Abstract

This study sought to determine the workplace bullying, job satisfaction, job performance and their effects on teachers. This quantitative study aims to highlight the issue of bullying which badly affects teachers. The sample was comprised of all schools in Lahore. A stratified random sampling strategy was used. Four hundred teachers were selected from all schools in Lahore. The questionnaire consisted of 115 items. It was designed at a Likert. Data was analyzed through SPSS. The findings show a strong relationship between workplace bullying and job satisfaction and job performance. The findings highlight that demographic variables vary among teachers. The finding of this study that workplace bullying is increasing speedily, that suggests that organizational bullying might make teachers feel uncomfortable in their jobs, causing stress. These findings may be utilized to design successful solutions for not just preventing and managing bullying; but also for making schools safer for teachers.

Key Words

Bullying, Workplace Bullying, Teachers Behaviors, Job Satisfaction, Job Performance, School Level

Introduction

Workplace bullying (WPB) is a current issue in society that has a detrimental influence on personnel, management, the standard of work, and effectiveness in the workplace (Carbo, 2008). It is interpret as "harassing, offending, socially excluding, or negatively influencing someone's job activities" in occupational epidemiology and must take place repeatedly and regularly (for example, once per week) over an extended length of time in order to qualify (Einarsen, Hoel, & Cooper, 2003). Bullying is an aggressive and undesired conduct used to compel people to accomplish something (Kemp, 2014 and Oade, (2009). According to Townend (2016), It is one of the most sensitive forms of workplace bullying and has a severe influence on the functioning of an organization. According to Akar (2013), there has been an increase in interest in organizational psychology and it has become a widespread problem in organizations. Employee attitudes toward workplace bullying were investigated by Rooyen and McCormack (2013), who discovered that if workplace bullying is not well managed. Ikanyon and Ucho (2013) found that employees who deal with less bullying perform better than those who suffer more bullying. Organizations need to foster a culture that encourages creativity and risk-taking to succeed in a competitive world (Hamel, 2000). Bullying victims are not the only ones who suffer, as bystanders of bullying can also experience similar effects (Oladapo, 2013). Several studies have found that workplace bullying has negative consequences for businesses, including worse job performance, excessive absenteeism, diminished organizational commitment. According to the vast majority of studies on workplace bullying, there is a direct link between bullying and bad results for both people and the organization. Losses in production have an effect on the company. Bullying at work has a bad impact on employees' intention to quit, job performance, and job satisfaction. (Amy C. Francis, 2014).

According to Marshall, 2007, Professional isolation is a term used to describe inadequate social and professional interaction at work. Academic research has shown that telecommuting employees may experience social or professional isolation at work. There is mounting scientific proof that a number of organizational factors can affect isolation at work, such as higher level of organizational responsiveness, perceived organizational support, and perceived social support (Cooper & Kurland, 2002). Bostanci (2013) revealed that higher level of organizational responsiveness minimizes workplace isolation. Perceived organizational support, according to Riggle et al. (2015), lessens social isolation at work. In addition, Bentley et al. (2016) discovered that workplace isolation decreases when perceived support is high. Gallatin (2018) found that colleague assistance can lessen teleworkers' perceptions of job isolation. Bullying can also have negative consequences for teachers' professional lives, as it can lead to diminished commitment to their jobs and the organization (Hoel & Cooper, 2000). Increased levels of dread and anxiety, poorer self-esteem, lower self-efficacy, and reduced conviction in professional competence all contribute to a decline in work satisfaction for the target (Bernstein & Trimm, 2016). A typical bullying method is to publicly humiliate educators in front of others (cf. Blasé & Blasé, 2004). It is demoralizing and may have long-term implications on educators when they are publicly ridiculed in front of their students and colleagues. These impacts include shame, a loss of respect from their students as well as depression, stress, and burnout (cf. De Wet, 2010a). A typical bullying method is to publicly humiliate educators in front of others (cf. Blasé & Blasé, 2004).

Job satisfaction is one of the most important factors used to evaluate how employees feel about their work and has a big impact on how organizations and individual workers flourish (Bono, & Patton, 2001). In the 1940s and 1950s, A.H. Maslow created the hierarchy of needs model, which helps organizations motivate their staff from the standpoint that motivated staff are expected to be more satisfied (Luthans, 1995). Job performance is defined by the online dictionary of Wikipedia as "the quality and quantity anticipated in a given job from an employee to execute their task properly," and various variables, including workplace bullying, can affect employee performance. According to Rooyen & McCormack (2013), to achieve organizational goals, greater effort is needed to raise staff performance.

Conflict in the workplace is expensive for all firms, and hidden costs can have a negative effect on decision-making. Leaders who can convince, motivate, and guide people will often be rewarded by their colleagues' loyalty and performance (Mosadegh & Yarmohammadian 2006). HR practices have a positive correlation between employee performance and organizational productivity (Tessema and Soeters, 2006), and compensation should reflect the organization's culture and strategic plans. Employees who are more productive are paid more than they would otherwise be, according to the pay structure. According to Armstrong (2005), compensation encompasses policies and strategies that try to consistently pay workers fairly.

In the past research, some demographic variables that can relate to the workplace bullying, job satisfaction and job performance. Most of teachers were become victim of bullying on the basis of demographic variables. Some become a victim of bullying on the basis of gender, some on age, some on race, some on ethnicity, some on Experience, some on class level they teach, some on class size, administrative position and type of institute whether it is public or private. These all factors have minimum or maximum effect on victim. 




