MIC3ST 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
Virtual Conference on Melaka International Social Sciences, Science and Technology 2025
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIII October 2025
Page 227
www.rsisinternational.org
Workplace Bullying and Its Impact on Job Performance: Empirical
Evidence from the Public Sector in Malaysia
Kuldip Singh., Elizabeth Caroline Augustine., Nur Aida Binti Kipli., Nur Farhani Binti Samasu., Fairuz
Hidayat Merican Bin Wan Merican., Rozalia Ingai
Faculty of Administrative Science and Policy Studies Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM), Sarawak
Branch, Malaysia
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.923MIC3ST250020
Received: 12 August 2025; Accepted: 20 August 2025; Published: 24 October 2025
ABSTRACT
Workplace bullying is a pervasive issue that affects numerous individuals across various industries and
organizations. A study conducted by the Workplace Bullying Institute in the United States found that 19% of
American workers had experienced bullying at some point during their careers. Similarly, a meta-analysis of
studies from various countries revealed an overall prevalence rate of 14% for workplace bullying. Over the
years, workplace bullying has been a huge concern among the top management. Employee’s welfare is said to
be affected due to this workplace bullying. A study is conducted in Malaysia found out that 39.1% of
employees from 47 companies in Malaysia stated that they have been bullied in the workplace. Workplace
bullying has a direct effect on employee job performance because, when bullying occurred their work
motivation will decrease. This will eventually slow down their productivity and causing them failure in
delivering work performance at their full potential. This study aims to examine the relationship between
workplace bullying and job performance in the public sector. A survey using questionnaire was carried out on a
sample of 266 employees in a public agency. The findings showed that level of workplace bullying was
medium. However, a weak positive correlation was found between workplace bullying and job performance.
There was no significant difference in workplace bullying based on demographic characteristics such as
gender, marital status and age. But a significant difference in workplace bullying was found for work
experience. Results showed that person related bullying is the main predictor of job performance followed by
work related bullying. The study provides insights into negative effects of workplace bullying on employees’
job performance in the public sector.
Keywords: Workplace Bullying, Job Performance, Public Sector, Person Related Bullying, Work Related
Bullying.
INTRODUCTION
A robust public sector plays a crucial role in achieving the strategic and economic goals set by the Sarawak
State Government. These objectives establish clear expectations regarding the public sector’s functions and
operational approaches to ensure that community needs are met while delivering services effectively and
efficiently. Research has consistently shown that employees who are engaged and satisfied with their work
tend to perform better and provide higher-quality services. (Harter, & Hayes, 2002). Creating a positive work
environment requires strong leadership, effective management, and a collective commitment from all
employees to foster inclusivity and a sense of belonging. (Robinson & Edmondson, 2021). Additionally,
organizations must address negative workplace behaviors promptly to prevent them from escalating.
Bullying in the workplace is a significant disruptor of productivity and can severely impact employee
engagement and well-being if left unaddressed. (HR Vision Event 2024). Preventing inappropriate behaviors,
such as bullying, is a fundamental responsibility under Malaysia’s work health and safety policies. Under
Malaysia’s Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994 (OSHA), employers are legally required to provide a safe
working environment, including protection from bullying. Complaints can be escalated to the Department of
Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) if internal resolution fails. The Code of Ethics strictly prohibits
MIC3ST 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
Virtual Conference on Melaka International Social Sciences, Science and Technology 2025
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIII October 2025
Page 228
www.rsisinternational.org
bullying and fostering a workplace culture that promotes respect, and positivity is essential in preventing such
behaviors. (American Psychological Association, 2017). Employers have a duty to establish environments
where employees feel motivated, valued, and supported in performing their best work. Human resources and
workplace safety professionals play a key role in assisting leaders in cultivating such environments and
identifying potential psychosocial hazards, such as workplace stressors. Furthermore, all employees, regardless
of rank, should be held to the same behavioral standards.
The performance of government employees is critical, as it directly influences public perception of
government efficiency and effectiveness. Higher levels of job performance enhance public trust in government
institutions (Kaifeng & Marc, 2006). Strong performance is linked to factors such as quality of work,
productivity, cooperation, reliability, and creativity in task execution. Employee competency is a key
determinant of job performance, with those possessing advanced skills demonstrating higher success rates. For
instance, employees with extensive job knowledge, specialized expertise, intelligence, and effective work
strategies are more likely to excel in their roles. In the public sector, employee performance reflects overall
government efficiency, making it a focal point for both administrators and researchers. A decline in employee
skill levels can adversely impact performance outcomes (Salleh, Yaakub & Dzulkifli, 2011).
Workplace bullying is defined by the Workplace Bullying Institute as repeated mistreatment of an individual
through work-related disruptions, intimidation (both verbal and non-verbal), humiliation, threats, or verbal
abuse (Raypole, 2019). In professional settings, bullying is an undesirable behavior often characterized by an
imbalance of power, which can have serious consequences for both employees and the organization. Negative
workplace behaviors are linked to poor performance, making bullying a critical issue for organizations to
address. Employees who experience bullying are at risk of stress and mental health challenges, which can
significantly hinder their job performance. In Malaysia, workplace bullying is an emerging issue. A 2020
survey found that approximately 54% of public sector workers in Malaysia reported experiencing workplace
bullying, which is lower than the 68% reported in the private sector. Verbal abuse was the most common form,
followed by psychological and physical abuse. Women were more likely to be bullied (70%) compared to men
(58%) across sectors. Research by Kwan et al. (2014) highlights that bullying is ingrained in the workplace
culture of many Malaysian organizations, where it is often perceived as a demonstration of power and
authority. As a result, employees may feel compelled to tolerate bullying behaviors. Given these concerns, this
study aims to explore the relationship between workplace bullying and job performance within the public
sector.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Job Performance
The concept of job performance remains a widely debated topic as one of the most significant dependent
variables studied across businesses, government institutions, educational sectors, and society. For decades,
researchers have examined and refined the definitions and conceptual frameworks surrounding individual job
performance. In general, job performance refers to how effectively an employee carries out their assigned
duties (Murphy, 1989; Rotundo, 2000). Rather than focusing solely on outcomes, job performance should be
understood in terms of behaviors. This aspect is critical for both employees and employers, as it directly
influences decisions related to promotions, terminations, salary increments, and bonuses (Caillier, 2010).
