ISSN 1816-6075 (Print), 1818-0523 (Online)

Journal of System and Management Sciences

Vol. 13 (2023) No. 4, pp. 1-15
DOI:10.33168/JSMS.2023.0401

The Moderating Role of Workplace Social Support in the

Relationship between Workplace Bullying and Job Performance

Ola Mohamed Elazzazy

Faculty of Commerce, Department of Management, Zagazig University, Egypt
[email protected]

Abstract. This study aimed to investigate the effect of workplace bullying (work-related
bullying - interpersonal bullying - physical intimidation) on job performance, as well as to
examine the mediating role of workplace social support in this relationship. A questionnaire
was distributed to a sample of nurses in Egyptian hospitals. Correlations and hieratical
correlation analysis were applied to the test hypotheses. The results indicated that bullying
related to work has a negative but not significant relationship with job performance, while
bullying related to people and physical intimidation has a significant negative relationship
with job performance. The results also confirmed the moderate effect of social support in the
workplace on the relationship between dimensions of bullying and job performance. Except
for the physical intimidation dimension. Many suggestions and recommendations have been
presented to reduce bullying in the workplace and mitigate its negative consequences on
bullying victims.
Keywords: workplace bullying, workplace social support, job performance

1
 Elazzazy., Journal of System and Management Sciences, Vol. 13 (2023) No. 4, pp. 1-15

1. Introduction
Job performance is one of the most important variables that attracts the attention of Scholars in the field
of organizational behavior, as employees' job performance is mostly reflected in organizational
performance, and it is also necessary to achieve organizational efficiency and effectiveness (Elazzazy,
2020). Therefore, Scholars and practitioners in the field of organizational behavior have been interested
in studying the impact of informal behaviors in workplaces on employees’ job performance (Devonish,
2013). Workplace bullying is a form of informal behavior that prevails at high rates in all types of
organizations (Nielsen and Einarsen, 2012) and especially in medical organizations (Nielsen et al, 2010).
Nurses specifically are exposed to bullying, which has escalated dramatically during the time of
Corona pandemic since they were on the frontline fighting this pandemic. According to (Trépanier et
al., 2016) up to 40% of nurses have experienced bullying behaviors, while Hook and Colbert (2017)
found that the prevalence rates of bullying behaviors among nurses have varied from 26% to 77%.
These figures indicate that the medical sector appears to be severely affected by this phenomenon. In
contrast, workplace bullying studies in non-medical organizations indicate a global prevalence of these
behaviors of only 15%, which implies that workplace bullying in different workplaces may be less
prevalent in them than in the context of the medical sector (Nielsen et al, 2010).
Bullying refers to the repeated exposure of a specific person over a long time to intentional negative
behaviors by co-workers, superiors, or subordinates (Nielsen et al., 2017), so workplace bullying can
not be seen as a simple conflict between two people, but rather as a toxic workplace behavior that has
negative consequences on both organizations and their employees (Glambek et al., 2014; Nielsen and
Einarsen, 2012; Olsen et al., 2017), so such behaviors should be taken seriously.
The seriousness of workplace bullying can be explained by social learning theory, according to this
theory, learning often occurs through modeling or imitating the behavior of others within the
organization (Elazzazy, 2020), and this explains why some subordinates, peers, and superiors are
encouraged to practice these behaviors against a specific person if they see others do the same,
especially their superiors (Freire and Pinto, 2021), So Nwobia and Al Johani (2017) emphasized that
tolerance with bullies leads to widespread of bullying behaviors and therefore creates a stressful work
environment that can negatively affect employee performance.
Despite the intensity of studies on workplace bullying, no study- to the best of our knowledge-
attempts to measure the effect of bullying dimensions (work-related bullying, person-related bullying,
and physical intimidation) in Egyptian hospitals and its effect on job performance, especially during the
COVID-19 pandemic where the effectiveness of performance in hospitals has been more critical. In
addition, there is inconsistency in the literature findings about the relationship between bullying and
job performance. Also, no previous study examines the moderating role of workplace social support in
the relationship between workplace bullying and job performance. Accordingly, this research will fill
this research gap by answering the following questions:
1-To what extent can workplace bullying with its various dimensions (work-related bullying –
person- related bullying – physical intimidation) affect job performance?
2- Does workplace social support act as a moderator in the relationship between workplace bullying
and job performance?
To the best of our knowledge, this research examines relationships that have never been tested
before, either in general or in the hospital's context. This implies that our research will make a unique
contribution to the organizational behavior literature and most particularly in the medical sector context.

2. Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

The concept of workplace bullying attracts the attention of Scholars and practitioners in the last decade
since Leyamann 1996 published his research on workplace bullying. Then, the research on this concept
has grown significantly (Samnani and Singh,2012). The concept of workplace bullying has been studied