Purpose of the Study

Past researches normally done at the Workplace Bullying. Researchers have developed questionnaire to measure the Workplace Bullying. Much of the discussion on bullying in schools, Workplace Bullying has focused. Past researches is on Workplace Bullying and Job Satisfaction or Workplace Bullying and Job Performance. But here researcher dig into the effect of Workplace Bullying on Job satisfaction and Job Performance at school Level.

Systematic research has not been conducted to examine the effect of Workplace Bullying on Job Satisfaction and Job Performance. Workplace bullying focused on Behavior that causes Isolation, Behavior that undermining the professional status, Behavior that undermining the victim as a person, Direct Negative Behavior. This current study focused on Workplace Bullying, Job Satisfaction and Job Performance. Job satisfaction and good Job performance is very necessary for teachers, so that they can teach their students well. 

This study will helpful for the Principals, Teachers, Students and researchers. It will measure workplace bullying existence towards teachers, how it works and its effects on teacher’s job satisfaction and Job Performance.




Statement of the Problem

Bullying directed towards teachers is a two-fold obstacle. The issue of the workplace is apparently getting more awareness in the society. This current study focused on looking at the effect on teachers’ job satisfaction and job performance among teachers who are the victim of Workplace Bullying. Therefore, the statement of the problem was designed as an “effect of workplace bullying on job satisfaction and job performance at school level.”




Objectives of the Study

The objectives of the study are:

1. To ascertain the perceived level of Workplace Bullying.

2. To determine the perceived level of Job Satisfaction.

3. To ascertain the perceived level of Job Performance.

4. To recognize the relationship between Workplace Bullying and Job Satisfaction.

5. To point out the relationship between Workplace Bullying and Job Performance.

6. To identify the relationship between Job Satisfaction and Job Performance.

7. To examine the role of demographic variables in Workplace bullying, Job Satisfaction and Job Performance.




Research Questions

The following research questions were designed: 

1.1 What is the perceived level of Workplace 

Bullying?

1.1.1 What are the behaviors that cause Isolation among teachers?

1.1.2 What are the behaviors that undermine the professional status of teachers?

1.1.3 What are the behaviors that undermine the victim as a person?

1.1.4 What are the behaviors that undermine the victim as a person?

2.1 How is the Job Satisfaction of teachers affected by Workplace Bullying?

3.1 How is the Job Performance of teachers affected by Workplace Bullying?

4.1 Do the Job satisfaction plays a mediating role between Workplace Bullying?

5.1 Is there any link between Workplace Bullying, Job Performance?

6.1 Is there any relationship between Job Satisfaction and Job performance?

7.1 Is there any role of Demographic variables in Workplace bullying, job satisfaction and Job performance?




Operational Definitions

Workplace Bullying

All those consistent behaviors aimed towards one or more workers that the victim does not desire, that may be done deliberately or instinctively, that obviously humiliate, offend, or upset the victim, and that may impede work performance or foster a toxic work environment (Einarsen, 1999).




Job Satisfaction

“A positive or pleasant emotional state resulting from a person’s appreciation of his/her own job experience” (Demirtas, 2010). According to Locke (1976) “the pleasurable emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job as achieving or facilitating one’s job values”.




Job Performance

An individual's cumulative expected value to the organisation over a specified period of time is known as their job performance. (Motowidlo, Borman, and Schmit, 1997).

Conceptual Framework

Figure 1

With the help of a conceptual framework, researcher was able to conduct systematically research. It shows the relationship and effect of variables by the response of teachers at the school level. The study contained three variables: Workplace Bullying, Job Satisfaction and Job Performance. In this research, the researcher analyzed Workplace Bullying by its 4 indicators, Job satisfaction and Job performance by 4 indicators which are mentioned above. While assessing the Workplace bullying, the focus is on the behavior of teachers when they become a victim of Bullying. In job Satisfaction, the researcher emphasized that when teachers become perpetrators of bullying, their job satisfaction totally affected. In Job performance, the researcher highlighted with the help of factors that the job performance of teachers also hit. After that researcher examined these by demographic variables which were Gender, Qualification, Age, Administrative responsibility, Class level they teach, Institute Type and Teaching Experience. 

Theoretical Framework

Figure 2


Research Design
Quantitative methods focus on measurements of the objectives and the analysis of statistical, mathematical, or numerical data collected through different methods, including polls, questionnaires, and surveys, or by working on already existing statistical data using computational techniques. This research study was Quantitative in nature. The study was descriptive. The only way to gather opinions, attitudes, and recommendations for enhancing instructional strategies and processes is through a descriptive survey. The descriptive survey approach was appropriate for the study as there were numerous respondents to it. Descriptive research includes evaluating people's views or ideas. Examples of descriptive research are market research surveys, well before political pools, and organizational event protocols. Typically, descriptive data is gathered by questionnaires, surveys, interviews, and observations. Its goal was to determine how bullying in the workplace affected both job performance and job happiness. Data were gathered using a research questionnaire, and after being evaluated using SPSS, they were then evaluated.

Population and Target Population

The total population was teachers of 8th, 9th and 10th level classes who enrolled in the public and private schools in Lahore city. The total population is approximately 31,392 schools in Lahore city (Pakistan Education Statistics 2017- 2018). There were 1.8 million qualified teachers employed in the academic year (2017–18). The target population was 16 schools in Lahore selected for research. There were 8 public and 8 private schools.




