Effect of Workplace Toxics on Employees Wellbeing in Nigeria Banking Sector

Effect of Workplace Toxics on Employees Wellbeing in Nigeria Banking Sector

Minna Onomroba Abell

Department of Human Resource Management, Highstone International University California Usa

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.807031

Received: 06 May 2024; Accepted: 15 May 2024; Published: 20 June 2024

ABSTRACT

This study examines the effects of toxic workplace environment in relationship workplace toxins (bulling, harassment &ostracism) on employee well-being. The specific objectives of the study were to determine the extent which a workplace bulling affect employee wellbeing in the bank firm; to examine the effect of workplace harassment on employees’ wellbeing in the bank; and  investigate how workplace ostracism affect employees’ wellbeing in the banking firm. The population of the study consists of employees of United Bank for Africa Plc, located at Marina, Lagos State. The research design was survey design. The research instrument was a structured questionnaire. A sample of 109 employees was selected using Taro Yamane (1967) formula while convenience or accidental sampling techniques adopted in the administration of the instrument. Data collected were analyzed using both descriptive and inferential statistical tools; specifically, mean and standard deviation was employed to carry out descriptive analysis while Chi-square (χ²) statistical method was applied to test the hypotheses. The results obtained revealed that toxic workplace is a distraction from the main objectives; employees do not feel free to speak up due to workplace harassment; that it was not ascertained whether workplace ostracism impacts on individuals’ attitudes to work and if co-worker/subordinate tries to maintain distance from employees at work.  This study concludes that workplace bulling has significant effect on employee wellbeing in the banking firm. Toxic workplace environment lowers employees’ self-confidence. This result confirms that workplace harassment has significant effect on employees’ wellbeing in the banks. The study recommends that employers/management should ensure there is support available for help when employees are stressed at workplace. Hence, it is recommended that the organization should provide aids in stress management to lessen the toxin environment effect on employees’ wellbeing at workplace.

INTRODUCTION

The overall organizational environment is a matter of great concern (Rasool, Wang, Tang, Saeed, & Iqbal, 2021). A toxic workplace environment refers to the cruel and often violent treatment of persons, and it jeopardizes employee safety and health (Rasool, Wang, Zhang, & Samma, 2020). The impact of a toxic workplace environment is perhaps felt within every organization, but due to personal reasons, very few of the workers are willing to lodge formal complaints against such behavior (Taylor& Rew, 2011). This avoidance and silence by victims of a toxic workplace environment make such incidents difficult to be noted and studied by researchers (Berquist, St-Pierre & Holmes, 2018). However, it is unanimously acknowledged that victims of violence suffer from a lack of well-being. Employee well-being here refers to a feeling of happiness felt by people based on a sense of security and satisfaction (Avey, Luthans, Smith, & Palmer, 2010).

According to Maslow (1958) theory of needs, security is the main concern for people, and insecurity is not applicable to other higher-level needs. A toxic workplace environment, however, is a climate factor that demolishes a person’s sense of security and, thus, is bound to have a negative impact on well-being. In addition, organizational support is an important source of employee engagement. Although a lot of studies have investigated the psychological processes that promote employee engagement (Odoardi, et al. 2015; Abbas & Sagsan, 2019; Zhang & Bartol, 2010), there has not been a clear distinction of organizational characteristics that contribute to cognitive processes that are supportive of innovation and individual development (Odoardi, et al. 2015; Yuan, & Woodman, 2010). To explore these factors of employee engagement based on this research gap, this study proposes an empirical model that tests the negative effect of a toxic workplace environment (i.e., harassment, bullying, and ostracism) on employees through individual emotional processes, which include employee well-being and organizational support.

Statement of the Problem

For many people, the workplace is their second home. The amount of time spent at work will inevitably impact someone’s mental health for better or worse. It should not come as a surprise that ongoing negative experiences in the workplace will flow into an employee’s personal life, making him more tired, stressed, depressed or burnt out. Research evidence shows that the costs of toxic work cultures can be more serious in terms of overall wellbeing than we can imagine (Support Room, 2022).

Employees who work in toxic work cultures might notice higher levels of stress as a result of poor communication, inefficient leadership, and lack of support. When stress becomes chronic, it increases the risk for more serious mental health issues, such as depression and anxiety. The feelings that come with a toxic workplace environment, i.e., harassment, bullying, and ostracism, can be detrimental and lead to unnecessary stress, burnout, depression, and anxiety among the workers (Samma, Zhao, Rasool, Han & Ali, 2020).

Many employees find that a stressful job impacts their entire quality of life and makes them less likely to enjoy fulfilling relationships or hobbies. In turn, mental illness can lead to problems with sleep, which creates a vicious cycle between workplace performance and employee mental health. Risk factors associated with a toxic workplace culture also lead to lower self-esteem. When not appreciated for their work or offered constructive criticism, employees may feel enormous pressure to meet exigent demands. Knowing the implications of toxic workplaces, it is worth finding out how we can spot them early in our careers and protect employees’ mental wellbeing as much as possible. Hence, this paper attempts to find out more information about signs of a toxic workplace as well as valuable tips on how to cope with a toxic workplace environment.