2
 Elazzazy., Journal of System and Management Sciences, Vol. 13 (2023) No. 4, pp. 1-15

under several terms, such as mobbing (Matthiesen and Einarsen, 2010), workplace harassment
(Hershcovis and Barling, 2010; Nielsen et al., 2017), aggression in the workplace (Schat and Frone,
2011), as well as emotional abuse (Tepper, 2007), social undermining (Duffy et al., 2002), interpersonal
deviance (Berry et al., 2007). The central core of all these terminologies is hostility, bullying is a
repetitive, intentional attack by one or a group of employees on another employee that occurs Regularly
over a specific period, aiming at inflicting psychological or professional harm on the victim.
Accordingly, the neglection of such behavior may result in a lot of negative consequences both on
the organizational level and on the individual level (Nielsen and Einarsen, 2012). Firstly, the
consequences of bullying on an organizational level can be represented in; increasing employees
turnovers (Glambek et al., 2014), low organizational commitment (Humair and Ejaz,2019), low work
motivation (Einarsen et al., 2009; Rodriguez-Muñoz et al., 2009), low job engagement and job
satisfaction (Rodríguez-Muñoz et al., 2009), low organizational trust (Elewa, 2019), high levels of job
stress and psychological strain (Jenkins et. al,2011), high burnout (Rossiter and Sochos,2018),
decreasing organizational citizenship and increased organizational retaliation (Naseer et al., 2018), and
workplace deviant behaviors (Litzky et al., 2006). Secondly, negative consequences of bullying on the
individual level can be represented in; increasing turnover intention, which is the main outcome of
workplace bullying (Nielsen and Einarsen,2012; Spence Laschinger and Fida, 2014), increasing job
insecurity feeling (Glambek,2014), decreasing sense of personal achievement and lower employees’
satisfaction (Israa and Suneel, 2018), also it may cause the victim to feel lonely, reduce self-confidence
(Hershcovis and Barling, 2010), increase anxiety, depression, and mental disorder (Briones
Vozmediano, 2015).
Workplace bullying is affected by many organizational factors (Olsen et al.,2017). In most cases,
bullying in the workplace occurs due to a power imbalance between the bullies and the victims
(Samnani, 2013). Bullies may have more information than victims and may have more job experience.,
or have support from influencers in the organization (Matthiesen and Einarsen, 2010). Generally,
victims of bullying often experience low self-esteem and lower social skills (Nel, 2019). Bullying
behavior is directed toward individuals who are unable to defend themselves in a real situation (Revi,
2021). So, some Scholars found an association between bullying behavior and the victims' tendency to
follow organizational silence behaviors to protect their organizational resources (Liu et al.,2020; Rai
and Agrawal, 2018).
There are different categorizations of bullying behaviors each has its' own characteristics and
consequences, i.e., bullying can be covert or overt behaviors, also it can be direct or indirect behaviors,
in this context Scholars claim that most workplace bullying is perceived as indirect behavior by nature
(Glambek et al., 2014).
Most Scholars embraced the classification of (Enarsen,2009) for workplace bullying behavior,
where he divided those behaviors into work-related behavior, person-related behavior, and physical
intimidation behavior. Person-related bullying refers to the behaviors practiced by the boss or
colleagues towards the victim, which includes; social isolation, ignoring the victim in social situations,
spreading rumors about him, taunting and insulting him, repeating the use of inappropriate signs in front
of others, name-calling, and continues criticism (Einersen et al.2009; Huchinson et al.2010). While
work-related bullying reflects all the negative behaviors which the bullied utilizes to affect the
performance of the victim, including; ignoring the victim's opinions in work-related decisions,
assigning excessive workloads, or assigning worthless tasks to undermine the victim, continuous
blaming, hiding work-related information, negatively evaluating the victim's performance, or assigning
tasks beyond formal roles, as well as the unfair treatment to bullying employee (Giorgi,2010; Einersen
et al.2009).
Lastly, physical intimidation, which refers to all negative behaviors that cause physical harm to the
victim, and is directed toward the victim's body, which includes objecting to the victim while working,

3
 Elazzazy., Journal of System and Management Sciences, Vol. 13 (2023) No. 4, pp. 1-15

talking to him loudly, and intentionally hitting him (Pompii et al.2015 Einersen et al.2009).
According to the social learning theory, human behaviors are learned through modeling and
imitating the behaviors of others, which gives the chance for these behaviors to be carried on a large
scale in organizations. So, it is important to find mechanisms to reduce workplace bullying and mitigate
its negative consequences on victims. According to (Elewa, 2019) organizational culture matters a lot
as it can promote or prohibit workplace bullying which in turn creates a stressful work environment,
which negatively affects employees' performance and productivity.

2.1 Workplace Bullying and Job Performance

Workplace bullying is a type of social stressor that has an impact on the psychological work
environment (Hauge et al., 2010), and thereby can affect employee performance and productivity
directly or indirectly (Nguyenet al.2021).
The most cited definition of job performance was introduced by Campbell (1990). He defines
performance as activities or behaviors under the individual's control that contribute to the organization's
goals and may be quantified based on the individual's level of proficiency. Some Scholars dealt with
job performance as a one-dimensional concept, where job performance is evaluated in terms of the
employees' proficiency in carrying out the formal tasks assigned to them and identified in the job
description (Kappagoda et al., 2014). In real fact, employees do not devote all their time to performing
formal work behavior specified in the job description. So, employees' performance is said to be a
multidimensional construct (Ramawickrama & Opatha, 2017). In 1993, Borman and Motowidlo also
considered performance as a multi-dimensional concept consisting of two basic dimensions; task
performance, and contextual performance (Hong, 2022).
Rotundo and Sackett (2002) added a third dimension under the general performance dimensions
which is counterproductive performance. However, in 2011, Koopmans et al. proposed four theoretical
dimensions; Task performance, Contextual performance, Adaptive performance, and
Counterproductive work behaviors. In his model of job performance Hunt's (1996) included adaptive
performance as a part of the contextual performance (Elazzazy, 2020).
There is a variation in the research results about the nature of the relationship between workplace
bullying and job performance. Some Scholars confirmed the negative relationship between bullying
and work performance (Ashraf and Khan, 2014; Robert, 2018), while other Scholars didn't find a
significant relationship between workplace bullying and performance (Nielsen and Einarsen, 2012;
Tag-Eldeen et al., 2017) Another study conducted by (Devonish, 2013) he found a significant
relationship between contextual performance, counterproductive behavior, and bullying; on the other
hand, he found no effect of bullying on in-role job performance, also (Mourssi-Alfash, 2014) through
his research, he concluded that there is a negative relationship between workplace bullying and
citizenship behavior.
Based on the results of previous literature, we can conclude that there is no agreement on the
direction of the relationship between job performance and workplace bullying. Also, all previous studies
are concerned with studying the effect of bullying on different dimensions of job performance while no
previous study has examined which type or dimension of bullying has more effect on job performance.
Therefore, this study attempts to fill this gap by examining the following hypothesis:
H₁: there is a significant negative relationship between workplace bullying and job performance.
This main hypothesis will be divided into three sub-hypotheses.
H11: There is a significant negative relationship between work-related bullying and job performance.
H₁2: There is a significant negative relationship between person-related bullying and job
performance.
H₁3: There is a significant negative relationship between physical intimidation and job performance.