Historically, much attention has been given to the organizational perspective, but administrative theorists have
extensively explored individual job performance. The study of job performance can be traced back to the early
1900s, when Frederick Taylor proposed that organizations could enhance employee productivity by identifying
and structuring the most efficient work schedules. However, his study faced criticism for emphasizing
"mechanization" over the humanistic aspects of workplace management (March & Simon, 1958).
Borman and Motowidlo (1993) later proposed that job performance could be categorized into two broad
dimensions: task performance and contextual performance. Task performance, also known as in-role
performance, refers to an employee’s proficiency in carrying out duties that are officially recognized as part of
their job. These activities directly contribute to the organization’s core functions, either by facilitating
MIC3ST 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
Virtual Conference on Melaka International Social Sciences, Science and Technology 2025
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIII October 2025
Page 229
www.rsisinternational.org
technical processes or indirectly by providing necessary support, such as materials and services (Borman &
Motowidlo, 1993). In contrast, contextual performance, also referred to as extra-role performance, includes
discretionary behaviors that may not be explicitly required but contribute to the overall social and
psychological environment of the organization. Examples of contextual performance include volunteering,
persistence, assisting colleagues, cooperating, and adhering to organizational rules (Borman & Motowidlo,
1993). Both aspects of job performance are recognized as essential, although their emphasis may vary
depending on the nature of the assigned job.
Workplace Bullying
Workplace bullying is a prevalent issue across various organizations, regardless of their industry or function. It
refers to the persistent mistreatment of employees by either their superiors or colleagues, often manifesting in
forms such as harassment, threats, or ridicule, which can negatively affect job performance (Hussain & Aslam,
2015). Employees subjected to workplace bullying are forced to navigate hostile and aggressive behaviors,
which can severely impact their work environment. While bullying frequently stems from power imbalances
within the workplace, it can also occur among employees at the same hierarchical level (Matthiesen &
Einarsen, 2010). Fisher-Blando (2010) characterizes workplace bullying as a series of deliberate, harmful,
disrespectful, or exclusionary actions—whether intentional or unintentional—aimed at an individual. Such
behavior is often perceived as an attempt to dominate, harm, or pressure an employee into resigning. In some
cases, bullying is evident in the misuse of authority, where subordinates are subjected to harassment by their
superiors.
Einarsen (2005) highlighted in his research that bullying presents a serious ethical concern and a workplace
hazard, as it can cause employees to experience difficulties in coping with challenges, leading to
developmental struggles. The study also noted that victims of workplace bullying may suffer from low self-
esteem, ultimately affecting overall organizational efficiency. Townend (2008) supported this view, asserting
that bullying has detrimental effects on both employees and organizations.
According to Adams and Bray (1992), workplace bullying is a sustained pattern of mistreatment that may
include verbal criticism or direct personal attacks aimed at humiliating or belittling others. Attell et al. (2017)
further noted that bullying in the workplace can cause employees to question their self-worth, leading to
psychological distress and even physical harm.
Relationship Between Workplace Bullying and Job Performance
Research on workplace bullying and job performance has demonstrated a significant relationship between the
two, with findings indicating a negative correlation between workplace bullying and job performance (Said,
Zaidee, Zahari, Ali, & Salleh, 2015). Evidence suggests that workplace bullying adversely affects employee
performance. For instance, unfair treatment of employees has been shown to leave a negative impact on their
work output (Ndegwa & Makori Moronge, 2016). Studies conducted among public sector employees also
support the conclusion that workplace bullying leads to diminished job performance (Obicci, 2015; Devonish,
2013). Researchers consistently highlight that bullying in the workplace negatively influences job satisfaction,
while also affecting employees' physical and emotional well-being, ultimately resulting in a decline in
productivity. This issue presents multifaceted challenges for organizations, including ethical, financial,
emotional, and physical implications (Yahaya et al., 2012).
Several studies have examined the relationship between workplace behavior, job performance, and bullying.
Many of these studies document the detrimental impact of bullying on employee behavior and performance.
Ikyanyon and Ucho (2013) assert that the nature of bullying directly influences job performance, with hospital
employees subjected to lower levels of bullying demonstrating better performance compared to those exposed
to severe bullying. Similarly, Yahaya et al. (2012) found that workplace bullying affects task performance
within organizations. Rooyen and McCormack (2013) emphasized that employees perceive bullying as
harmful to performance, particularly when not properly addressed by management.