Table 1 

Total Number of Schools	31,392
Total Number of Teachers	1.8 million

Sample and Sampling TechniqueThe sample selected by the researcher was all teachers from public and private schools. The sample selected by the researcher was 400 teachers from selected public and private schools according to feasibility. Twenty five teachers were selected from each school. A stratified random sampling strategy in which each sample has an equal possibility of being chosen. Data is segmented into a number of subgroups (or strata) that have similar characteristics, such as age, sex, race, income, education, and ethnicity. A random sample is taken from each level. The advantages include ensuring that the population has members from all required groupings. The qualities of each level may indeed be evaluated and compared (Acharya, Prakash, Saxena & Anupam, 2013). A strategic random sample is meant to provide an unbiased representative of the overall population. Multi-stage sampling is ideal for meeting the target population. By stratified random sampling technique, questionnaires evaluate the “Workplace Bullying, Job satisfaction and Job Performance at school Level” after the following ethical protocols.

Figure 3



Instrument

The questionnaire consisted of 4 parts 1^st was on Demographic, 2^nd on Workplace Bullying which

was adapted from (DE WET AND L JACOBS and

 Lynette Jacobs). 3^rd on Job Satisfaction and 4^th on Job Performance. Both questionnaires developed by the researcher with the help of a literature review. Questions were close- ended. There were total 115 items in the instrument. Likert scale was used in the questionnaire.

Data was collected from public and private schools in Lahore. The questionnaire consisted of 6 factors. The independent variable is Workplace

Bullying which consisted of 4 factors; 1) Behavior that causes Isolation consisted of 17 statements, 2) Behavior that undermines the professional status included 23 statements, 3) Behavior that undermines the victim as a person included 14 statements. 3) Direct Negative Behavior included 6 statements that present the negative behavior of teachers. 4) Teachers’ Job Satisfaction to analyze the teachers’ job satisfaction according to their job when they are a victim of Workplace bullying, this include 38 statements. 5) The last one was Job Performance which consisted of 4 indicators, 1) Work-life Conflicts included 5 statements, 2) Leadership contained 5 statements, 3) Working Conditions consisted on 4 statements and 4) Compensation included 3 statements. It analyzes the job performance of teachers that affect because of workplace bullying. Whole questionnaire had 115 statements that were answered by teachers (participants). Teachers had to tick on the right option according to them. It was made possible that all the statements in the questionnaire were understandable and the respondents were not confused.

 

Piloting

The instrument was piloted by distributing 100 questionnaires from teachers of public and private schools in Lahore. Data was collected in almost 10-15 days. The answers were analyzed in SPSS version 21. The reliability of the questionnaire was (.850), so this questionnaire was found reliable.




 

Table 2

Variable	Alpha	No. of Items
Workplace Bullying	.789	60
Behavior that causes isolation	.829	17
Behavior that undermining the professional status	.836	23
Behavior that undermining the victim as a person	.834	14
Direct negative behavior	.850	6
Job Satisfaction	.810	38
Job Performance	.830	17
Work-life conflicts	.849	5
Leadership	.848	5
Working conditions	.849	4
Compensation	.853	3
Total questionnaire	.850	115

 

Validity and Reliability of Instrument

The validity of the instrument was at a significant level of 0.01. The reliability of the questionnaire was .862.

 

Table 3

Variable	Person Correlation	Sig.2	Alpha	No. of Items	No. of Respondents
Workplace Bullying	.992	.001	.809	60	400
Behavior that causes isolation	.991	.001	.844	17	400
Behavior that undermining the professional status	.975	.001	.850	23	400
Behavior that undermining the victim as a person	.991	.001	.833	14	400
Direct negative behavior	.886	.001	.863	6	400
Job Satisfaction	.978	.001	.827	38	400
Job Performance	.967	.001	.846	17	400
Work-life conflicts	.975	.001	.862	5	400
Leadership	.959	.001	.861	5	400
Working conditions	.856	.001	.863	4	400
Compensation	.792	.001	.866	3	400
Total questionnaire	.874	.001	.862	115	400

 

Table 4.

Descriptive Statistics were used to Analyze the Perceived Level of Workplace Bullying.

Variable	Mean	St.D	MPI
Workplace Bullying	118.7950	38.73265	1.97
Behavior that causes isolation	34.0600	11.14572	2.00
Behavior that undermining the professional status	46.0975	15.89464	2.00
Behavior that undermining the victim as a person	27.0625	9.07659	1.93
Direct negative behavior	11.5750	3.09002	1.91

The total MPI= 1.97.

 

Table 5.

To Identify the Perceived Level of Job Satisfaction, Researcher used Descriptive Statistics.

Variable	Mean	St.D	MPI
Job Satisfaction	75.6750	20.85285	1.99

The total MPI= 1.99.

 

Table 6.

The researcher applied descriptive statistics to determine the perceived level of Performance.

Variable	Mean	St.D	MPI
Job Performance	33.0175	10.62424	2.00
Work-life conflicts	10.0075	2.87718	2.00
Leadership	9.9975	3.50116	1.99
Working conditions	7.9850	3.09657	1.99
Compensation	5.0275	1.84940	1.67

The total MPI= 2.00.

 

Table 7.

Correlation Analysis. It shows the significant relationship between both variables.

Variable	Mean	St.D	p-value	Sig.2
Workplace Bullying	118.7950	38.73265	.949	.001
Job Satisfaction	75.6750	20.85285

This table indicates that there is a significant relationship between both variables (Workplace Bullying and Job Satisfaction at .001

Table 8.

Variable	Mean	SD	p-value	Sig.
Workplace Bullying	118.7950	38.73265	.946	.002
Job Performance	33.0175	10.62424

Correlation Analysis

This table indicates that there is a significant relationship between both variables (Workplace Bullying and job performance) at .002.