4
 Elazzazy., Journal of System and Management Sciences, Vol. 13 (2023) No. 4, pp. 1-15

2.2 Workplace Bullying and Social Support

As we discussed previously, there is a variation in results Regarding the relationship between bullying
and performance, which means that there is a moderator that affects this relationship. The study of
(Ashraf and Khan, 2014; Meriläinen et al., 2019) suggested job engagement as a mediator in this
relationship, while (Devonish, 2013) examined the effect of psychological well-being and emotional
intelligence as a moderator, but (Arifin et al., 2019) examined the effect of teamwork as a mechanism
to absorb the negative impact of bullying on performance. On the other hand, (Olsen et al., 2017)
investigated the interactive effect of bullying and job satisfaction on job performance. He recommended
that employees who experience bullying should be given adequate support to reduce the negative
consequences of workplace bullying on their performance.
Bullying in the workplace can be a source of job stress since it indicates a constant loss of intrinsic
resources like status, dignity, safety, and motivation to work (Neall and Tuckey, 2014). In this context,
many studies have emphasized the importance of social support in the workplace as an essential
resource that protects employees from the negative effects of job stress caused by bullying. (Bakar and
Syahruddin M., 2017; Konishi and Hymel, 2009; Rosander and Blomberg, 2019). This viewpoint is
supported by the conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989), as this theory is considered one of
the most significant theories for explaining the origins and effects of stress by emphasizing the role of
resources (Samnani, 2013). According to this theory, in difficult working situations, employees with
elevated levels of resources perform better and have more ability to deal with stress. Therefore,
workplace social support is an important individual resource that leads to perceiving potentially
threatening situations as less stressful (Rai and Agarwal, 2018).
Social support in the workplace has been defined as behaviors that are beneficial or intended to be
beneficial to someone, those behaviors include a variety of interpersonal behaviors among workers that
enhance each other's psychological and behavioral performance (Harris et al., 2007).
House's (1981) identified four main categories of social support they are; (a) emotional support or
psychosocial support such as empathy and caring, acceptance, encouragement, and trust, this type of
support makes an employee feel that he is valued and gives him a sense of social belonging, (b)
instrumental support refers to things that others physically do or provides to assist someone in his
assigned tasks, (c) informational support refers to providing someone with general information that may
help him address job demand, the provision of information that helps an individual to evaluate
themselves, provision of advice, guidance, or information about social power structures, (e) appraisal
support which refers to providing useful information for self-evaluation (Jolly et al.2020).
While (Suanet et al., 2020) suggested that workplace social support can be divided into two main
types; the first is instrumental support, which refers to providing tangible and practical assistance, and
the second is emotional support, which denotes the acknowledgment of another person's feelings and
attempts to boost the other's morale. Another classification is supervisor support and co-worker support
(Yang et al.,2015).
Few studies have demonstrated the significance of social support in reducing psychological stress
among bullied employees (de Beer, 2014; Gardner et al., 2013). In his study, Gardner and his colleagues
(2013) concluded that both supervisor support and colleague support can reduce the psychological strain
among bullied workers in various sectors. War-szewska-makuch and his colleagues (2015) found that
co-workers' support can mitigate the negative impact of workplace bullying on mental health. Also, in
the study of Rai and Agarwal (2018), they considered that Employees' networks of friends give
emotional and practical assistance needed to deal with difficult employment conditions. On the other
hand, previous research has consistently confirmed that supervisor support has a direct positive impact
on job performance (Zeb et al., 2022). This means that supervisor support can be a protective resource
against bullying (Desrumaux and Gillet, 2018). Thus, to examine social support as a moderator in the
relationship between workplace bullying and work performance, we suppose the following hypothesis:

5
 Elazzazy., Journal of System and Management Sciences, Vol. 13 (2023) No. 4, pp. 1-15

H₂: Workplace social support moderates the relationship between workplace bullying and job
performance. This main hypothesis will be divided into two sub-hypotheses.
H21: Social support moderates the relationship between work-related bullying and job performance.
H22: Social support moderates the relationship between person-related bullying and job performance.
H23: Social support moderates the relationship between physical intimidation and job performance.
Based on the previous discussion it’s expected that social support will moderate the relationship
between workplace bullying and job performance, therefore it will mitigate the negative effect of
workplace bullying on employees' performance.