MIC3ST 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
Virtual Conference on Melaka International Social Sciences, Science and Technology 2025
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIII October 2025
Page 230
www.rsisinternational.org
The first research effort to assess the link between workplace bullying and individual job performance was
conducted by Ashton, Briney, and Heppenheffer (2007). Their study found that employees who experienced
bullying were less likely to report organizational success in national quality surveys. A meta-analysis by
Lantigua and Barton (2002), which reviewed 21 studies, also concluded that bullying negatively impacts
employee productivity, causing disengagement and reduced commitment to work. Similarly, Chen and
Blackburn (2010) analyzed 70 studies and found that workplace bullying not only harms employee
performance but also affects their overall well-being. Their findings revealed that bullied employees take
longer to make decisions at work due to stress and mental preoccupation. Bullying has been widely recognized
as a disruptive factor that hinders employee performance (Yahaya et al., 2012; Ndegwa & Moronge, 2016;
Mete & Sökmen, 2016; Carroll & Lauzier, 2014).
Moreover, research suggests that increased instances of bullying in the workplace correlate with greater
disruption and decreased employee productivity, particularly in individual task performance (Obicci, 2015;
Ndegwa & Moronge, 2016; Yahaya et al., 2012; Devonish, 2013; Chesler, 2014). However, some studies,
including those by Majeed and Naseer (2019), Samnani et al. (2013), and Sidle (2009), have identified a
positive relationship between bullying and performance. Interestingly, Pradhan and Joshi (2019) found that in
certain cases, workplace bullying can enhance employee performance.
Contradicting this, several studies argue that workplace bullying has an overwhelmingly negative effect on
performance (Ashraf & Khan, 2014; Devonish, 2013; Nwaneri et al., 2013; Olaleye et al., 2021). Lutgen-
Sandvik et al. (2007), as cited by Samnani et al. (2013), introduced the concept of "developmental stage
bullying," wherein persistent criticism is directed at highly optimistic employees, potentially improving work
efficiency. A positive correlation between workplace bullying and job performance can arise when bullying is
strategically employed by superiors for personal gain, such as coercing subordinates into working long hours
with the promise of promotions or using intimidation tactics. In such cases, employees may perceive bullying
as work-driven rather than personal, which can result in increased productivity (Liefooghe & Davey, 2001;
Samnani et al., 2013).
Workplace Bullying and Demographic Variables
In general, the data show women are bullied more than men in the workplace to varying degrees (Hoel and
Cooper 2001; Lewis and Gunn 2007; Quine 2002; Salin 2003; 2021). A systematic review of the literature by
Feijio et al. (2019) found that of the fifty-one included studies in the review, thirteen showed that women were
more likely to be bullied than men, two found no gender associations, and two found men were more likely to
be bullied. Moayed et al. (2006) found in their systematic review that only two of seven studies showed gender
differences (both found women to be more likely targets).
In a 2018 face-to-face interview study of over 4,500 German workers, Lange et al. (2019) found no difference
in bullying prevalence across gender. In addition to gender, race, and ethnicity, age as well as the amount of
time working in a particular field or institution are important factors when considering the prevalence of
bullying in the workplace. Data exist that point toward younger workers experiencing bullying at higher rates
than their older counterparts, but results are unclear and inconclusive. Lange et al. (2019) found that amongst a
sample of workers between the ages of 31 and 60, younger workers experience significantly more severe
bullying from superiors than older workers. These findings are consistent with those of Hoel and Cooper
(2001), who identified significant differences between bullying risk for younger and middle-aged workers and
that for older workers over a five-year period.
Furthermore, of the eighteen studies identified by Feijo et al. (2019) that explored an association between age
and bullying, eight found that younger workers were more likely to be the targets of bullying, one found that
older workers were more likely targets, and nine found no association. There is little literature on the
association between length of service in an organization and exposure to workplace bullying. Glambek,
Einarsen, and Notelaers (2023) posit a complicated relationship between length of time within an organization
and bullying. In their study of over 1,000 Norwegian workers, the researchers identified a mediation effect of
job dissatisfaction that links exposure to workplace bullying and turnover intentions (i.e., workers’ intent to
MIC3ST 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
Virtual Conference on Melaka International Social Sciences, Science and Technology 2025
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIII October 2025
Page 231
www.rsisinternational.org
leave the organization), with the strongest effect applying to short-term employees (two and a half years or
less).
The researchers conclude that long-term service acts as a resource for resilience when faced with bullying,
which also could explain why the literature across age-related workplace bullying leans in the same
direction—generally, workers who have spent longer amounts of time in an organization are also older.
Additionally, the response to bullying exposure from older workers differs from younger workers—older
workers are more likely to take no action in response as opposed to engaging with a coping strategy such as
seeking help or avoidance (Jóhannsdóttir and Ólafsson 2004). Thus length of service in an organization is
positively associated with resilience when experiencing bullying. In other words, workers may have learned
coping skills to mediate a certain amount of impact from negative acts. It also echoes Freedman and Vreven’s
(2016) finding that those working in a library for four to seven years’ experience more exposure to negative
acts in the workplace compared to those who have worked more than twenty-one years.
The association between marital status and bullying also varied between studies. Four studies reported no
association between workplace bullying and marital status (Lange et.al, 2019, Carretero, et.al, 2013, Bilgel
et,al, 2006, Bayramoglu, et.al, 2007). On the other hand, three studies reported that single, separated, divorced,
and widowed workers were more likely to suffer from bullying at work (Khubchandani, et.al, 2015, Keuskamp
et.al, 2012, Sahin et.al, 2012) while one study found a higher risk of bullying among married workers (
Picakciefe et,al. 2017). Another study by Dominic et al. (2012) showed that separated, divorced or widowed
workers reported greater exposure to bullying than married or never‐married workers.