 

Table 9.

The Researcher used Correlation Analysis

Variable	Mean	SD	p-value	Sig.
Job Satisfaction	75.6750	20.85285	.939	.002
Job Performance	33.0175	10.62424

This table indicates that there is a significant relationship between both variables (Job Satisfaction and Job Performance) at .002

 




Role of Demographic variable in Workplace bullying, Job satisfaction and Job Performance to analyze the demographic Variables, the researcher used Gender Category.




Table 10.

Respondents as Gender according to Workplace Bullying

	Variable	N	Mean	SD	t-value	df	Sig
Workplace Bullying	Female	266	119.8008	39.16354	.731	400	.001
	Male	134	116.7985	37.92866
Behavior that causes isolation	Female	266	34.2331	11.21380	.437	400	.002
	Male	134	33.7164	11.04305
Behavior that undermining professional status	Female	266	24.2105	8.49022	.444	400	.000
	Male	134	23.8134	8.37484
Behavior that undermining the victim as a person	Female	266	49.8534	16.76669	1.312	400	.000
	Male	134	47.5522	16.14715
Direct negative behavior	Female	266	11.5038	3.15421	-.649	400	.001
	Male	134	11.7164	2.96499

An independent – samples t-test was conducted to compare Gender type scores at .001

 

Table 11.

Respondents as Gender according to Job Satisfaction

Variable	N	Mean	St.D	t-value	Sig
Female	266	75.9586	21.02241	.383	.001
Male	134	75.1119	20.57872

An independent – samples t-test was conducted to compare Gender type scores at .001 regarding the Job Satisfaction.

 

 

Table 12.

Respondents as Gender according to Job Performance

	Variable	N	Mean	SD	t-value	df	Sig
Job performance	Female	266	33.7105	10.83682	1.884	400	.001
	Male	134	31.6418	10.08789
Work-life conflicts	Female	266	10.0602	2.89504	.515	400	.000
	Male	134	9.9030	2.84927
Leadership	Female	266	10.0526	3.57099	.443	400	.000
	Male	134	9.8881	3.36872
Working conditions	Female	266	8.0338	3.17341	.444	400	.001
	Male	134	7.8881	2.94731
Compensation	Female	266	5.5639	1.83818	8.946	400	.000
	Male	134	3 .9627	1.34560

An independent – samples t-test was conducted to compare Gender type scores for at .001

 

To Analyze the Age

Table 13.

Respondents as Age according to Workplace Bullying

	Variable	N	Mean	St.D	df	F	Sig
Workplace Bullying	25 to 30	88	118.3977	40.04783	3 396	.611	.608
	31 to 35	148	116.0135	38.52007
	36 to 40	75	119.8533	36.24902
	40 Above	89	122.9213	40.02023
Behavior that causes isolation	25 to 30	88	33.9205	11.48835	3 396	.736	.531
	31 to 35	148	33.2297	11.15817
	36 to 40	75	34.2267	10.68033
	40 Above	89	35.4382	11.21379
Behavior that undermining professional status	25 to 30	88	24.0568	8.67068	3 396	.574	.632
	31 to 35	148	23.4595	8.43251
	36 to 40	75	24.3333	8.09460
	40 Above	89	24.9101	8.58069
Behavior that undermining victim as a person	25 to 30	88	48.7614	17.33178	3 396	.595	.618
	31 to 35	148	47.9459	16.32859
	36 to 40	75	49.6400	15.27729
	40 Above	89	50.8202	17.37132
Direct negative behavior	25 to 30	88	11.6591	2.98997	3 396	.334	.801
	31 to 35	148	11.3784	3.22069
	36 to 40	75	11.6533	2.61747
	40 Above	89	11.7528	3.35505

A one way between groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the impact of age at .608 regarding Workplace Bullying.

 

Table 14.

Respondents as Age according to Job Satisfaction

Variable	N	Mean	SD	Df	F	Sig
25 to 30	88	74.7841	21.16300	3     397	1.192	.312
31 to 35	148	74.4527	21.21812
36 to 40	75	74.7733	19.43706
40 Above	89	79.3483	21.01033

An independent – samples t-test was conducted to compare age type at .312 regarding Job satisfaction.

 

Table 15.

Respondents as Age according to Job Performance

	Variable	N	Mean	St.D	df	F	Sig
Job Performance	25 to 30	88	32.5114	11.22087	3 396	.635	.593
	31 to 35	148	32.4595	10.32096
	36 to 40	75	33.2000	9.47828
	40 Above	89	34.2921	11.46160
Work-life conflicts	25 to 30	88	9.8636	2.96020	3 396	1.25	.288
	31 to 35	148	9.8378	2.89511
	36 to 40	75	9.8933	2.69420
	40 Above	89	10.5281	2.90020
Leadership	25 to 30	88	9.9091	3.70968	3 396	.366	.778
	31 to 35	148	9.8108	3.37730
	36 to 40	75	10.2000	3.14084
	40 Above	89	10.2247	3.80416
Working conditions	25 to 30	88	7.8523	3.25732	3 396	.239	.869
	31 to 35	148	7.8986	2.95255
	36 to 40	75	8.2000	2.72625
	40 Above	89	8.0787	3.47793
Compensation	25 to 30	88	4.8864	1.85343	3 396	2.115	.098
	31 to 35	148	4.9122	1.83292
	36 to 40	75	4.9067	1.53494
	40 Above	89	5.4607	2.06737

A one way between groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the impact of age at .593.