Objectives of the Study

This study examines the effects of toxic workplace environment in relationship workplace toxins (bulling, harassment &ostracism) on employee well-being. On this basis the three specific research questions (RQs) are generated:

1. To what extent does a workplace bulling affect employee wellbeing in the bank firm?
2. What is the effect of workplace harassment on employees’ wellbeing in the bank?
3. How does workplace ostracism affect employees’ wellbeing in the banking firm?

Research Hypotheses

The following research hypotheses were formulated for the study.

Ho₁:  Workplace bulling has no significant effect on employee wellbeing in the banking firm

Ho₂:  Workplace harassment has no significant effect on employees’ wellbeing in the banks.

Ho₃:  Workplace ostracism has no significant effect on employees’ wellbeing in the banking firm.

LITERATURE REVIEW

A. Conceptual Review

Employee Well-Being

Apprehension, illness, depression, and fatigue are some of the aspects of a lack of mental health and the overall well-being of any human being. Likewise, headaches and muscular aches are signals of physical ill-health. An employee’s well-being is an accelerator for organizational success, saves the organization from lower productivity, and decreases poor health insurance costs. Progressive organizations have to make sure that their programs have health outcomes for the overall well-being of their employees. The physical environment of the workplace and organizational climate are some of the important aspects of employee well-being. An organization communicates its agenda for employee well-being, as it is obliged to do so under corporate social responsibility initiatives (Farooq, Payaud, Merunka &Valette-Florence, 2014). The results of previous studies lead to the hypothesized relationship between a better quality of employee well-being, optimistic behaviors, and intentions (Woo, Kim, & Uysal, 2015; Chiu, Cheng, Huang & Chen, 2013). So, it is proposed that corporate social responsibility initiatives help to create a positive work environment that promotes employee well-being in return and prompts active participation for green behavior.

Toxic Workplace Environment

The presence of a toxic workplace environment is found to have negative effects on employee outcomes, such as stress and engagement. However, certain mediating variables can mitigate these negative effects, and one such variable is organizational support. In a study on the toxic work environment and its relationship with work stress, Wang, Zaman, Rasool, uz Zaman & Amin (2020) found that organizational support has a positive impact on employee output, which improves employees’ commitment and performance at the workplace. It has also been established that when organizational support is provided to employees, their cognitive and emotional evaluation of their organization is strengthened (Samma, Zhao, Rasool, Han & Ali, 2020). In this view of a dyadic interaction between employees and their organization, it can be presumed that high levels of organizational support would allow employees to experience higher engagement levels, even if engagement levels are diminished by the presence of unfavorable work environment characteristics.

Signs of Working in a Toxic Workplace

When work environment or employees already work in a job environment that negatively impacts on mental health, it indicates what a dysfunctional work culture looks like. Besides the pressure of mental stress, it creates in its employees a negative workplace that can decrease one’s overall quality of life and impede professional growth. Some common signs of a toxic workplace are:

1. Endless office drama

When there’s always rumour and gossip floating around the office, it’s almost impossible not to feel anxious or overwhelmed. In a toxic workplace, people will focus on drama instead of prioritising productive conversations that help them get to know each other. As a result of this, the overall workplace environment will feel rather hostile, leading to low employee morale.

2. Difficult leaders

A difficult boss will always never make you feel good or skilled enough. No matter how much you’re trying to improve, they will always have something to criticise or pick on. As a result, your self-esteem might suffer, and you might end up doubting your experience, expertise, or skill set. Difficult leaders offer criticism without being willing to listen to their employees or appreciate their work. How culture impacts the workforce and the bottom line – showed that almost half of employees left their job specifically because of their manager’s behaviour.

3. There’s no room for growth

Another sign that you might be working in a toxic environment is a total lack of opportunities for progress. No matter how many times you try to contact the HR department about promotions, raises, or new assignments, you will always be met with vague answers. You are unable to see far ahead in the future and there is no clear direction in which you can progress from your current job. If you are interested in professional growth but your current workplace is unable to support that, your motivation and wellbeing might be affected in the longer term.

A toxic workplace invariably impacts employee mental health. Although the signs might be unnoticeable at first, working in a dysfunctional environment is detrimental to employee mental and physical health. Besides, key aspects of work performance – such as productivity and project outcomes – are also affected.