Studies by Einarsen & Skogstad (1996), Leymann (1992); and Vartia (1996) which state the difference
between gender and bullying in the workplace where victims ratio between male and female are the same.
Trijueque and Gomez (2010) also uncovered similar findings that a significantly higher percentage of women
experience workplace bullying. Research by Hoel, H., & Cooper, C. L. (2000) claims that age seems to be of
little importance regarding the prevalence of bullying. This is further stressed by Quine, L. (2001) whose study
on nurses exposed to bullying stated that there were no differences by age or gender in reports of bullying.
Quine, L. (2001) reported that nurses who worked full time were more likely to be bullied than those who
worked part time, indicating that those who have been in the industry longer were more susceptible to
bullying.
Based on the above empirical studies, several hypotheses were tested:
H1: There is a negative relationship between workplace bullying and job performance.
H1a: There is a negative relationship between person related bullying and job performance
H1b: There is a negative relationship between work related bullying and job performance
H2: There is no significant difference in workplace bullying based on gender
H3: There is no significant difference in workplace bullying based on age
H4: There is no significant difference in workplace bullying based on marital status
H5: There is no significant difference in workplace bullying based on work experience.
H6: Work- related bullying is the main predictor of job performance.
Underpinning Theories
Conservation of Resources (COR) theory is often applied to understand how workplace bullying affects job
performance. According to COR theory, employees experiencing bullying perceive a threat to their physical
and psychological resources (e.g., emotional stability, mental health). To conserve these resources, they may
MIC3ST 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
Virtual Conference on Melaka International Social Sciences, Science and Technology 2025
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIII October 2025
Page 232
www.rsisinternational.org
adopt passive coping strategies such as employee silence, which reduces engagement and productivity, thereby
negatively affecting job performance.
Another relevant theory is the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model, which explains that bullying depletes
employees’ emotional and mental resources, leading to burnout and diminished productivity. This resource
depletion directly harms job performance. Complementing this, Social Exchange Theory highlights how
bullying damages workplace relationships, reducing trust, commitment, and job satisfaction, which further
undermines performance.
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework for Workplace Bullying and Job Performance (Adopted from Einarsen, Hoel
& Notelaers, 2009)
METHODOLODY
This study used survey data to investigate the impact of workplace bullying on job performance amongst
public sector employees. The study adopted a quantitative research design using a survey questionnaire as the
primary tool for data collection. The sampling technique used was convenience sampling. In this study, the
population for the study was 535 employees according to the Human Resource Unit of the selected public
agency. The proposed sample size for this study is 226 as proposed by Krejcie and Morgan (1970) as quoted by
Sekaran & Bougie (2010). the survey questionnaire was comprised of two parts: (a) personal information,
including gender, age, ethnicity, educational qualifications and work experience (b) questions related to
workplace bullying and job performance. The questionnaire was pilot tested among thirty participants to
ensure clarity and comprehensibility. Total of 188 questionnaires were returned giving a response rate of 83%.
The study adopted the Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised (NAQ-R) that was used for measuring the
independent variable workplace bullying. There are 22 items in the NAQ-R, measured using a five-point Likert
scale proposed by Einarsen, Hoel, and Notelaers (2009). The questionnaire used five-point Likert scale
answerable by 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) which provided greater uniformity of responses as
such data was easily processed. The questionnaire previously showed an appropriate internal consistency
(Cronbach’s α coefficient = 0.89) with subscales: Person-related bullying (α = 0.85), Work-related bullying (α
= 0.82.)
The measurement for job performance consisted of ten-items referring to the task and contextual performance
developed by Williams and Anderson (1991). All the items were measured on a 5-point Likert scale with
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The example of an item is ‘Adequately complete
assigned duties.’ The Cronbach’ Alpha for job performance is 0.91. The reliability of questionnaire was
assessed using Cronbach’s alpha formula. If the reliability was greater than or equal to 0.70, Cronbach’s alpha
was deemed to be acceptable.
MIC3ST 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
Virtual Conference on Melaka International Social Sciences, Science and Technology 2025
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIII October 2025
Page 233
www.rsisinternational.org
RESULT
Both descriptive and inferential analysis was performed on the data collected. The number of respondents who
responded were 181 giving a response rate 803%. The sample consisted of 119 male respondents (67.3%) and
69 female respondents (36.7%), with a majority (67%) falling in the age range of 31- 50 years old. In terms of
working experience, majority had 6 to 20 years (61.3%) followed by over 20 years (27%). Regarding marital
status most of them were married (79.3%). As for respondents’ ethnicity, (38.5%) Malay, (19.7%) Iban,
(23.4%) Bidayuh (23.4%), and others (18.1%). More than half of the respondents (59.6%) hold SPM, followed
by a diploma (14.4 %). Majority of the respondents were familiar or somewhat familiar with workplace
bullying (67.6%). Regarding experience of bullying at the workplace 77.1% said Yes and 22.3 % said No. As
for witnessing workplace bullying in the workplace 56.4 % reported No. Regarding how many times have you
witnesses bullying incidents at your workplace majority of the respondents reported as none (71.8%) and about
20.3% of respondents reported 1 to 5 times. Majority of the respondents (92.6%) had never attended any
workshop on workplace bullying.
Reliability Analysis
Before the questionnaires can be used for this study and distributed to all the respondents, the reliability test
for the questionnaires must be conducted to see whether the questions are reliable or not. Pilot study was
conducted to do examine the reliability analysis for all the questions. Results of pilot study found reliability for
workplace bullying was 0.876 and for job performance was 0.782. Consequently, for actual study was 0.876
and 0.809 respectively demonstrating high internal consistency for the survey instrument. (Nunnally, 1978).