3. Research Methodology
The quantitative approach was employed in this study to collect the necessary primary data, by utilizing
a 5-point Likert scale. ranging from 1=strongly disagree, to 5= Strongly agree. workplace bullying was
measured depending on the Negative Acts Questionnaire -revised (Einarsen et al., 2009), as this scale
is the most widely used instrument to measure workplace bullying in previous studies, this scale divided
workplace bullying into three dimensions (work-related bullying, person-related bullying, and physical
intimidating), concerning employees job performance Griffin and his colleagues (2007) suggested job
performance scale. And lastly, social support was measured using Heaney's (1991) scale.

3.1 Population and sample

According to the results of a national study that was conducted in Egypt by Al-Shiyab and Ababneh
(2018), They revealed that 17,1 % of medical personnel experienced Workplace bullying, particularly
nurses. According to (Ariza-Montes et al., 2015) bullying is greater in the public sector than in the
private sector. Therefore, this research will be applied to nurses in five public hospitals in one Egyptian
city. The research population is (N=1387). the primary data collection took place between August and
October 2022. Data were collected through self-administered hard copy, out of the 300 respondents
targeted (according to the sample size table of Sekaran & Bougie (2016), 288 responses were received.
After excluding invalid responses, 272 were valid for further analysis (90% response rate).

4. Results and Discussion

To examine the moderating effect of workplace social support on the relationship between workplace
bullying and job performance the hierarchical Regression analysis was applied using the Eviews
program. Also, descriptive statistics, reliability, and correlation analysis using SPSS 20. Also, we
checked for Regression assumptions of multicollinearity and homogeneity of variances of data before
running the Regression analysis.

4.1 Reliability
Cronbach's (a)was used to assess the reliability of study variables. As Table (1) reveals, reliabilities for
work-related bullying (α =0.804) and for person-related bullying (α =0.726) and physical intimidation
(α = 0.706), social support (α =0.811), and job performance (α =0.854), all of them are within the
acceptable range, with total reliability of (α =0.851). which indicates good internal consistency of the
scale.

6
 Elazzazy., Journal of System and Management Sciences, Vol. 13 (2023) No. 4, pp. 1-15

Table 1: Reliability for study variables (Alpha Cronbach)

Variables No of items Cronbach’s alpha
(1) Independent Variable:
Work-related bullying 11 0.804
Person–related bullying 7 0.726
Physical Intimidating 3 0.706
(2) Moderator Variables:
Social support 15 0.811
(4) Dependent Variable:
Job performance 14 0.854
The Questionnaire Overall 50 0.851

4.2 validity
The questionnaire was originally written in English before being translated into Arabic. The Arabic
version was improved based on experts' feedback. The questionnaire was sent via email to A
questionnaire was reviewed by four researchers in the field of organizational behavior and three head
nurses from Egyptian hospitals. They were also asked for their thoughts on how explicit the
questionnaire items were and how appropriate they were for determining the aspects for which they
were intended. They were also asked if they could provide more feedback to the researcher on making
changes to the phrases on the questionnaire items to make them clearer and more informative. There
was helpful feedback on language usage, phrasing, and item wording. Based on experts’ responses and
based on their opinions, the survey was prepared in its final copy.

4.3 Testing Hypotheses

Table 2: Descriptive analysis for study variables

Mean Std. Min Max RII Importance
Dev. level
Independent Variable:
Work-related bullying 3.00915 0.5503 1.9091 4.9091 0.602 Medium-
High
Person–related 3.03164 0.4941 2.2857 4.5714 0.606 Medium-
bullying High
Physical Intimidating 2.81208 0.7884 1.6667 5 0.562 Medium
Moderator Variables:
Social support 2.45101 0.3088 1.8214 3.0804 0.490 Medium
Dependent Variable:
Job performance 2.44732 0.3501 1.4333 3.0167 0.489 Medium

7
 Elazzazy., Journal of System and Management Sciences, Vol. 13 (2023) No. 4, pp. 1-15

Table (2) indicates the descriptive analysis of research variables, concerning the dimensions of
workplace bullying, work-related bullying, and person-related bullying were perceived to be practiced
more than physical intimidation bullying among nurses. Nurses are exposed to moderating levels of
workplace bullying whether work-related bullying or personal-related bullying.

Table 3: Spearman’s correlation coefficient between study variables:

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Work-related bullying (1) 1
Person–related bullying (2) 0.315** 1
Physical Intimidating (3) 0.797** 0.340** 1
Social support (4) -0.006 -0.357** -0.338** 1
Job performance (5) - 0.421** -0.893** - 0.488** 0.214** 1
Note: - **, * indicate significance at 1%, and 5% respectively.

Spearman correlations were also examined between research variables; Workplace bullying and its
dimensions positively correlated, as It was expected, Job performance correlates negatively with
workplace bullying dimensions of work-related bullying (r= -0.421), person-related bullying (r=-0.893)
and physical intimidation (r= -0.488). while social support correlates negatively with workplace
bullying and its three dimensions of work-related bullying (r=-0.006), person-related bullying (r = -
0.357), and physical intimidation (r=-0.338). On the other hand, social support correlates positively
with job performance (r= 0.214).