Organizational Support

Organizational support refers to the course of perception and beliefs on behalf of the employee, where it is believed that the organization has a deep concern for employee well-being organizational support facilitates instrumental, social, and emotional support (Wang, Zaman, Rasool, Zaman, and Amin (2020). Organizational support has been examined alongside various other variables, all of which support the view that organizational support reduces worker stress and burnout. Accordingly, informal support is more helpful, when provided, as compared to formal support from an official senior (Samma, Zhao, Rasool, Han & Ali, 2020). Moreover, COR theory also supports the negative relationship between a toxic workplace environment and organizational support. According to organizational support theory, organizational support plays a significant role in employee engagement. For instance, the demand control support (DCS) model shows that mental health problems at work arise out of excessive pressures, low control, and low support (De Clercq, Haq & Azeem,. (2020). This model shows the negative consequence of a toxic environment, but if supervisors and peers provide support to the workers, it will enhance employee engagement.

Toxic Workplace Environment and Employee wellbeing

There is a lot of evidence from prior studies that show a significant relationship between a toxic workplace environment and employee engagement (Samma, Zhao, Rasool, Han & Ali, 2020). According to Berquist, St-Pierre, and Holmes (2018) an engaged employee is a motivated, self-guided, and contributive member who represents a valuable addition to the human capital and promotes organizational growth and development. employee engagement was categorized into two types: job engagement and organizational engagement (Marin-Garcia, Bonavia & Losilla, 2020). Job engagement leads to employee commitment, which directly deals with dedication and work performance, which routes to organizational development. Organizational engagement is inter-linked with employee commitment and employee loyalty. The prior literature supports the view that the impact of a toxic workplace environment on the involvement of the individual, job satisfaction, and enthusiastic characteristics for work is negative, while employee engagement and organizational engagement are adversely affected (He, Morrison & Zhang, 2019).

Workplace ostracism

Workplace ostracism, defined as “the extent to which an individual perceives that he or she is ignored or excluded by others” in the workplace (Ferris et al., 2008), can have significant consequences for organizations and individuals (Howard et al., 2020). The consequences of workplace ostracism for victims have been widely researched in the management literature [for reviews, see Mao et al. (2018), Williams (2007), and Wu et al. (2011). An individual who is ostracized by another party (e.g., colleagues or supervisors) in a dyadic relationship may experience injury, loss, or misfortune (Aquino and Lamertz, 2004). Whether intentional or unconscious, ostracism is a form of punishment, leading the ostracized victims to feel pain and need-threatened (Williams, 2009). From the victims’ perspective, workplace ostracism is associated with reduced organizational identification (Wu et al., 2016) and organizational commitment and increased psychological distress (Yaakobi and Williams, 2016), turnover intentions, and deviant behavior in the workplace (Fiset et al., 2017).

To date, there has been one published meta-analytic review of workplace ostracism, except for Howard et al. (2020). Although that meta-analysis of workplace ostracism tests the antecedents and outcomes of ostracism, it only examines the bivariate relation, ignoring the boundary condition of cultural values and the mediation mechanisms. Our meta-analysis offers some extensions.

Workplace ostracism can cause the victim to experience pain and frustration, which may undermine his or her fundamental psychological needs and generate a sense of “social death” (Williams, 2007). When individuals perceive themselves as ostracized, they are likely to experience pain and have negative attitudes toward others and the organization (Mao et al., 2018). Workplace ostracism also signals separation from others and threatens the victim’s needs, undermining the victim’s sense of belonging (Williams, 2009). Moreover, workplace ostracism is often conducted in a silent and invisible manner, which undermines the victim’s sense of being valued as a member of the organization and reduces his or her organizational identification (Ferris et al., 2008; Wu et al., 2016). In addition, because workplace ostracism can deplete the victim’s personal resources, the victim may seek to protect his or her resources by reducing his or her organizational commitment or leaving the organization (Zheng et al., 2016). Thus, we propose the following hypothesis.

Workplace Ostracism and Well-Beings

Workplace ostracism can have a strong effect on an individual’s sense of well-being. Well-being which can range from a negative condition (e.g., misery) to a positive condition (e.g. elation), reflects an individual’s psychological state, which is a broad category that includes emotional responses, domain satisfactions, and global judgments of life satisfaction (Diener et al., 1999).

In the workplace, ostracism is characterized by omission of inaction to socially engage another and the lack of social engagement with others (Robinson et al., 2013). When individuals experience reduced social interaction, it can lead them to feel they are like dead to others in the workplace, which undermines the sense of self-value they gain from the organization and makes them doubt themselves (Williams, 2009). Omission of inaction by another organizational member when it is socially appropriate to do so can also lead individuals to blame themselves for being ostracized (Robinson et al., 2013). Because being ostracized leads the victims to perceive themselves as unwelcome to others or the organization (Ferris et al., 2008), workplace ostracism can damage OBSE.