Level Of Workplace Bullying
The first research objective was to determine the level of workplace bullying. Mean and standard was used to
determine the level of workplace bullying. The level of workplace bullying is moderate (Mean= 3.24, SD
1.12). This finding shows that the level of workplace bullying is medium. (Tekin, 2014).
Relationship Between Workplace Bullying and Job Performance
The second research objective is to examine the relationship between Workplace bullying and Job
performance. Correlation analysis was used to examine the relationship Workplace bullying and Job
performance. A weak positive relationship was found between Workplace bullying and Job performance
(r=.262, p<.001). Thus, higher workplace bullying is associated with lower job performance. Thus, H1 was not
supported. Weak positive correlation was found between person related bullying (r=.287, p<.001) and work-
related bullying (r=.193, p <.001). Thus, H1a and H1b were not supported.
Workplace Bullying and Demographic Variables
There was no significant difference in workplace bullying based on sample characteristics such as gender, age
and marital status (p>0.05). Thus H 2,3 and 4 was supported. However, a significant difference was found in
workplace bullying based on work experience. (p<0.05). This is summarized in Table 1 below. Thus, H5 was
not supported.
Table 1: T- Independent and Anova one way of Workplace Bullying and Demographics
Variables
N
Workplace bullying
Mean
SD
F or T
Anova or T-test Test
value
p-value
Gender
Male
112
3.26
.568
T
-0.176
.861
MIC3ST 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
Virtual Conference on Melaka International Social Sciences, Science and Technology 2025
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIII October 2025
Page 234
www.rsisinternational.org
Female
69
3.22
.581
Age
Below 30 years old
31-40 years old
41-50 years old
Above 50 years old
23
55
66
37
3.83
3.83
3.95
4.05
.598
.511
.546
.669
F
1.417
.239
Marital status
Single
Married
38
143
3.90
3.85
.571
.569
T
-.116
.908
Work experience
Below 5 years
6 to 10 years
11-15 years
16-20 year
above 20 years
35
31
28
33
49
3.82
3.94
3.75
3.98
4.06
.601
.559
.536
.541
.595
F
2.55
.030
The regression analysis in Table 2 displays person related bullying as the main predictor of job performance
(β=.689, p=0.000) followed by work related bullying (β=-.439, p=0.017). Thus, H6 was not supported. The
predictors explain 11.4 % of the variance in job performance.
Table 2: Regression Analysis of Workplace Bullying and Job Performance
Model
Un-standardized Coefficients
Standardized Coefficients
t
Sig
(constant)
Person Related Bullying
Work Related Bullying
B
3.546
.336
-.216
Std.Error
.127
.089
.090
Beta
.689
-.439
27.880
3.777
-2.407
.000
.000
.000
Dependant Variable: Job Performance
R-square
F Statistic:
P-Value
.114
10.518
<.0001
MIC3ST 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
Virtual Conference on Melaka International Social Sciences, Science and Technology 2025
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIII October 2025
Page 235
www.rsisinternational.org
DISCUSSION
The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between workplace bullying and job performance in the
public sector. The findings of the study confirmed that workplace bully and job performance was significantly
correlated. The study found a weak positive correlation between workplace bullying and job performance in
the public sector. This is consistent with findings by previous researchers who found a positive link between
workplace bullying and employee performance. Studies by Majeed and Naseer (2019), Samnani et al. (2013),
and Sidle (2009) have supported a positive relationship between the two variables.
However, Pradhan and Joshi (2019) discovered that workplace bullying can also improve employee
performance.). According to Lutgen-Sandvik et al. (2007), as cited by Samnani et al. (2013), "a typology of
target attributions about workplace bullying," developmental stage bullying involves persistent criticism
targeting individuals with high levels of optimism, which can result in improved work efficiency. The positive
association between workplace bullying and employee performance is likely when bullying motives include
self-gain by superiors, using bullying to deceive subordinates into working excessive hours by promising
promotions or using fear and intimidation. This occurs when the target perceives the conduct as work-driven,
person-driven, and positive (Liefooghe & Davey, 2001; Samnani et al., 2013). This supports that person related
bullying is the main predictor of job performance.
On the other hand, the results of the present study contradicts several studies that have asserted an adverse
effect of bullying on employee performance (Ashraf & Khan, 2014; Devonish, 2013; Nwaneri et al., 2013;
Olaleye et al., 2021).The present research findings disagreed with the research findings of Namie (2003) and
Judith (2008) as bullying acts have a negative impact on employees’ job performance due to the stressful
working atmosphere for and the creation of job dissatisfaction and consequently the loss of productivity for the
organisation.
The study found no significant difference in workplace bullying based on gender, age and marital status and
work experience. This finding contradicts studies by Einarsen & Skogstad (1996), Leymann (1992); and Vartia
(1996) which state that there the difference between gender and bullying in the workplace where victim’s ratio
between male and female are the same. Trijueque and Gomez (2010) also uncovered similar findings that a
significantly higher percentage of women experience workplace bullying. The findings of the current study
were consistent with those of Hoel, H., & Cooper, C. L. (2000) who claims that age seems to be of little
importance regarding the prevalence of bullying.