 

Qualification of the Respondents

Table 16.

Respondents as Qualification according to Workplace Bullying

	Variable	N	Mean	SD	t-value	df	Sig.
Workplace Bullying	Masters	182	116.9615	40.44236	-.651	400	.515
	MPhil	135	119.814	35.88626
Behavior that causes isolation	Masters	182	33.5604	11.56458	-.634	400	.526
	MPhil	135	34.3556	10.27928
Behavior that undermining the professional status	Masters	182	23.7747	8.84669	-.477	400	.633
	MPhil	135	24.2296	7.72951
Behavior that undermining victim as a person	Masters	182	48.2747	17.34063	-.665	400	.506
	MPhil	135	49.5259	15.42765
Direct negative behavior	Masters	182	11.3516	3.13023	-1.005	400	.315
	MPhil	135	11.7037	3.01755

An independent – samples t-test was conducted to compare Qualification type scores for MPhil and Master at .515

 

Table 17.

Respondents as Qualification according to Job Satisfaction

Variable	N	Mean	Std.D	df	F	Sig
Masters	182	74.2967	20.91683	2 397	-1.045	.315
Mphil	135	76.7259	19.86162

An independent – samples t-test was conducted to compare Qualification type scores for Master and M.Phil at .315 regarding the Job Satisfaction.

 

Table 18.

Respondents as Qualification according to Job Performance

	Variable	N	Mean	SD	t-value	df	Sig.
Job Performance	Masters	182	32.3407	10.91729	-.930	400	.353
	MPhil	135	33.4593	10.13695
Work-life conflicts	Masters	182	9.8187	2.88549	-1.050	400	.294
	MPhil	135	10.1556	2.73961
Leadership	Masters	182	9.8187	3.65276	-.712	400	.477
	MPhil	135	10.1037	3.34636
Working conditions	Masters	182	7.8242	3.17481	-.721	400	.472
	MPhil	135	8.0815	3.10044
Compensation	Masters	182	4.8791	1.81665	-1.151	400	.250
	MPhil	135	5.1185	1.84897

An independent – samples t-test was conducted to compare Qualification type scores for MPhil and Master at .353

 

Teaching Experience

Table 19.

Respondents as Experience according to Workplace Bullying

	Variable	N	Mean	SD	df	F	Sig
Workplace Bullying	Less than 5 years	88	118.3977	40.04783	3   397	.611	.000
	6 - 10 years	148	116.0135	38.52007
	11 – 15 years	75	119.8533	36.24902
	More than 15 years	89	122.9213	40.02023
Behavior that causes isolation	Less than 5 years	88	33.9205	11.48835	3	.736	.001
	6 - 10 years	148	33.2297	11.15817
	11 – 15 years	75	34.2267	10.68033
	More than 15 years	89	35.4382	11.21379
Behavior that undermining the professional status	Less than 5 years	88	24.0568	8.67068	3   397	.574	.001
	6 - 10 years	148	23.4595	8.43251
	11 – 15 years	75	24.3333	8.09460
	More than 15 years	89	24.9101	8.58069
Behavior that undermining the victim as a person	Less than 5 years	88	48.7614	17.33178	3     397	.595	.000
	6 - 10 years	148	47.9459	16.32859
	11 – 15 years	75	49.6400	15.27729
	More than 15 years	89	50.8202	17.37132
Direct negative behavior	Less than 5 years	88	11.6591	2.98997	3   397	.334	.000
	6 - 10 years	148	11.3784	3.22069
	11 – 15 years	75	11.6533	2.61747
	More than 15 years	89	11.7528	3.35505

A one way between groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the impact of experience at .000 regarding Workplace Bullying.

 

Table 20.

Respondents as Experience according to Job Satisfaction

Variable	N	Mean	Std.D	df	F	Sig.
Less than 5 years	88	74.7841	21.16300	3   397	1.192	.000
6 - 10 years	148	74.4527	21.21812
11 – 15 years	75	74.7733	19.43706
More than 15 years	89	79.3483	21.01033

An independent – samples t-test was conducted to compare teaching at .000 regarding Job satisfaction.

 

Table 21.

Respondents as Experience according to Job Performance

	Variable	N	Mean	SD	df	F	Sig
Job Performance	Less than 5 years	88	32.5114	11.22087	3     397	.635	.000
	6 - 10 years	148	32.4595	10.32096
	11 – 15 years	75	33.2000	9.47828
	More than 15 years	89	34.2921	11.46160
Work-life conflicts	Less than 5 years	88	9.8636	2.96020	3     397	1.258	.000
	6 - 10 years	148	9.8378	2.89511
	11 – 15 years	75	9.8933	2.69420
	More than 15 years	89	10.5281	2.90020
Leadership	Less than 5 years	88	9.9091	3.70968	3     397	.366	.000
	6 - 10 years	148	9.8108	3.37730
	11 – 15 years	75	10.2000	3.14084
	More than 15 years	89	10.2247	3.80416
Working conditions	Less than 5 years	88	7.8523	3.25732	3     397	.239	.000
	6 - 10 years	148	7.8986	2.95255
	11 – 15 years	75	8.2000	2.72625
	More than 15 years	89	8.0787	3.47793
Compensation	Less than 5 years	88	4.8864	1.85343	3   397	2.115	.000
	6 - 10 years	148	4.9122	1.83292
	11 – 15 years	75	4.9067	1.53494
	More than 15 years	89	5.4607	2.06737

A one way between groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the impact of age at .000 regarding Job Performance.

 

Administrative Responsibility

Table 22.