Table 4: Workplace bullying, social support, and Job performance; Econometric results
Dependent variable: Job Performance
Independent variables Reg (1) Reg (2) Reg (3) Reg (4) Reg (5)
▪ Direct effects:
Work-related bullying (WB) - 0.2441 - 0.1042 -1.3650 0.0079 0.1279
[-0.663] [- 3.721]*** [-1.867]* [ 0.276] [ 4.428]***
Person–related bullying -0.3872 -0.4004 -0.4161 -5.0969 -0.3847
(PB)
[-9.256]*** [-9.089]*** [-8.004]*** [-5.630]*** [-9.368]***
Physical Intimidating (PI) -0.0944 -0.1106 -0.0691 -0.1747 0.1179
[-5.667]*** [-7.741]*** [-2.168]** [-6.130]*** [ 1.092]
Social support (SS) 0.1785 7.3239 19.378 0.4453
[ 5.719]*** [ 2.339]** [ 5.362]*** [ 3.283]***
▪ Moderating effects:
WB × SS 0.6607
[ 2.099]**
PB × SS 1.9874
[ 5.125]***

8
 Elazzazy., Journal of System and Management Sciences, Vol. 13 (2023) No. 4, pp. 1-15

Independent variables Reg (1) Reg (2) Reg (3) Reg (4) Reg (5)
PI × SS 0.2644
[ 0.663]
Constant -2.0539 -3.0048 -19.109 -48.592 -3.3704
[-4.418]*** [-4.986]*** [-2.589]** [-5.725]*** [-5.499]***
▪ Model fit statistics:
R2 90.7% 91.2% 92.3% 93.7% 92%
2
Adjusted R 90.4% 91.6% 91.9% 93.4% 91.7%
DW - stat. 2.148 1.801 1.899 1.702 1.799
Fisher test (F-stat.) (337.7)*** (347.5)*** (298.6)*** (368.3)*** (314.8)***
Note: - ***, **, * indicate significance at 1%, 5%, 10% respectively.
Table 4 shows the results of the Hierarchical Regression analysis employed to test the research
hypotheses. Hypothesis 1 anticipated a negative relationship between workplace bullying and job
Performance, we tested this hypothesis using hierarchal Regression, through Reg1 analyzed the effect
of each dimension of bullying on job performance, as indicated in table (4), person-related bullying has
a significant negative impact on job performance (β = - 0.3872) and also physical intimidation has a
significant negative impact on job performance(β = -0.0944), while work-related bullying has a negative
but insignificant relationship with job performance(-0.2441), but in Reg 2 when the direct effect of
social support on performance was positive (β =0.1785) the impact of work-related bullying and job
performance becomes significantly negative (β 3=- 0.1042).
So we can conclude that the first main hypothesis with its related sub-hypothesis is statistically
supported. Except for the first sub-hypothesis that related to the relationship between work-related
bullying and job performance, contrary to what was hypothesized there was no relation between them
except in the existence of social support this relation becomes negative which can be interpreted by the
absence of perception of work-related bullying or that nurses are familiar with such type of bullying
and in their workplace.
In Reg 3 the interactive effect of social support and work-related bullying on performance is
positive (β=0.6607), which means that social support can mitigate the negative effect of work-related
bullying on performance. The same result is repeated in Reg 4, where the interactive effect of social
support with personal-related bullying on job performance is positive (β = 1.987) which means that
social support can mitigate the negative effect of personal-related bullying on job performance. Also,
there was an increase in the value of R2 accompanied by calculating the interaction between different
dimensions of bullying with social support, where R2= 91% it increased in Reg 4 to become R2 =93%.
In the last Reg 5, the interactive effect of social support and physically intimidating bullying on job
performance is positive (β = 0.2644) but insignificant value which means that social support can't
eliminate the negative effect of physically intimidating bullying on job performance. All values of
adjusted R²are greater than 90% for all Regression equations, So we can conclude that the second main
hypothesis is statistically supported and that workplace social support moderates the relationship
between bullying and job performance, except for the third sub-hypothesis.

5. Conclusion and Implications

Healthier and happier employees working in a bullying-free environment are expected to be more
productive and their contribution to enhanced organizational performance would be more valuable.
Therefore, this study concentrated on investigating the effect of workplace bullying on job performance
and identifying the moderating role of workplace social support in this relationship. To the best of our

9
 Elazzazy., Journal of System and Management Sciences, Vol. 13 (2023) No. 4, pp. 1-15

knowledge, this study is the first to examine workplace social support as a moderator to cope with
workplace bullying for those who experience it.
The results indicate that bullied employees are unable to do their jobs to the best of their abilities,
which is consistent with the results of (Ashraf and Khan, 2014; Robert, 2018) who found that bullying
adversely affects employee job performance. Also, results reveal that workplace social support both
from supervisors and co-workers can mitigate the negative effect of workplace bullying on job
performance. Therefore, it can be concluded that nurses who have a higher level of social support could
be able to overcome the negative emotional consequences of bullying.
Also, the results of this study revealed the effect of each type of workplace bullying behavior on
job performance, where work-related bullying behaviors have a negative but insignificant effect on job
performance. Certain bullying can be inherent within the organizational culture of hospitals so that the
victims may not perceive them. In addition, results indicated that bullied employees cannot overcome
the psychological effects of personal-related bullying behaviors without workplace social support. Also,
results indicated that the most dangerous type of bullying is physical intimidation where social support
cannot mitigate its negative effect on job performance.
The outcomes of this study revealed several implications for theory and practice, particularly in an
emerging market such as Egypt, as follows:

5.1 Theoretical Implications

In sum, this study makes three key contributions. First, our study provides insight into the mechanisms
through which workplace bullying as a workplace stressor leads to a decrease in job performance among
Egyptian nurses. A second contribution of the study is that in a theory-driven examination, which
integrates the literature on workplace social support in the hospital sector with literature on workplace
bullying to find solutions to the problem of workplace bullying in the medical sector in Egypt. The third
contribution is that this study increases our understanding of the social learning theory on the
organizational level and how it can be considered the reason behind the prevalence of bullying behaviors
in many organizations.
Decreasing toxic workplace behavior like bullying, especially in crucial service institutions like
hospitals, will be reflected positively on the performance of its staff, which will result in providing
better medical services to citizens and contributing to societal welfare.