According to belongingness theory, individuals strive to be accepted and to gain a sense of belonging (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Through omission of inaction, workplace ostracism serves as negative feedback and thus damages the victim’s sense of belonging. Moreover, workplace ostracism can bring social pain and generate negative effects such as decreased job satisfaction (Ferris et al., 2008; Robinson et al., 2013)

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework of the Study

Prior research indicates that high levels of employee physical and psychological well- being play a significant role in delivering some important organizational outcomes that are associated with high-performing organizations, such as employee engagement. The proposition that employee well-being is important in developing sustainable levels of employee engagement appears to have sufficient theoretical expectation and empirical research evidence (Marin-Garcia, Bonavia, & Losilla, 2020). Furthermore, Furthermore, He, Morrison & Zhang (2019) found that employees who reported higher levels of engagement were likely to benefit from a broadened allocation of psychological resources, one of which is employee wellbeing.

B. Theoretical Review

1. Human Capital Theory

Human Capital Theory was first suggested by Becker, (1993) in explaining the utilization of human capital in economy progression. It is associated with procuring human resource in various organizations and the maximal productivity achievement. The recognition of the vital role played by the human capital in organizations has resulted in more firms investing heavily in this resource. The theory holds that the current challenges brought about by globalization and advancements in technology may be countered by the use of appropriate human capital in the organizations. As such, the employees must not only be competent enough but also have the right mindset to perform their delegated duties (Hunjra, 2010).

The theory’s importance is that it enhances the importance of staff welfare practices to ensure efficient HRM practices. In this regard, improved performance as well as service delivery in the public sector will be achieved by having the appropriate staff welfare practices. The theory sensitizes that the management in the organizations to highly prioritize welfare of the employees which will translate to improved performance. Hence proper staff welfare is paramount in attainment of optimum performance in the Public Service Commission in Nairobi.

2. Functional Theory of Labour Welfare

The Functional Theory of Labor Welfare was proposed as way of understanding how efficiency and productivity of labour may be enhanced by Manju, Mishra, (2007). The theory holds that preserving, securing and development of labour productivity can be attained through welfare jobs. As such, increased output will be obtained from the employees if their immediate family members are well catered for. This gives the employees a peace of mind for them to fully concentrate on the tasks that have been delegated to them without any disturbances.

The theory is important as it assists in understanding the characteristics of the contemporary support for labour as reflected as forced labour. Its proposition is that employee welfare is directly proportional to the employee performance. It works well if they have same objective of better welfare both employer and employees. The theory is accepted when any labour force since welfare services move perform. The study therefore seeks to evaluate the influence of employee good on employees’ agreement in public sector in return performance achievement.

C. Empirical Review

To investigate the mechanism of workplace ostracism, this study uses meta-analytic structural equation modeling (MASEM). Howard et al. (2020) fail to examine a number of important consequences of workplace ostracism, such as organization-based self-esteem (OBSE), although prior studies have shown that workplace ostracism is negatively related to OBSE (Chung and Yang, 2017). Moreover, Howard et al. (2020) focus on the bivariate relationships between workplace ostracism and its outcomes but ignore the mediating mechanisms. Consistent with previous meta-analyses of negative behaviors in the workplace (Greco et al., 2019; Howard et al., 2020), our meta-analysis combines three approaches. First, ostracism is a powerful threat to people’s need for belonging, self-esteem, shared understanding, and trust (Williams, 2007). When individuals feel ostracized, they may express different affective, attitudinal, and behavioral reactions (Zhang and Liao, 2015; Mao et al., 2018).

Aldaibat and Irtaimeh, (2012) evaluated the correlation on the beliefs of senior employees concerning training benefits and the staffs’ organizational commitment as assessed by 3-component model of organizational commitment. They affirm that training benefits that encompass both personal benefit and career benefit correlate significantly to organizational commitment components of, affective, instrumental and normative. In respect to this it was established that involvement in training assist employees interact, improve their productivity, personal growth as well as develop career wise, opening new opportunities of following new careers.

Agus (2005) viewed that HR policies, leadership commitment, training and development and other aspects of talent are critical issues, which are important aspects to provide employees with the necessary knowledge and skills to enable them to cope with problem solving.

However, training focused on broadening employees’ knowledge and skills can represent opportunities for individual growth and development and result in advantageous outcomes such as more proficient team-related skills and increased workforce flexibility. Upgrading employees’ skills and knowledge, puts them in a better position to produce high-quality products and services in the most cost effective way (Ngeno, 2014), they adapted to change and it increased their contribution to their work through product or process innovation. Employees were prepared for increased responsibilities, saw value in strategic training as it helped them progress in their careers and enhanced their capacity for continuous improvement.

According to Okumbe (2010), an organization that was genuinely interested in the welfare of its workers was concerned about creating a positive work environment where individuals recognised that they were valued, it then boosted their performance. Medical insurance coverage was one of the welfare services that enhanced employee performance. Due to the high cost of hospitalization, surgical and maternity care, it had become necessary that employees be cushioned against these costs putting in place Medical insurance.