This is further stressed by Quine, L. (2001) whose study on nurses exposed to bullying stated that there were
no differences by age or gender in reports of bullying. The present study is not consistent with findings by
Dominic et al. (2012) which showed that separated, divorced or widowed workers reported greater exposure to
bullying than married or never‐married workers. The present study supports findings by Quine, L. (2001) who
reported that nurses who worked full time were more likely to be bullied than those who worked part time,
indicating that those who have been in the industry longer were more susceptible to bullying. Moreover, the
present research findings also contradict with the findings of Yahaya, Ing, Lee, Yahaya, Boon, Hashim, & Taat
(2012) which indicated that person-related bullying influences negatively employees’ productivity level.
CONCLUSION
The main aim of this study was to examine the relationship between workplace and job performance in the
public sector. The results showed a significant weak positive relationship between workplace bullying and job
performance. In addition, no significant difference was found in workplace bullying based on gender, age and
marital status except for work experience. Moreover, person related bullying was the main predictor for job
performance. This study has merit, but there are also some limitations. First, because the study was cross-
sectional in nature, it was not possible to draw any conclusions about the causal links between the factors
examined. Second, this investigation relied specifically on samples drawn from the one public agency.
Therefore, the current study's findings cannot be generalized to employees in other public agencies. The
resulting findings contribute to the growing body of literature on workplace bullying and job performance in
MIC3ST 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
Virtual Conference on Melaka International Social Sciences, Science and Technology 2025
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIII October 2025
Page 236
www.rsisinternational.org
the Malaysian context. There are implications for research, practice, and policy from the current study. By
establishing more effective workplace bullying programs and policies in their organizations it would enhance
and maintain the job performance of their personnel. Further study might be done to enhance and develop an
even deeper understanding of the workplace bullying problem, which would provide a direction for future
research.
The study can also explore other variables such as moderator or mediating variables It is advised that a
qualitative study be conducted to gain a more in-depth understanding of how workplace bullying can impact
job performance among Malaysian public servants. In summary, workplace bullying is a significant issue in
Malaysia’s public sector, particularly in healthcare, with over half of public sector employees affected. It
negatively impacts job performance through increased psychological stress and burnout, contributing to lower
productivity and morale. Despite legal protections, underreporting remains a challenge, underscoring the need
for stronger organizational measures to address bullying and support employee well-being.
REFERENCES
1. Adams, A., & Bray, F. (1992). Holding out against workplace harassment and bullying. Personnel
Management, 24, 48–52.
2. American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct.
https://www.apa.org/ethics/code.
3. Ashraf, F., & Khan, M. A. (2014). Does emotional intelligence moderate the relationship between
workplace bullying and job performance? Asian Business & Management, 13(2), 171–190.
https://doi.org/10.1057/abm.2013.5
4. Ashton, D. M., Briney, B., & Heppenheffer, R. A. (2007). A longitudinal analysis of the moderating
effect of organizational issues on the relationship between bullying and behavioural outcomes in a
community sample. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 188–196.
5. Attell, B. K., Kummerow, B. K., & Treiber, L. A. (2017). Workplace bullying, perceived job stressors,
and psychological distress: Gender and race differences in the stress process. Social Science Research,
65, 210–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2017.02.001
6. Bayramoglu, M.M.; Toksoy, D. Leadership and Bullying in the Forestry Organization of Turkey. ˇ
BioMed Res. Int. 2017, 2017, 9454682. [CrossRef]
7. Bilgel, N.; Aytac, S.; Bayram, N. Bullying in Turkish white-collar workers. Occup. Med. (Lond.) 2006,
56, 226–231. [CrossRef].
8. Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of
contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations
(pp. 71–98). Jossey-Bass.
9. Caillier, J. G. (2010). Factors affecting job performance in public agencies. Public Performance &
Management Review, 34(2), 139–165. https://doi.org/10.2753/PMR1530-9576340201
10. Carretero, N.; Luciano, J.V. Prevalence and incidence of workplace bullying among Spanish
employees working with people with intellectual disability. Disabil. Health J. 2013, 6, 405–409.
[CrossRef] [PubMed].
11. Carroll, T., & Lauzier, M. (2014). Workplace bullying and job satisfaction: The buffering effect of
social support. Universal Journal of Psychology, 2(2), 81–89. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujp.2014.020205
12. Chen, S.-Y., & Blackburn, M. E. (2010). Bullying and employee performance and well-being in a
cross-cultural context. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 31(4), 458–473.
13. Devonish, D. (2013). Workplace bullying, employee performance and behaviors: The mediating role of
psychological well-being. Employee Relations, 35(6), 630–647. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-01-2013-
0004
14. Einarsen, S. (2005). The nature, causes and consequences of bullying at work: The Norwegian
experience. Perspectives Interdisciplinaires sur le Travail et la Santé.
https://journals.openedition.org/pistes/3156
15. Einarsen, S., & Skogstad, A. (1996). Bullying at work: Epidemiological findings in public and private
organizations. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(2), 165–184.
MIC3ST 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
Virtual Conference on Melaka International Social Sciences, Science and Technology 2025
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIII October 2025
Page 237
www.rsisinternational.org
16. Feijó, Fernando R., Débora D. Gräf, Neil Pearce, and Anaclaudia G. Fassa. 2019. “Risk Factors for
Workplace Bullying: A Systematic Review.” International Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health 16, no. 11: 1945. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16111945.
17. Fisher-Blando, J. (2010). Workplace bullying: Aggressive behavior and its effect on job satisfaction
and productivity. LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing.
18. Freedman, Shin, and Dawn Vreven. 2016. “Workplace Incivility and Bullying in the Library:
Perception or Reality?” College & Research Libraries 77, no. 6: 727–48.
https://doi.org/doi:10.5860/crl.77.6.727.