5.2 Practical Implication

As indicated in the research results, workplace bullying harms job performance which can be mitigated
by giving the victim adequate workplace social support. Therefore, managers need to adopt anti-
bullying policies and mechanisms. Managers and organizations can benefit from these findings and
practical suggestions. Some of these suggested anti-bullying mechanisms are as follows:
First, we suggest that the human resource department should follow multiple sources of
performance appraisal (360-degree evaluation), where an employee is evaluated by his superiors, peers,
and subordinates to detect any deviant behavior toward others. Second, encouraging two-way
communication between management and employees is important for building trust, which in turn
enables employees to disclose the bullying behavior they are exposed to in their work environment.
Third, top management must take any complaints about exposure to bullying seriously and establish
deterrent organizational penalties for bullies. Fourth, top management in the hospital must rely on
teamwork to perform various tasks, as cooperation between team members to achieve common goals
helps in reducing bullying behaviors in the workplace. Fifth, trying to increase workgroup cohesion
through staff participation in social activities, such as trips and informal parties outside working hours,
holidays, and events, which in turn increases the convergence and cohesion among employees. This
should be adopted by top management and can be carried out by the public relations department. Sixth,
holding training programs for managers and employees to increase their awareness about ethical work

10
 Elazzazy., Journal of System and Management Sciences, Vol. 13 (2023) No. 4, pp. 1-15

behavior to guide decision making and behavior in hospitals. Seventh, Nursing unions must hold
workshops and seminars to educate nurses about workplace bullying behaviors and clarify the
procedures taken by the union to protect and support them in case they are exposed to such behaviors.
lastly, creating a work culture of mutual respect, and building an ethical work climate where there is no
tolerance for violating ethical behavior. Such remedial actions would ensure the emotional and physical
health of employees.

References
Al-Shiyab, A.A. and Ababneh, R.I. (2018), "Consequences of workplace violence behaviors in
Jordanian public hospitals", Employee Relations, 40 (3), 515-528.

Arifin, Z., Nirwanto, N. and Manan, A. (2019), "Reducing the Negative Bullying at Work Impact on
Employee Performance through Absorption and Team Work", 64, 885-892.

Ariza-Montes, A., Leal-Rodriguez, A.L. and Leal-Millán, A.G. (2015), "A comparative study of
workplace bullying among public and private employees in Europe", Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine, 57 (6), 695-700.

Asaoka, H., Sasaki, N., Kuroda, R., Tsuno, K. and Kawakami, N. (2021), "Workplace Bullying and
Patient Aggression Related to COVID-19 and its Association with Psychological Distress among Health
Care Professionals during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Japan", Tohoku Journal of Experimental
Medicine, 255 (4), 283-289.

Ashraf, F. and Khan, M.A. (2014), "Does emotional intelligence moderate the relationship between
workplace bullying and job performance?", Asian Business and Management, 13(2), 171-190.

Bakar, Z.A. and Syahruddin M. (2017), "The importance of social support to bullying sictims: A case
study in Indonesia", Psychosomatic Medicine, 38 (5), 300-314.

de Beer, L.T. (2014), "Emotional load and social support as indicators of bullying at work", Journal of
Psychology in Africa, 24 (2), 154-158.

Berry, C.M., Ones, D.S. and Sackett, P.R. (2007), "Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance,
and their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis", Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 (2), 410-
424.

Briones Vozmediano, E. (2015), "Workplace bullying and subsequent health problems", Archivos de
Prevención de Riesgos Laborales, 18(4), 202-203.

Desrumaux, P. and Gillet, N. (2018), "Direct and Indirect Effects of Belief in a Just World and
Supervisor Support on Burnout via Bullying". available at https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15112330.

Devonish, D. (2013). "Workplace bullying, employee performance, and behaviors: The mediating role
of psychological well-being", Employee Relations, 35 (6), 630-647.

Duffy, M.K., Ganster, D.C. and Pagon, M. (2002), "Social undermining in the workplace", Academy of
Management Journal, 45 (2), 331-351.

Einarsen, S., Hoel, H. and Notelaers, G. (2009), "Measuring exposure to bullying and harassment at
work: Validity, factor structure and psychometric properties of the negative acts questionnaire-revised",
Work and Stress, 23 (1), 24-44.

11
 Elazzazy., Journal of System and Management Sciences, Vol. 13 (2023) No. 4, pp. 1-15

Elazzazy, O.M. (2020), "Examining The Mediating Effect Of Organizational Politics On Personal
Traits And Job Performance Relationship Applied Study On Public Hospitals In Zagazig City", Journal
of Commercial Researches, 42(1), 37-62.

Elewa, A.H. (2019). "Organizational Culture, Organizational Trust and Workplace Bullying Among
Staff Nurses at Public and Private Hospitals", International Journal of Nursing Didactics, 9 (4), 10-20.

Freire, C. and Pinto, M.I. (2021), "Clarifying the mediating effect of ethical climate on the relationship
between ethical leadership and workplace bullying", Ethics and Behavior, Routledge, 3(1), 1-12.