Employees with medical insurance were more likely to be satisfied with their work and with the employer which then eventually translates into effective performance.  Mitchell (2011) did a study on medical services and found that reduction in absenteeism is highly related to good health. Mitchell’s study revealed that due to the high cost of hospitalization, surgical and maternity care, it has been found necessary that employees are cushioned against these costs by putting in place a Medical Insurance plan. This is an important benefit that helps greatly to retain employees in an organization. Medical Cover includes general medical care, optical care, drug abuse, alcoholism and mental illness. Employers who provide health insurance is valuable for a number of reasons. Thus, employees with medical insurance are more likely to be satisfied their place of work.

Previous studies have only focused on positive environmental factors and have ignored negative environmental factors. Second, the use of conservation of resources (COR) theory to understand employee engagement is used for the first time in the literature. COR theory covers two basic principles involving the protection of resources from being lost. The first principle is called the primacy of resource loss.

This principle states that it is more harmful to individuals to lose resources compared to when there is a gain of resources. What this means is that a loss of pay will be more harmful than the same gain in pay would have been helpful. The second principle is known as resource investment. This principle of COR states that employees tend to invest in resources in order to protect against resource loss, to recover from losses, and to gain resources. So, when employees’ resource bases become depleted through their exposure to adverse work situations, such as harassment, bullying, and ostracism, they may avoid positive behaviors, which negatively affect employee engagement (De Clercq, Haq & Azeem, 2020). Similarly, according to the second principle of COR theory, employees invest in resources to prevent future resource losses, which positively enhances employee engagement (De Clercq, et al, 2020). The study also eliminates employee engagement on the basis of organizational support theory, which pays significant attention to the psychological process of employees (Vinokur, Pierce, Lewandowski-Romps, Hobfoll, & Galea, 2011)

RESEARCH METHODS

This is a design in which groups of items or objects are studied, by collecting and analyzing data from only a few people considered are to be an exact representative of the entire group (Dulock, 1993).This research uses an in-depth survey to explore workplace toxins from the view of employees who have been harassed, bullied or have witnessed ostracism at work.

Population of this study includes employees of United Bank for Africa Plc, located at Marina, Lagos State. The individuals that made up these respondents cut across different strata irrespective of their age, sex, marital status and educational qualification. This is necessary in order to ensure adequate representation of opinion of the different level.

A sample size of 109 was derived from the population of this study using the Yamane formula for determination of known popuolation. The formula is:

The research instrument was therefore administered to 109 respondents.

The sampling technique used was the convenience or accidental sampling which was used in order to select the sample from United Bank for Africa, Marina, Lagos. The selection was done in such a way that it included all categories of worker (Senior and Junior staff) and cut across gender. A self-developed questionnaire was used in the data collection. This questionnaire comprises of section A and B. Section A was focused on the demographic characteristics of the respondents like their age, gender, working experience, qualifications etc. while Section B was the main body of the questionnaire and gathered information from respondents on the variables captured in the hypotheses. The response format for part B of the instrument was a 5-point Likert scale that consisted of Strongly Agree (SA), Agree (A), Fairly Agree (FA), Disagree (D) and Strongly Disagree (SD).

The validity of the instrument for the study was ascertained by the research supervisor to ensure face and content validity before administering the research instrument to the target respondents. The research work used content and construct validity for effectiveness the questionnaire was critically corrected by the supervisor for the researcher to carry out the administering of the questionnaire. Reliability is concerned with the concerned with the consistency obtained from results of the implication of the instrument.

The questionnaire was validated by the supervisor before it was administered to the respondents. Five (5) copies of the questionnaires were administered to the staff of United Bank for Africa Plc in another area different from the study area. After two weeks, the instrument was collected and re-administered for the second time. This was used to determine the internal consistency of the instrument.

The procedures for the analysis of data include the use of both descriptive and inferential statistics. The research questions were analyzed using descriptive tools such as simple percentages, means, and standard deviations.  As a final step to data processing, inferential statistics will be employed to analyze the stated hypotheses with the aid of Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS v. 23.0). The chi-square (χ²) statistical method would be applied for the analysis of the stated hypotheses.

DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

Data collected with the aid of questionnaire in relations to the subject matter of this study was analyzed descriptively using means and standard deviations statistical method.

The analysis of the means (x) was interpreted as follows:

Key:                                          Interpretation

Below 1.45                    =          Strongly Disagree

1.45 – 2.44                    =          Disagree

2.45 – 3.44                    =          Fairly agree

3.45 – 4.44                    =          Agre

4.45   and above           =          Strongly Agree

Effect of Workplace Bulling on Employee Well Being

In order to achieve this objective, Statement items 1-5 in the Questionnaire were used. The opinion of the respondents is summarised in Table 4.1 below; it shows the Mean and Standard Deviation of the respondents’ views in relations to the effect of workplace bulling on employee wellbeing.