19. Glambek, Mats, Ståle Valvatne Einarsen, Johannes Gjerstad, and Morten Birkeland Nielsen. 2023.
“Last in, First out? Length of Service as a Moderator of the Relationship between Exposure to Bullying
Behaviors and Work-Related Outcomes.” Current Psychology, February.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-04202-8.
20. Handbooks of Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse, and Harassment. Singapore: Springer Singapore.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0218-3_12.
21. Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee
satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87(2), 268–279. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.268.
22. Hoel, H., & Cooper, C. L. (2000). Destructive conflict and bullying at work. Manchester School of
Management, UMIST.
23. Hoel, Helge, Cary L. Cooper, and Brian Faragher. 2001. “The Experience of Bullying in Great Britain:
The Impact of Organizational Status.” European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 10,
no. 4: 443–65. https://doi.org/10.1080 /13594320143000780.
24. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Sage.
25. HR Vision Event (2024): Bullying reduces productivity and job satisfaction, causing disengagement
and a toxic work environment.
26. Hussain, H., & Aslam, Q. (2015). Workplace bullying and employee performance among bank
personnel in Pakistan. Lahore Journal of Business, 3, 59–78. https://doi.org/10.35536/ljb.2015.v3.i2.a4
27. Ikyanyon, D. N., & Ucho, A. (2013). Workplace bullying, job satisfaction and job performance among
employees in a federal hospital in Nigeria. European Journal of Business and Management, 5, 116–123.
28. Jóhannsdóttir, Hanna L., and Ragnar F. Ólafsson. 2004. “Coping with Bullying in the Workplace: The
Effect of Gender, Age, and Type of Bullying.” British Journal of Guidance & Counselling 32, no. 3:
319–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069880410001723549.
29. Judith, L. (2008). Workplace bullying: Aggressive behavior and its effect on job satisfaction and
productivity (Doctoral dissertation, University of Phoenix, USA).
30. Kaifeng, Y., & Marc, H. (2006). The performance-trust link: Implications for performance
measurement. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 114–126.
31. Keuskamp, D., Ziersch, A. M., Baum, F. E., & LaMontagne, A. D. (2012). Workplace bullying: A risk
for permanent employees. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 36(2).
32. Keuskamp, D.; Ziersch, A.M.; Bau, F.E.; Lamontagne, A.D. Workplace bullying a risk for permanent
employees. Aust. N. Z. J. Public Health 2012, 36, 116–119. [CrossRef] [PubMed].
33. Khubchandani, J.; Price, J.H. Workplace Harassment and Morbidity Among US Adults: Results from
the National Health Interview Survey. J. Community Health 2015, 40, 555–563. [CrossRef]
[PubMed].
34. Kwan, S. S. M., Tuckey, M. R., & Dollard, M. F. (2014). Dominant culture and bullying: Personal
accounts of workers in Malaysia. In Dollard, M. F., Shimazu, A., Nordin, R. B., Brough, P., & Tuckey,
M. Psychosocial factors at work in the Asia Pacific (pp. 1–22). Springer.
35. Lange, Stefanie, Hermann Burr, Paul Maurice Conway, and Uwe Rose. 2019. “Workplace Bullying
among Employees in Germany: Prevalence Estimates and the Role of the Perpetrator.” International
Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health 92, no. 2: 237–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-
018-1366-8.
36. Lantigua, E., & Barton, D. F. (2002). Workplace bullying: Review of the empirical literature and
research agenda. Personnel Psychology, 55(1), 175–217.
MIC3ST 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
Virtual Conference on Melaka International Social Sciences, Science and Technology 2025
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIII October 2025
Page 238
www.rsisinternational.org
37. Lewis, Duncan, and Rod Gunn. 2007. “Workplace Bullying in the Public Sector: Understanding the
Racial Dimension.” Public Administration 85, no. 3: 641–65. https://doi.org/10.1111 /j.1467-
9299.2007.00665.x.
38. Leymann, H. (1996). The content and development of mobbing at work. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 5(2), 165–184.
39. Liefooghe, A. P., & Mac Davey, K. (2001). Accounts of workplace bullying: The role of the
organisation. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(4), 375–392.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320143000762
40. Lutgen‐Sandvik, P., Tracy, S. J., & Alberts, J. K. (2007). Burned by bullying in the American
workplace: Prevalence, perception, degree, and impact. Journal of Management Studies, 44(6), 837–
862. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00715.x
41. Majeed, M., & Naseer, S. (2021). Is workplace bullying always perceived harmful? The cognitive
appraisal theory of stress perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 59(4), 618–644.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7941.12244
42. March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. Wiley.
43. Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2010). Bullying in the workplace: Definition, prevalence,
antecedents, and consequences. International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior, 13, 202–248.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOTB-13-02-2010-B004
44. Mete, E., & Sökmen, A. (2016). The influence of workplace bullying on employee’s job performance,
job satisfaction, and turnover intention in a newly established private hospital. International Review of
Management and Business Research, 5(1), 65–79. Retrieved from www.irmbrjournal.com
45. Moayed, Farman A., Nancy Daraiseh, Richard Shell, and Sam Salem. 2006. “Workplace Bullying: A
Systematic Review of Risk Factors and Outcomes.” Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 7, no. 3:
311–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220500090604.
46. Murphy, K. R. (1989). Dimensions of job performance. In Dillon, R. F., & Pellegrino, J. W. (Eds.),
Testing: Theoretical and applied perspectives (pp. 218–247). Praeger.