Respondents as Administrative Responsibility according to Workplace Bullying

	Variable	N	Mean	SD	t-value	df	Sig
Workplace Bullying	Yes	219	116.4932	35.88902	-1.309	400	.191
	No	181	121.5801	41.84854
Behavior that causes isolation	Yes	219	33.4018	10.26409	-1.300	400	.194
	No	181	34.8564	12.10837
Behavior that undermining professional status	Yes	219	23.5342	7.70990	-1.417	400	.157
	No	181	24.7348	9.23257
Behavior that undermining victim as a person	Yes	219	48.0776	15.37448	-1.335	400	.183
	No	181	50.2983	17.89287
Direct negative behavior	Yes	219	11.4795	3.04150	-.680	400	.497
	No	181	11.6906	3.15231

An independent – samples t-test was conducted to compare administrative responsibility type scores at .191

 

Table 23.

Respondents as Administrative Responsibility according to Job Satisfaction

Variable	N	Mean	Std.D	t	df	Sig
Yes	219	74.6484	19.87806	-1.083	400	.279
No	181	76.9171	21.96610

An independent – samples t-test was conducted to compare administrative responsibility type scores at .279 regarding job Satisfaction.

 

Table 24.

Respondents as Administrative Responsibility according to Job Performance

	Variable	N	Mean	SD	t-value	df	Sig
Job Performance	Yes	219	32.4612	10.09051	-1.152	400	.250
	No	181	33.6906	11.22761
Work-life conflicts	Yes	219	9.8676	2.72700	-1.070	400	.285
	No	181	10.1768	3.04808
Leadership	Yes	219	9.8311	3.29773	-1.046	400	.296
	No	181	10.1989	3.73187
Working conditions	Yes	219	7.8813	3.00070	-.736	400	.462
	No	181	8.1105	3.21264
Compensation	Yes	219	4.8813	1.75692	-1.744	400	.082
	No	181	5.2044	1.94570

Table 25 obj 7 (7.15) Respondents as Administrative Responsibility according to Job Performance An independent – samples t-test was conducted to compare administrative responsibility type scores at .250

 

Class Level you Teach

Table 25.

Respondents as Class Level You Teach according to Workplace Bullying

	Variable	N	Mean	SD	df	F	Sig
Workplace Bullying	8th	151	121.8477	38.57421	3   397	1.596	.001
	9th	163	119.2515	39.70094
	10th	86	112.5698	36.82695
Behavior that causes isolation	8th	151	34.9272	11.12121	3   397	1.556	.000
	9th	163	34.1902	11.42261
	10th	86	32.2907	10.56728
Behavior that undermining professional status	8th	151	24.7086	8.41157	3   397	1.733	.000
	9th	163	24.2577	8.63998
	10th	86	22.6279	8.03821
Behavior that undermining victim as a person	8th	151	50.5298	16.44377	3   397	1.734	.000
	9th	163	49.1718	16.98096
	10th	86	46.3721	15.87602
Direct negative behavior	8th	151	11.6821	3.09918	3   397	.512	.001
	9th	163	11.6319	3.14261
	10th	86	11.2791	2.98881

A one way between groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the impact of class level at .001 regarding Workplace Bullying.

 

Table 26.

Respondents as Class Level You Teach according to Job Satisfaction

Variable	N	Mean	Std.D	df	F	Sig
8th	151	77.0596	20.80424	3   397	.852	.001
9th	163	75.6012	21.52476
10th	86	73.3837	19.63800

A one way between groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the impact of class level at .001 regarding Job satisfaction.

 

Table 27.

Respondents as Class Level You Teach according to Job Performance

	Variable	N	Mean	SD	Df	F	Sig
Job Performance	8th	151	33.9669	10.54477	3   397	1.402	.000
	9th	163	32.8957	10.93449
	10th	86	31.5814	10.10121
Work-Life Conflicts	8th	151	10.2185	2.86797	3   397	.949	.000
	9th	163	9.9816	2.96580
	10th	86	9.6860	2.71926
Leadership	8th	151	10.2649	3.50181	3   397	1.399	.000
	9th	163	10.0245	3.58142
	10th	86	9.4767	3.32451
Working Conditions	8th	151	8.1921	3.11066	3   397	.947	.000
	9th	163	7.9877	3.18753
	10th	86	7.6163	2.89083
Compensation	8th	151	5.2914	1.82058	3   397	2.571	.000
	9th	163	4.9018	1.85996
	10th	86	4.8023	1.84595

A one way between groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the impact of class level at .000 regarding Workplace Bullying.

 

Institute Type

Table 28.

Table Respondents as Institute Type according to Workplace Bullying

	Variable	N	Mean	SD	t-value	Df	Sig
Workplace Bullying	Public	210	124.8333	35.88902	3.319	400	.001
	Private	190	112.1211	41.84854
Behavior that causes Isolation	Public	210	35.7143	10.26409	3.156	400	.002
	Private	190	32.2316	12.10837
Behavior that undermining the Professional Status	Public	210	25.3000	7.70990	3.076	400	.002
	Private	190	22.7263	9.23257
Behavior that undermining the Victim as Person	Public	210	51.8762	15.37448	3.596	400	.000
	Private	190	45.9947	17.89287
Direct Negative Behavior	Public	210	11.9429	3.04150	2.520	400	.012
	Private	190	11.1684	3.15231

An independent – samples t-test was conducted to compare Institute type scores at .001 regarding workplace bullying.

 

Table 29.