Table 4.1:  Effect of Workplace Bulling on Employee Well Being

Source: Field Survey, 2023

The table 4.1 shows that respondents agreed with the views that employers are less satisfied with jobs due to consistent bullying; employees are having their works unfairly and repeatedly criticized; employees operates within established rules and policies of the organization; employees are being ordered to do work beyond your level of competence and employees have witnessed stress related behavior at workplace (crying, shouting, outbursts, door slamming, etc) with mean scores of 3.69, 4.07, 3.73, 3.68, 4.31 and standard deviations of 1.30, 1.19, 1.24, 1.30, and 1.04 respectively.

Ho: Workplace bulling has no significant effect on employee wellbeing in the banking firm

Chi-Square Test

 This hypothesis was tested using Chi-square (χ²) test. The result showed that the χ² calculated value of 41.865 when compared with the χ² tabulated value of 9.0135 at 0.5% (5 percent) level of significance. The result shows a P-value of .000 which is less than 0.5% significant level, therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected and alternative hypothesis accepted. This result implies that workplace bulling has significant effect on employee wellbeing in the banking firm.

Effects of Workplace Harassment on Employee Well Being

In order to achieve this objective, statement items 6-12 in the Questionnaire were used. The opinion of the respondents is summarised in Table 4.2 below; it shows the Mean and Standard Deviation of the respondents’ views in relations to the effect of workplace harassment on employee wellbeing in banking firm.

Table 4.2:  Effect of Workplace Harassment on Employee Well Being

Source: Field Survey, 2023

The table 4.2 shows that respondents agreed with the views that Toxic workplace environment has lowers employees self-confidence; Toxic workplace is a distraction from the main objectives; Employees do not feel free to speak up due to workplace harassment; Employees often get shouted at or humiliated in front of colleagues at work; Harassment  has negatively affected employees physical wellbeing; Workplace toxics leads to several workplace conflicts; Workplace harassing has increased absenteeism with mean scores of 4.43, 3.50, 4.16, 4.02, 4.00, 3.98, 3.90 and standard deviations of 0.87, 1.32, 1.16, 1.13, 1.16, 1.04 and 1.17 respectively.

Ho: Workplace harassment has no significant effect on employees’ wellbeing in the banks.

Chi-Square Test

 The second hypothesis was tested using Chi-square (χ²) test. The result showed that the χ² calculated value of 26.000 when compared with the χ² tabulated value of 9.0135 at 0.5% (5 percent) level of significance. The result shows a P-value of .000 which is less than 0.5% significant level. Hence the null hypothesis is rejected and alternative hypothesis accepted. This result confirms that workplace harassment has no significant effect on employees’ wellbeing in the banks.

Effects of workplace ostracismon employee well being

In order to achieve this objective, Statement items 13 – 18 in the Questionnaire were used. The opinion of the respondents is summarised in Table 4.3 below; it shows the Mean and Standard Deviation of the respondents’ views in relations to the effect of workplace ostracism on employee wellbeing in banking firm.

Table 4.3:  Effect of Workplace Ostracism on Employee Well Being

 Source: Field Survey, 2023

Table 4.3 indicates that respondents fairly agreed with the views that Workplace ostracism impacts on individuals’ attitudes to work; and that their co-worker/subordinate tries to maintain distance from them at work; While they agreed that their supervisor/subordinate do not answer their greeting; they agreed that workplace ostracism affects employees job satisfaction; Workplace ostracism leads to employees’ emotional exhaustion with mean scores of 3.37, 3.27, 3.83, 3.72, 4.11, 3.63 and standard deviations of 1.36, 1.41, 1.23, 1.11, 1.20and 1.39 respectively.

Ho: Workplace ostracism has no significant effect on employees’ wellbeing in the banking firm.

Chi-Square Test

The third hypothesis was also tested using the Chi-square (χ²) test. The result showed that calculated value 136.096 when compared with the χ² tabulated value 9.0135 at five percent (5 percent) level of significance. The result shows a P-value of .000 which is less than 0.5% significant level. Hence the null hypothesis is rejected and alternative hypothesis accepted.  This result asserts that Workplace ostracism has significant effect on employees’ wellbeing in the banking firm.

Toxic workplace effect on employee well-being

In order to achieve this objective, Statement items 19 – 23 in the Questionnaire were used. The opinion of the respondents is summarized in Table 4.4 below; it shows the Mean and Standard Deviation of the respondents’ views in relations to the effect of Toxic Workplace on employee wellbeing in banking firm.

Table 4.4:  Effect of Toxic Workplace on Employee Well Being

Source: Field Survey, 2023

Table 4.4 indicates that respondents agreed with the views that employees generally feel positive toward work in the organization; supervisor and co-worker check in regularly enough with how employee are doing; when employees are stressed, they feel there is the support available for help.; they bank’s organizational culture encourages a balance between work and family life and that the organization provides aid in stress management with mean scores of 3.37, 3.27, 3.83, 3.72, 4.11, 3.63 and standard deviations of 1.36, 1.41, 1.23, 1.11, 1.20 and 1.39 respectively.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusion

Analysis of the effect of workplace bulling on employee wellbeing revealed that employers are less satisfied with jobs due to consistent bullying; employees are having their works unfairly and repeatedly criticized; employees operates within established rules and policies of the organization; and that employees are being ordered to do work beyond level of competence. By implication there evidence of workplace bulling in the bank understudy.