47. Namie, G. (2003). Workplace bullying: Escalated incivility. Ivey Business Journal, 68(8), 1–6.
48. Ndegwa, I. N., & Makori Moronge, D. (2016). Effects of workplace bullying on employee performance
in the civil service in Kenya: A case of the Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology. The
Strategic Journal of Business & Change Management, 3(2), 1–31.
49. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
50. Nwaneri, A. C., Onoka, A. C., & Onoka, C. A. (2016). Workplace bullying among nurses working in
tertiary hospitals in Enugu, Southeast Nigeria: Implications for health workers and job performance.
Journal of Nursing Education and Practice, 7(2), 69–78. https://doi.org/10.5430/jnep.v7n2p69
51. Obicci, P. A. (2015). Effect of workplace bullying on employee performance in the public sector. Asian
Journal of Management Research, 1(6).
52. Olaleye, B. R. O. Fapetu, A. A., Asaolu, & Bojuwon, M. (2021). Nexus between authentic leadership,
organisational culture, and job performance: Mediating role of bullying. FUOYE Journal of Finance
and Contemporary Issues, 1(1), 38–48.
53. Olaleye, B. R., Bojuwon, M., Ibrahim, R. I. M., & Ali-Momoh, B. O. (2021). Nexus between strategic
thinking, competitive intelligence, and innovation capability: Managerial support as a moderator.
Journal of Intelligence Studies in Business, 11(3), 27–41.
54. Pradhan, A., & Joshi, J. (2019). Impact of workplace bullying on employee performance. International
Research Journal of Management Science, 4, 1–13.
55. Picakciefe, M.; Acar, G.; Colak, Z.; Kilic, I. The Relationship Between Sociodemographic
Characteristics, Work Conditions, and Level of “Mobbing” of Health Workers in Primary Health Care.
J. Interpers. Violence 2017, 32, 373–398. [CrossRef]
56. Quine, L. (2001). Workplace bullying in nurses. Journal of Health Psychology, 6(1), 73–84
57. Raypole, C. (2019). How to identify and manage workplace bullying. Healthline.
https://www.healthline.com/health/workplace-bullying
58. Quine, Lyn. 2002. “Workplace Bullying in Junior Doctors: Questionnaire Survey.” BMJ 324, no. 7342:
878. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7342.878.
MIC3ST 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
Virtual Conference on Melaka International Social Sciences, Science and Technology 2025
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIII October 2025
Page 239
www.rsisinternational.org
59. Robinson, S. L., & Edmondson, A. C. (2021). Inclusive leadership and positive work environments:
The role of leadership, management, and employee commitment. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
42(3), 345-362. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2501.
60. Rooyen, J. V., & McCormack, D. (2013). Employee perceptions of workplace bullying and their
implications. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 6, 92–103.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWHM-05-2012-0013
61. Rotundo, M. (2000). The relative importance of task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance
to global ratings of job performance: A policy-capturing approach. Dissertation Abstracts International,
61(5-A), 2058 (UMI No. AAI9973011).
62. Sahin, B.; Cetin, M.; Cimen, M.; Yildiran, N. Assessment of Turkish junior male physicians’ exposure
to mobbing behavior. Croat. Med. J. 2012, 53, 357–366. [CrossRef]
63. Said, N. S.-M., Zaidee, A. S., Zahari, A. S., Ali, S. O., & Salleh, S. M. (2015). Relationship between
employee motivation and job performance: A study at Universiti Teknologi MARA (Terengganu).
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 6(4), 40–50.
64. Salin, Denise. 2003. “The Significance of Gender in the Prevalence, Forms, and Perceptions of
Workplace Bullying.” Nordiske Organisasjonsstudier 5 (3): 30–50.
65. Salleh, F., Yaakub, N., & Dzulkifli, Z. (2011). The influence of skill levels on job performance of
public service employees in Malaysia. Business and Management Review, 1(1), 31–40.
66. Samnani, A. K., Singh, P., & Ezzedeen, S. (2013). Workplace bullying and employee performance: An
attributional model. Organisational Psychology Review, 3(4), 337–359.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386613475370
67. Sidle, S. D. (2009). Is your organisation a great place for bullies to work? Academy of Management
Perspectives, 23(4), 89–91. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMP.2009.45590143
68. Tekin, A. (2014). Early prediction of students’ grade point averages at graduation: A data mining
approach. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 54, 207-226.
69. Toksoy, D.; Bayramoglu, M.M. Bullying within the forestry organizations of Turkey. ˇ Sci. World J.
2013, 2013, 851839. [CrossRef] [PubMed].
70. Townend, A. (2008). Understanding and addressing bullying in the workplace. Industrial and
Commercial Training, 40, 270–273. https://doi.org/10.1108/00197850810886522
71. Trijueque, D., & Gomez, J. (2010). Workplace bullying: Prevalence and descriptive analysis in a multi-
occupational sample. Psicothema, 21(2), 288–293.
72. Vartia, M., & Hyyti, J. (2002). Gender differences in workplace bullying among prison officers.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11(1), 113–126.
73. Yahaya, A., Ing, T., Lee, G., Yahaya, N., Boon, Y., Hashim, S., & Taat, S. (2012). The impact of
workplace bullying on work performance. Archives Des Sciences, 65(4), 18–28.
74. ———. 2021. “Workplace Bullying and Gender: An Overview of Empirical Findings.” In Dignity and
Inclusion at Work, edited by Premilla D’Cruz, Ernesto Noronha, Carlo Caponecchia, Jordi Escartín,
Denise Salin, and Michelle Rae Tuckey, 3:331–61.
