. 1 2 3 4 5

WB2

Being shouted at or being the target of spontaneous anger. 1 2 3 4 5

WB2

Intimidating behaviors such as finger-pointing, invasion of

personal space, shoving, blocking your way.

1 2 3 4 5

WB2

Threats of violence or physical abuse or actual abuse. 1 2 3 4 5

3. Please place a tick in one option for each statement to rate yourself on
below given criteria at the state of Psychological Contract Violation.

(Please tick only one number for each of the following statements)

PCV1 I feel betrayed by my organization. Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 Very much

PCV2 I feel that the organization has violated the

contract between us.

Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 Very much

PCV3 I have not received everything promised to

me in exchange for my contributions.

Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 Very much

PCV4 Almost all the promises made by my

employer

during recruitment have been kept thus far

Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 Very much

4. Please place a tick in one option for each statement to rate yourself on
below given criteria at the state of Benevolent Behavior.

(Please tick only one number for each of the following

statements)

5. Please place a tick in one option for each statement
to rate yourself on below given criteria at the state

of Positive Psychological Capital. S
tr

o
n

g
ly

D
is

a
g

r
e
e

D
is

a
g

r
e
e

N
e
u

tr
a

A
g

r
e
e

S
tr

o
n

g
ly

A
g

r
e
e

PPC1 I feel confident presenting information to a group of

colleagues

1 2 3 4 5

PPC2 I feel confident in representing my work area in meetings

with management.

1 2 3 4 5

BB1 I am always ready to help or to lend a

helping hand to those around me

Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 Very much

BB2 I am willing to give of my time to help

others who have work-related problems

Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 Very much

BB3 I help other team members with heavy

work loads

Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 Very much

BB4 I help others who have been absent Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 Very much

Journal of Applied Economics and Business Studies, Volume.4, Issue 3 (2020) 15-54 https://doi.org/10.34260/jaebs.442

PPC3 I feel confident contributing to discussions about the

company’s strategy

1 2 3 4 5

PPC4 I feel confident helping to set targets/goals in my work area. 1 2 3 4 5

PPC5 I feel confident contacting people outside the company

(e.g., suppliers, customers) to discuss problems.

1 2 3 4 5

PPC6 I feel confident presenting information to a group of

colleagues.

1 2 3 4 5

PPC7 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

PPC8 At the present time, I am energetically pursuing my work

goals

1 2 3 4 5

PPC9 There are lots of ways around any problem. 1 2 3 4 5

PPC10 Right now I see myself as being pretty successful at work 1 2 3 4 5

PPC11 I can think of many ways to reach my current work goals. 1 2 3 4 5

PPC12 At this time, I am meeting the work goals that I have set for

myself.

1 2 3 4 5

PPC13 When I have a setback at work, I have trouble recovering

from it, moving on.(R)

1 2 3 4 5

PPC14 I usually manage difficulties one way or another at work. 1 2 3 4 5

PPC15 I can be “on my own,” so to speak, at work if I have to. 1 2 3 4 5

PPC16 I usually take stressful things at work in stride. 1 2 3 4 5

PPC17 I can get through difficult times at work because I’ve

experienced difficulty before.

1 2 3 4 5

PPC18 I feel I can handle many things at a time at this job. 1 2 3 4 5

PPC19 When things are uncertain for me at work, I usually expect

the best.

1 2 3 4 5

PPC20 If something can go wrong for me work-wise, it will.(R) 1 2 3 4 5

PPC21 I always look on the bright side of things regarding my job. 1 2 3 4 5

PPC22 I’m optimistic about what will happen to me in the future as

it pertains to work.

1 2 3 4 5

PPC23 In this job, things never work out the way I want them

to.(R)

1 2 3 4 5

PPC24 I approach this job as if “every cloud has a silver lining.” 1 2 3 4 5

6. Please place a tick in one option for each statement
to rate yourself on below given criteria at the state

of Employee Silence S
tr

o
n

g
ly

D
is

a
g

r
e
e

D
is

a
g

r
e
e

N
e
u

tr
a

A
g

r
e
e

S
tr

o
n

g
ly

A
g

r
e
e

ES1 (IF) I did not believe my concerns would be addressed

1 2 3 4 5

ES2 Management did not appear interested in hearing about

these types of issues

1 2 3 4 5

ES3 No one is interested in taking appropriate action 1 2 3 4 5

ES4 I did not feel I would be taken seriously 1 2 3 4 5

ES5 I did not think it would do any good to speak up 1 2 3 4 5

ES6 (D) I felt it is dangerous to speak up 1 2 3 4 5

ES7 I remain silent to protect myself from harm 1 2 3 4 5

Namra Jamshaid & Sadia Arshad

ES8 I feel it was risky to speak up 1 2 3 4 5

ES9 I believe that speaking up may negatively impact my

career

1 2 3 4 5

ES10 I am afraid of adverse consequences (e.g., being

criticized, losing my job)

1 2 3 4 5

ES11 (R) I didn’t want to harm my relationship with another

individual

1 2 3 4 5

ES12 I did not want to create tension with co-worker 1 2 3 4 5

ES13 I remain silent to avoid conflict with another individual 1 2 3 4 5

ES14 I remain silent to protect my relationship with another

individual

1 2 3 4 5

ES15 I remain silent to avoid hurting someone’s feelings 1 2 3 4 5