Assessment of the effect of workplace harassment on employee wellbeing show that toxic workplace is a distraction from the main objectives; employees do not feel free to speak up due to workplace harassment; employees often get shouted at or humiliated in front of colleagues at work; harassment has negatively affects employees physical wellbeing; workplace toxics leads to several workplace conflicts; workplace harassment increases absenteeism.

Investigation of effect of workplace ostracism on employee wellbeing led to the realization that it was not ascertained whether workplace ostracism impacts on individuals’ attitudes to work and if co-worker/subordinate tries to maintain distance from employees at work. However, it was found that supervisors/subordinates do not often answer employees greeting; and that workplace ostracism leads to employees’ emotional exhaustion.

In relation to toxic workplace environment, employees have witnessed stress related behavior at workplace (crying, shouting, outbursts, door slamming, etc). This result concludes that workplace bulling has significant effect on employee wellbeing in the banking firm. Toxic workplace environment lowers employees’ self-confidence.

This result confirms that workplace harassment has significant effect on employees’ wellbeing in the banks. It is further concluded that workplace ostracism affects employees’ job satisfaction; and that Workplace ostracism has significant effect on employees’ wellbeing in the banking firm. In summary, toxin workplace negatively affects employees’ wellbeing as such performance and productivity of firm would be subsequently lowered.

Recommendations

Employers/management should ensure there is the support available for help when employees are stressed at workplace. Hence, it is recommended that the organization should provide aids in stress management to lessen the toxin environment effect on employees’ wellbeing at workplace. The bank must sustain the organizational culture that encourages a balance between work and family life. It is important for supervisor and co-worker to check in regularly enough with how employees are doing at workplace