Gardner, D., Bentley, T., Catley, B., Cooper-Thomas, H., O'Driscoll, M. and Trenberth, L. (2013).
"Ethnicity, workplace bullying, social support, and psychological strain in Aotearoa/New Zealand",
New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 42 (2), 84-91.

Giorgi, c. (2009), workplace bullying risk assessment in 21 Italian organizations, international journal
of workplace health management, 2(1), 34-47.

Glambek, M., Matthiesen, S.B., Hetland, J. and Einarsen, S. (2014), "Workplace bullying as an
antecedent to job insecurity and intention to leave: A 6-month prospective study", Human Resource
Management Journal, 24 (3), 255-268.

Harris, J. I., Winskowski, A. M., & Engdahl, B. E. (2007), Types of workplace social support in the
prediction of job satisfaction, The Career Development Quarterly,56 (2), 150–156

Hauge, L.J., Skogstad, A. and Einarsen, S. (2010), "The relative impact of workplace bullying as a
social stressor at work", Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 51 (5), 426-433.

Hershcovis, M.S. and Barling, J. (2010). "Comparing victim attributions and outcomes for workplace
aggression and sexual harassment", Journal of Applied Psychology, 95 (5), 874-888.

Holm, K.; Torkelson, E.; Bäckström, M. (2019). Exploring Links between Witnessed and Instigated
Workplace Incivility., Int. J. Workplace Health Manag., 12, 160–17.

Hong, S. (2022), Applying Social Computing to Analyze the Effect of Tax Officials’ Organizational
Communication on Job Performance, Journal of Logistics, Informatics and Service Science, 9 (1), 258-
273.

Houck, N.M. and Colbert, A.M. (2017(. Patient Safety and Workplace Bullying: An Integrative Review.
Journal of nursing care quality, 32, 164-171.

Humair, S. and Ejaz, S.S. (2019), "Effect of Perceived Bullying at Workplace on Emotions Related to
Job Commitment", Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences, 12 (1), available at https:
//doi.org/10.34091/ajss.12.1.09.

Hutchinson, M. Vickers, M., Jackson,D&Wilkes, L.(2010), bullying as circuits of power ,

administrative theory &praxis.32(1), 25-47.

Israa, S. and Suneel, I. (2018), "Relationship between Workplace Bullying. Resilience and Job
Satisfaction among Employees in a University in Pakistan", International Journal of Social Sciences &
Educational Studies,5 (2), at https://doi.org/10.23918/ijsses.v5ilp42.

Ramawickrama, H Opatha, M.P. (2017). "A Synthesis towards the Construct of Job Performance",
International Business Research, 10 (10), 66-102.

Jolly, P. M., Kong, D. T., & Kim, K. Y. (2021), Social support at work: An integrative review, Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 42(2), 229-251.

12
 Elazzazy., Journal of System and Management Sciences, Vol. 13 (2023) No. 4, pp. 1-15

Jenkins, M., Winefield, H. and Sarris, A. (2011), "Consequences of being accused of workplace
bullying: An exploratory study", International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 4 (1), 33-47.

Kappagoda, U.W.M.R.S., Othman, H.Z.F. and Alwis, G. De. (2014), “Psychological Capital and Job
Performance: The Mediating Role of Work Attitudes”, Journal of Human Resource and Sustainability
Studies, 2 (2), 102–116.

Konishi, C. and Hymel, S. (2009), “Bullying and Stress in Early Adolescence”, The Journal of Early
Adolescence, 29 (3),333–356.

Litzky, B.E., Eddleston, K. and Kidder, D.L. (2006), “The good, the bad, and the misguided: How
managers inadvertently encourage deviant behaviors”, Academy of Management Perspectives, 20 (1),
91–103.

Matthiesen, S.B. and Einarsen, S. (2010), “Bullying in the workplace: definition, prevalence,
antecedents and consequences”, International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior,13 (2), 202–
248.

Meriläinen, M., Kõiv, K. and Honkanen, A. (2019), “Bullying effects on performance and engagement
among academics”, Employee Relations, 41 (6) 1205 –1223.

Mourssi-Alfash, M.F. (2014), Workplace Bullying and Its Influence on the Perception of Organizational
Justice and Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Higher Education, A Dissertation Presented in
Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy,Capella University,
available at:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biochi.2015.03.025%

Ahttp://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature10402%0Ahttp://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature21059%0

Naseer, S., Raja, U., Syed, F. and Bouckenooghe, D. (2018), “Combined effects of workplace bullying
and perceived organizational support on employee behaviors: does resource availability help?”, Anxiety,
Stress and Coping, Taylor & Francis, 31 (6), 654–668.

Neall, A.M. and Tuckey, M.R. (2014), “A methodological review of research on the antecedents and
consequences of workplace harassment”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87
(2), 225–257.

Nel, E.C. (2019), The impact of workplace bullying on flourishing: the moderating role of emotional
intelligence, Journal of industrial physiology, 45, (1), 1-9.

Nguyen, M., Luan, N. and Khoa, B. (2021). Employer Attractiveness and Employee Performance: An
Exploratory Study. Journal of System and Management Sciences, 11 (1), 97-123

Naseer, S., Raja, U., Syed, F. and Bouckenooghe, D. (2018), “Combined effects of workplace bullying
and perceived organizational support on employee behaviors: does resource availability help?”, Anxiety,
Stress and Coping, Taylor & Francis, 31 (6), 654–668.

Neall, A.M. and Tuckey, M.R. (2014), “A methodological review of research on the antecedents and
consequences of workplace harassment”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87
(2), 225–257.