Respondents as Institute Type according to Job Satisfaction

Variable	N	Mean	Std.D	t-value	df	Sig 2
Public	210	78.9857	20.71531	3.382	400	.001
Private	190	72.0158	20.44077

An independent – samples t-test was conducted to compare Institute type at .001 regarding job Satisfaction.

 

Table 30.

Respondents as Institute Type according to Job Performance

	Variable	N	Mean	SD	t-value	df	Sig
Job Performance	Public	210	34.9476	10.73037	3.887	400	.000
	Private	190	30.8842	10.11193
Work-Life Conflicts	Public	210	10.4619	2.85888	3.363	400	.001
	Private	190	9.5053	2.82046
Leadership	Public	210	10.4667	3.57039	2.842	400	.005
	Private	190	9.4789	3.35660
Working Conditions	Public	210	8.3429	3.21726	2.445	400	.004
	Private	190	7.5895	2.91500
Compensation	Public	210	5.6762	1.84829	7.926	400	.000
	Private	190	4.3105	1.56800

An independent – samples t-test was conducted to compare Institute type at level = .000 regarding Job performance.

Discussion

This part discussed the connections between each variable and factors of workplace bullying, job satisfaction and job performance. The literature research has shown that nations were pioneers in this area (Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007). Workplace bullying spread all over the world. Four factors were selected to identify the perceived level of teachers among workplace bullying. There were moderate-to-strong relationships between WPB and the categories of work discontent, management dissatisfaction, and supervisor dissatisfaction (Arenas, 2015). When teachers become a victim of workplace bullying their job satisfaction is badly affected. The relationship between workplace bullying and job satisfaction Quine (2001) was found to be positive, suggesting that job satisfaction was able to counteract the negative influence on job satisfaction.

The objective was to investigate the relationship between workplace bullying and job performance. Einarsen et al. (2004) found that bullying has a detrimental influence on work performance, but this influence is difficult to determine. The sixth objective was to examine the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance, which showed that there is a positive correlation between both variables. The researchers also discovered a strong link between work happiness and productivity, which supports previous findings. Both variables are affected by each other.  Judge et al. (2001) and Rashed (2001) discovered a substantial link between work happiness and job performance, and our research supports previous findings. Some writers have argued that the association between work happiness and performance is minor, while others have shown that the two factors are strongly linked (Christen et al., 2006). Both variables are affected by each other.

The role of demographic variables with other variables. WPB was substantially correlated with the offenders’ sex, age, educational attainment, class standing, and kind of institution, experience, administrative responsibility, and a number of subordinates. This result is consistent with the literature (Namie, 2009). According to the analysis, there is an impact on gender. Whether it male or female, both are the victims of workplace bullying and dissatisfied by their job which affects job performance. Age has no impact on teachers, while the level of age group. The qualification also doesn’t matter. Teaching experience has an effect because low-experienced teachers become more victim of bullying. Administrative responsibility have no significant relationship. The class level they teach has a significant relation. Institute types have also significant relation with all variables. 

Conclusion

This study aimed to identify the perceived level of workplace bullying, job satisfaction and job performance, and examine the role of demographic variables in workplace bullying. A stratified random sampling strategy was used to select four hundred teachers from public and private schools in Lahore. The findings showed that yes, workplace bullying exists in society, and that it has long-lasting effects on the target, witnesses, and organization. The act often has comparable consequences on witnesses as it does on the victim (Blake et al., 2015). This is especially troubling considering how many states report having trouble finding and keeping competent instructors. Bullying victims have a feeling of powerlessness and a lack of control over every part of their life, even beyond the confines of the classroom (Nielsen et al., 2012). This research has assessed the prevalence of workplace bullying among educators, which has a negative impact on job satisfaction and job performance. It has been found that low levels of workplace bullying do better than those who have high levels. Companies have policies that show zero tolerance for bullying at work, with strong punishments for offenders while offering enough assistance for victims of bullying. Bullying has a detrimental effect on employee morale and productivity.