REFERENCES

1. Aquino, K., and Lamertz, K. (2004). A relational model of workplace victimization: social roles and patterns of victimization in dyadic relationships. J. Appl. Psychol. 89, 1023–1034. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1023
2. Avey, J. B.; Luthans, F.; Smith, R. M.; Palmer, N. F. (2010). Impact of positive psychological capital on employee well-being over time. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15, 17.
3. Baumeister, R. F., and Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychol. Bull. 117, 497–529. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
4. Berquist, R.; St-Pierre, I.; Holmes, D. (2018). Uncaring Nurses: Mobilizing Power, Knowledge, Difference, and Resistance to Explain Workplace Violence in Academia. Research. Theory of Nursing Practice, 32, 199–215.
5. Chiu, C.-M.; Cheng, H.-L.; Huang, H.-Y.; Chen, C.-F. (2013). Exploring individuals’ subjective wellbeing and loyalty towards socialnet work sites from the perspective of network externalities: The Facebook case. International Journal of Information Management, 33, 539–552.
6. Danna, K.; Griffin, R.W. (1999). Health and well-being in the workplace: A review and synthesis of the literature. Journal of Management, 25,357–384.
7. De Clercq, D.; Haq, I.U.; Azeem, M.U.(2020). The relationship between workplace incivility and depersonalization towards co-workers: Roles of job-related anxiety, gender, and education. Journal of Management and Organisation. 26, 219–240.
8. Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., and Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: three decades of progress. Psychol. Bull. 125, 276–302. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276
9. Farooq, O.; Payaud, M.; Merunka, D.; Valette-Florence, P. (2014). The impact of corporate social responsibility on organizational commitment: Exploring multiple mediation mechanisms. J. Bus. Ethics , 125, 563–580.
10. Ferris, D. L., Brown, D. J., Berry, J. W., and Lian, H. (2008). The development and validation of the workplace ostracism scale. J. Appl. Psychol. 93, 1348–1366. doi: 10.1037/a0012743
11. Fiset, J., Al Hajj, R., and Vongas, J. G. (2017). Workplace ostracism seen through the lens of power. Front. Psychol. 1528:158. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01528
12. He, J.; Morrison, A.M.; & Zhang, H. (2019). Improving millennial employee well-being and task performance in the hospitality industry: The interactive effects of HRM and responsible leadership. Sustainability, 11, 4410.
13. How Toxic Workplace Environment Effects the Employee Engagement: The Mediating Role of Organizational Support and Employee Wellbeing
14. Howard, M. C., Cogswell, J. E., and Smith, M. B. (2020). The antecedents and outcomes of workplace ostracism: a meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 105, 577–596. doi: 10.1037/apl0000453
15. Mao, Y., Liu, Y., Jiang, C., and Zhang, I. D. (2018). Why am I ostracized and how would I react? — A review of workplace ostracism research. Asia. Pac. J. Manag. 35, 745–767. doi: 10.1007/s10490-017-9538-8
16. Marin-Garcia, J. A.; Bonavia, T.; Losilla, J. M. (2020). Changes in the Association between European Workers’ Employment Conditions and Employee Well-Being in 2005, 2010 and 2015. Int. J. Environ. Research for Public Health, 17, 1048.
17. Maslow, A. H. (1958). A Dynamic Theory of Human Motivation; Howard Allen Publishers: London, UK.
18. Odoardi, C.; Montani, F.; Boudrias, J.-S.; Battistelli, (2015) A. Linking managerial practices and leadership style to innovative work behavior. Leadership Organisational Development Journal,36, 545–569.16. Abbas, J.; Sa˘gsan, M. (2019). Impact of knowledge management practices on green innovation and corporate sustainable development: A structural analysis. Journal of Clean. Production., 229, 611–620.
19. Rasool, S. F.; Wang, M.; Tang, M.; Saeed, A.; Iqbal, J. (2021).How Toxic Workplace Environment Effects the Employee Engagement: The Mediating Role of Organizational Support and Employee Wellbeing. International Journal Environmental Research for Public Health, 18,2294. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.ijerph18052294
20. Rasool, S. F.; Wang, M.; Zhang, Y.; Samma, M. (2020).Sustainable Work Performance: The Roles of Workplace Violence and Occupational Stress. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17, 912.
21. Robinson, S. L., O’reilly, J., and Wang, W. (2013). Invisible at work: an integrated model of workplace ostracism. J. Manage. 39, 203–231. doi: 10.1177/0149206312466141
22. Samma, M.; Zhao, Y.; Rasool, S. F.; Han, X.; Ali, S. (2020). Exploring the Relationship between Innovative Work Behavior, Job Anxiety, Workplace Ostracism and Workplace Incivility: Empirical Evidence from Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (SMEs). Healthcare, 8, 508.
23. Samma, M.; Zhao, Y.; Rasool, S.F.; Han, X.; &Ali, S. (2020).Exploring the Relationship between Innovative Work Behavior, Job Anxiety, Workplace Ostracism, and Workplace Incivility: Empirical Evidence from Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (SMEs). Healthcare, 8, 508.
24. SupportRoom (2022). How does a toxic workplace impact employee wellbeing? Health & Wellbeing, February 11, 2022
25. Taylor, J.L.; Rew, L. (2011). A systematic review of the literature: Workplace violence in the emergency department. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 20, 1072–1085.
26. Vinokur, A.D.; Pierce, P.F.; Lewandowski-Romps, L.; Hobfoll, S. E.; Galea, S. (2011). Effects of war exposure on air force personnel’s mental health, job burnout and other organizational related outcomes. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 16, 3.
27. Wang, Z.; Zaman, S.; Rasool, S.F.; uz Zaman, Q.; Amin, A. (2020). Exploring the Relationships Between a Toxic Workplace Environment, Workplace Stress, and Project Success with the Moderating Effect of Organizational Support: Empirical Evidence from Pakistan. Risk Management Healthcare Policy, 13, 1055–1067.
28. Woo, E.; Kim, H.; Uysal, M. (2015). Life satisfaction and support for tourism development. Annual Tourism Research, 50, 84–97.
29. Wu, L. Z., Wei, L., and Hui, C. (2011). Dispositional antecedents and consequences of workplace ostracism: an empirical examination. Front. Bus. Res. China 5:23–44. doi: 10.1007/s11782-011-0119-2
30. Yaakobi, E., and Williams, K. D. (2016). Recalling an attachment event moderates distress after ostracism. Eur. J. Pers. 30, 258–273. doi: 10.1002/per.2050.
31. Yuan, F.; Woodman, R.W. (2010). Innovative behavior in the workplace: The role of performance and image outcome expectations. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 323–342.
32. Zhang, G. P. (2016). The influencing mechanism of workplace ostracism on unethical pro-organization behaviour. Journal Management Science. 29, 104–114.
33. Zhang, X.; Bartol, K. M. ( 2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 107–128.

APPENDIX: QUESTIONNAIRE

PART A

Please tick (√) the option as appropriate

1. Gender: Male (        )         Female (         )
2. Age: 20-30years (    )    31-40years (    )   41-50years (    )   51years & above (    )
3. Working Experience : Less than a year ( ) 1-5years (    )  6-10years (   ) 11-15years (  )  More than 15years
4. Qualification: NCE ( ) OND/HND (   ) B.Ed./ B.Sc. (    ) MBA/M.Sc. (   ) Ph.D. (   )
5. Position/Cadre: Management ( ) Senior Staff (    ) Junior Staff (    ) Contract Staff (    )

PART B

Please tick (√) the option that best suits your opinion. KEYS:SA-Strongly Agree, A-Agree, D-Disagree, SD-Strongly Disagree.