Nel, E.C. (2019), The impact of workplace bullying on flourishing: the moderating role of emotional
intelligence, Journal of industrial physiology, 45, (1), 1-9.

Nguyen, M., Luan, N. and Khoa, B. (2021). Employer Attractiveness and Employee Performance: An
Exploratory Study. Journal of System and Management Sciences, 11 (1), 97-123

Nielsen, M.B. and Einarsen, S. (2012), “Outcomes of exposure to workplace bullying: A meta-analytic
review”, Work and Stress, 26 (4), 309–332.

13
 Elazzazy., Journal of System and Management Sciences, Vol. 13 (2023) No. 4, pp. 1-15

Nielsen, M.B., Glasø, L. and Einarsen, S. (2017), “Exposure to workplace harassment and the Five
Factor Model of personality: A meta analysis”, Personality and Individual Differences, The
Authors,104, 195–206.

Nielsen, M.B.; Matthiesen, S.B.; Einarsen, S. (2010), The Impact of Methodological Moderators on
Prevalence Rates of Workplace Bullying. A Meta-analysis. Journal of occupational and organizational
psychology, 83, 955–979.

Nwobia, I.E. and Aljohani, M.S. (2017), “The Effect of Job Dissatisfaction and Workplace Bullying on
Turnover Intention: Organization Climate and Group Cohesion as Moderators”, International Journal
of Marketing Studies, 9 (3), 136.-140

Olsen, E., Bjaalid, G. and Mikkelsen, A. (2017), “Work climate and the mediating role of workplace
bullying related to job performance, job 10 satisfaction, and work ability: A study among hospital
nurses”, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 73, (11), 2709–2719.

Pompeii, L. A., & et al. (2015), Physical assault, physical threat, and verbal abuse perpetrated against
hospital workers by patients or visitors in six US hospitals. American journal of industrial medicine,58,
(11), 1194-1204.

Rai, A. and Agarwal, U.A. (2018), Workplace Bullying and Employee Silence: A Moderated Mediation
Model of Psychological Contract Violation and Workplace Friendship, Personnel Review, Vol. 47, 17
available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-03-2017-0071.

Robert, F. (2018), “Impact of Workplace Bullying on Job Performance and Job Stress”, Journal of
Management Info, 5 (3), 12–15.

Rodríguez-Muñoz, A., Baillien, E., de Witte, H., Moreno-Jiménez, B. and Pastor, J.C. (2009), “Cross-
lagged relationships between workplace bullying, job satisfaction and engagement: Two longitudinal
studies”, Work and Stress, 23 (3), 225–243.

Rosander, M. and Blomberg, S. (2019), “Levels of workplace bullying and escalation–a new conceptual
model based on cut-off scores, frequency and self labelled victimization”, European Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology, 28 (6), 769–783.

Rossiter, L. and Sochos, A. (2018), “Workplace Bullying and Burnout: Moderating Effects of Social
Support”, Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma, Routledge, 27 (4), 386–408.

Samnani, A.K. (2013), “Embracing New Directions in Workplace Bullying Research: A Paradigmatic
Approach”, Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 22 No. 1, 26–36.

Samnani, A.K. and Singh, P. (2012), “20 Years of workplace bullying research: A review of the
antecedents and consequences of bullying in the workplace”, Aggression and Violent Behavior,
Elsevier Ltd, Vol.17 No. 6, 581–589.

Schat, A.C.H. and Frone, M.R. (2011), “Exposure to psychological aggression at work and job
performance: The mediating role of job attitudes and personal health”, Work and Stress, Vol. 25 No. 1,
23–40.

Suanet, B., Aartsen, M.J., Hoogendijk, E.O. and Huisman, M. (2020), “The Social Support–Health Link
Unraveled: Pathways Linking Social Support to Functional Capacity in Later Life”, Journal of Aging
and Health, Vol. 32 No. 7–8, 616–626.

Tag-Eldeen, A., Barakat, M. and Dar, H. (2017), “Investigating the impact of workplace bullying on
employees’ morale, performance and turnover intentions in five-star Egyptian hotel operations”,
Tourism and Travelling, Vol. 1 No. 1, 4– 14

14
 Elazzazy., Journal of System and Management Sciences, Vol. 13 (2023) No. 4, pp. 1-15

Tepper, B. (2007), “Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research
agenda”, Journal of Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, 261–289.

Trépanier, S.-G.; Fernet, C.; Austin, S.; Boudrias, V. (2016), Work Environment Antecedents of
Bullying: A Review and Integrative Model Applied to Registered Nurses. Int. J. Nurs. Stud.,vol. 55,
85–97.

Wei Ching-Yao, Shu-Ti Chiou, Li-Yin Chien & Nicole Huang. (2016). Workplace violence against
nurses – Prevalence and association with hospital organizational characteristics and health promotion
efforts: Cross-sectional study. International Journal of Nursing Studies, Vol 56, 63–70.

Yang, T., Shen, Y., Zhu, M., Liu, Y., Deng, J., Chen, Q., & See, L. (2015). Effects of Co-Worker and
Supervisor Support on Job Stress and Presenteeism in an Aging Workforce: A Structural Equation
Modelling Approach. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 13(1),
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13010072.

Zeb, A., Goh, G.G.G., Javaid, M., Khan, M.N., Khan, A.U. and Gul, S. 9 (2022), “The interplay between
supervisor support and job performance: implications of social exchange and social learning theories”,
Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, No. 13 April, available
at:https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-042021-0143.

15