References

• Akar, N. (2013). The Relationships among Perceived Job Stressors, Workplace Bullying and Job Stress in the Health Care Services in Turkey: A Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) Approach. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 3(14), 248-257.
• Amy, C., & Francis. (2014). Workplace Bullying and Job Satisfaction: The Moderating Effect of Perceived Organizational Support, 95-104. https://doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1106886
• Armstrong, M. (2005). A Handbook of Human Resource Mnagement practices. UK: Kogan.
• Bentley, T. A., Teo, S. T. T., McLeod, L., Tan, F., Bosua, R., & Gloet, M. (2016). The role of organisational support in teleworker wellbeing: A socio-technical systems approach. Applied Ergonomics, 52, 207-215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2015.07.019
• Bernstein, C., & Trimm, L. (2016). The impact of workplace bullying on individual wellbeing: The moderating role of coping. South African Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm.v14i1.792
• Blasé, J., & Blasé, J. (2004a). The dark side of school leadership: implications for administrator preparation. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3(4), 245-273. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760490503733
• Blake, J. J., Banks, C. S., Patience, B. A., & Lund, E. M. (2015). School-based mental health professionals bullying assessment practices: A call for evidence-based bullying assessment guidelines. Professional School Counseling, 18(1), 136-147. https://www.jstor.org/stable/profschocoun.18. 1.136
• Bostanci, A. B. (2013). The role of positive emotion towards work as a mediator in the relationship between organizational responsiveness towards teachers and isolation in professional life. Educational Research and Reviews, 8(8), 367. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2013.1442
• Christen, M., Iyer, G. & Soberman, D. (2006). Job satisfaction, job performance and effort: A re- examination using agency theory. Journal of Marketing, 70, 137-150. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.70.1.137.qxd
• Cooper, C. D., & Kurland, N. B. (2002). Telecommuting, professional isolation, and employee development in public and privateorganizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 23(4), 511-532. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.145
• Demirtas, Z. (2010). Teachers’ job satisfaction levels. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 1069- 1073. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.287
• De Wet, C. (2010). The reasons for and the impact of principal-on-teacher bullying on the victims’ private and professional lives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1450-1459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.05.005
• Einarsen, S. (1999). The nature and causes of bullying at work. International Journal of Manpower, 20(1/2), 16-27. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437729910268588
• Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Cooper, C. (Eds.). (2003). Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice. CRC Press.
• Gallatin, K. A. (2018). Teleworker Isolation: Possible Effects of Workplace Relationships and Support (Doctoral dissertation, Baker College (Michigan)).
• Giorgi, G., Leon-Perez, J. M., & Arenas, A. (2015). Are bullying behaviors tolerated in some cultures? Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between workplace bullying and job satisfaction among Italian workers. Journal of Business Ethics, 131(1), 227-237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2266-9
• Golden, T. D., Veiga, J. F., & Dino, R. N. (2008), The impact of professional isolation on teleworker job performance and turnover intentions: Does time spent teleworking, interacting face-to-face, or having access to communication-enhancing technology matter?. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1412. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012722
• Güleryüz, G., Güney, S., Aydın, E. M., & AÅŸan, Ö. (2008). The mediating effect of job satisfaction between emotional intelligence and organizational commitment of nurses: A questionnaire survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 45(11), 1625-1635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2008.02.004
• Hamel, (2000). Effect Of Work Place Bullying On Job Satisfaction And Organisational Productivity - an empirical study, 478- 484.
• Hoel, H., & Cooper, C. L. (2000). Working with victims of workplace bullying. (In Kemshall, H. & Pritchard, J., ed. Good practice in working with victims of violence. London; Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley.
• Hogh, A., Mikkelsen, E. G., & Hansen, A. M. (2012). Impact of bullying on workers [Kindle edition]. (In Tehrani, N., ed. Workplace bullying: Symptoms and Solutions. Hove; New York: Routledge.
• Ikanyon, D. N., & Ucho, A. (2013). Workplace bullying, job satisfaction and Job performance among employees in Nigeria. European Journal of Business and Management, 5(23), 116-123.
• Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction–job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological bulletin, 127(3), 376. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.3.376
• Kemp, V. (2014). Antecedents, consequences and interventions for workplace bullying. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 27(5), 364-368. https://doi.org/10.1097/YCO.0000000000000084
• 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.
• Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Illinois: Chicago: RandMcNally.
• Mathisen, G. E., Einarsen, S., & Mykletun, R. (2011). The relationship between supervisor personality, supervisors’ perceived stress and workplace bullying. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(4), 637-651. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0674-z
• McMahon, L. (2000). Bullying and harassment in the workplace. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 12(6), 384-387.
• Meriläinen, M., Sinkkonen, H., Puhakka, H., & Käyhkö, K. (2016). Bullying and inappropriate behavior among faculty personnel. Policy Futures in Education, 14(6), 617-634.
• Motowidlo, S. J., Borman, W. C., & Schmit, M. J. (1997). A theory of individual differences in task and contextual performance. HumanPerformance, 10, 71–83. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1002_1
• Namie, G. (2009). (Still) Bullying with Impunity Labor Day Survey. Retrieved from http://www.workplacebullying.org/multi/pdf/N- N-2009D.pdf
• Nielsen, M. B., Hetland, J., Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2012). Longitudinal relationships between workplace bullying and psychological distress. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 38(1), 38 46. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3178
• Oade, A. (2009). Managing Workplace Bullying. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230249165
• Oladapo, V., & Banks, L. (2013). Management Bullies: The Effect on Employees. Journal Of Business Studies Quarterly, 4(4), 107-120.
• Ostroff, C. (1992). The relationship between satisfaction, attitudes, and performance: An organizational level analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(6), 963-974. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.77.6.963
• Quine, L. (2001). Workplace Bullying in Nurses. Journal of Health Psychology, 6 (1), 73-84. https://doi.org/10.1097/NAQ.0000000000000353
• Riggle, R. J., Solomon, P., & Artis, A. (2015). The impact of perceived organizational support on salesperson psychological and behavioral work outcomes. International Journal of Management Research and Business Strategy, 4(1), 134-147.
• Rosenthal, B. (2008). Bullying. Detroit: Greenhaven Press.
• Salin, D. (2003). Ways of explaining workplace bullying: a review of enabling, motivating and precipitating structures and processes in the work environment. Human Relations, 56(10), 1213-1232.
• Saunders, P., Huynh, A., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2007). Defining workplace bullying behavior professional lay definitions of workplace bullying. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 30(4- 5), 340-354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2007.06.007
• Snipes, R. L., Oswald, S. L., LaTour, M., & Armenakis, A. A. (2005). The effects of specific job satisfaction facets on customer perceptions of service quality: An employee level analysis. Journal of Business Research, 58(10), 1330- 1339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2004.03.007
• essema, M., & Soeters, J. (2006). Challenges and prospects of HRM in developing countries: testing the HRM-performance link in Eritrean civil service. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(1), 86-105. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190500366532
• Townend, A. (2016). Understanding and addressing bullying in the workplace. Industrial and Commercial Training, 40(5), 270-273. https://doi.org/10.1108/00197850810886522