Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal (Print ISSN: 1087-9595; Online ISSN: 1528-2686)

Research Article: 2022 Vol: 28 Issue: 5S

Academic Productivity and Commitment: An Analysis of Bullying At Work

Dionisio Ramezesh, Central Luzon State University

Citation Information: Ramezesh, D. (2022). Academic productivity and commitment: an analysis of bullying at work. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 28(S5), 1-19.


The purpose of this study to investigate the effects of workplace bullying on faculty productivity and commitment to providing quality education to students at Central Luzon State University. The study will gather vital data from faculty members to measure the effects of workplace bullying on them. The researcher used SPSS version 21 statistical tools to examine the data received from respondents using the validated self-constructed survey questionnaire. The researcher then tallied and presented the data based on the first chapter's study questions. The author analyzed data using descriptive and inferential statistics. The p-value is less than 0.05, indicating that the null hypothesis is rejected. This supports findings that workplace bullying negatively impacts employee productivity and motivation. A -0.992 coefficient and 0.081 level of significance indicates a negative multi-linear correlation/insignificant. The researcher discovered that faculty members of the university have been bullied by superiors, coworkers, students, and others on campus. Workplace bullying has several effects on an individual's productivity and devotion. The researcher assessed the respondent's experiences and perceptions of the question with a survey questionnaire. Workplace bullying has a substantial influence on university faculty members. This research focuses on the impact of workplace bullying among university faculty members in a specific area. Thus, the researcher has concluded that workplace bullying is a major concern that needs to be addressed on the university and one of the major recommendations is that there should be an intervention program to address workplace bullying in the university. The article is unique in that it examines how workplace bullying impacts faculty productivity and dedication.


University Faculty Members, Workplace Bullying, Psychological Harassment, Discrimination, Productivity, Commitment.


The Problem and its Background

Workplace Bullying are on the rise in many fields and countries this traumatic organizational trend harms one's health. Occupational abuse, mental health, and EQ. Relationships, Agarwal & Rai (2019). Violent occupations may be linked to mental trauma. Toxicological distress completely regulated the interaction between occupational abuse and self-management emotional intelligence in 326 Italian workers. Workplace bullying often causes emotional trauma that hinders emotional intelligence. Unfavorable treatment of one or more employees causes anger, humiliation, and performance issues. It has many forms. False accusations, prolonged silence, and reminders are examples of public humiliation. Workplace bullying is tracked separately. Employees can't work in hostile conditions. Person-related Assault is a ruse Personal bullying includes depression and anxiety (Woudstra et al., 2018). Bullying is on the rise in many industries and countries. Working in a toxic workplace is one of the most stressful experiences, affecting both physical and mental health. No links were found between physical harassment, psychological trauma, and EQ. Misconduct against one or more coworkers causes tension, embarrassment, and problems for the organization's success. It comes in many forms. Bullying, physical abuse, and false accusations are all examples of public humiliation. Bossy behavior at work or at (Park & Ono, 2017). There are numerous global, national, and local studies on workplace bullying affecting teachers and other professionals. An investigation into how workplace bullying affects university faculty commitment and productivity. Results of this study will help university administrators and directors create policies and programs to prevent workplace bullying. The researcher studied professors' productivity and dedication.

Conceptual Framework

The research paradigm in Figure 1 is based on systems theory and will be used to conceptualize the framework for this investigation.

Figure 1 Research Paradigm of the Study

Independent Variable (IV)

IV is one that influences or determines a dependent variable. Its values are taken as given and can be altered as needed. It is a variable that is independent of the dependent variables. The independent variables in this study include the respondents' socio- demographic profile and the sorts of occupational bullying they typically encountered in university. Assess the respondent's attributes to determine if they are related to the faculty member's commitment and productivity in executing their tasks.

Dependent Variables (DV)

The response is the dependent variable. The outcome variable, also known as an influencing variable, is the one that will be impacted. The effects of workplace bullying on faculty productivity and dedication are the dependent variables in this study.

Statement of the Problem

The research is fastened on the objective to determine the impact of workplace bullying on the productivity and commitment of University Faculty Members.

Specifically, this study will find answers to the following questions:

1. What is the socio-demographic profile of university faculty members in terms of:

1.1. Age

1.2. Gender

1.3. Civil Status

1.4. Highest Educational Attainment

1.5. Academic Rank

1.6. Length of Service

1.7. Assigned Teaching Load?

2. What are the types of workplace bullying being encountered by University Faculty Members?

3. Is there significant impact of the workplace bullying on the university faculty members’ productivity and commitment?

4. Is there a significant relationship between the socio-demographic profile of faculty members and the impact of workplace bullying?

5. Based on the findings of the study, what intervention program can be proposed to be able to mitigate the incidence of workplace bullying in the university?


This study aims to test the following hypotheses.

1. There is no significant impact of the workplace bullying on the university faculty members’ productivity and commitment.

2. There is no significant relationship between the socio-demographic profile of faculty members and the impact of workplace bullying.

Scope and Limitations of the Study

Workplace bullying reduces faculty productivity and dedication. The documentary will feature some university professors. The study's respondents will be chosen at random from the faculty. After school on school grounds. One hundred professors from various universities will participate. A survey measures the impact of workplace bullying on university faculty productivity and dedication. It will be analyzed by a computer program and statistical tool. Finally, the researcher will make suggestions. Workplace bullying impacts university faculty productivity, commitment, and workload. The pages that follow present ideas, explanations, and concepts based on research and data Notelaers et al. (2019).

Significance of the Study

There is a need to understand how workplace bullying affects university faculty productivity and dedication in order to come up with appropriate solutions, alternative proposals, or new actions or activities for the aim of resolving the current issue. The psychological and social aspects of the human being, as well as the work ethic and devotion of the people in each institution, are strongly affected by bullying. The following will benefit greatly from this study's findings:

Higher Educational Authorities

In the development of legislation to improve workplaces and ensure a healthy atmosphere for all employees, this endeavour will be of tremendous benefit. In light of the government's belief that education, especially basic education, is essential for poor people's growth, demonstrating a link between the elements and achievement test results is an appropriate issue for education research (Olsen et al., 2017).

School Administrators

The findings of the study will guide the administrators or their planners in adopting policies and programs to integrate workplace bullying prevention approach on how to go about employees and faculty members in avoiding bullying and other related discriminatory impacts among employees.

Human Resource Personnel

The findings of the study will greatly help human resource personnel to formulate plans and preventive measures to address workplace bullying especially among faculty members of the university.

Faculty Members

The members of the faculty from several departments in a certain university will benefit from the seminars and workshops relative to the workplace bullying and address the essential needs on the information on the drastic effects of bullying and discrimination among university faculty members.

Future Researchers

This study will serve as a basis for future researchers to undergo similar studies so that the implication of workplace bullying would be seriously dealt with in all aspects of society (Rodríguez-Muñoz et al., 2010).

Definition of Terms

To clearly understand the terminologies and concepts used in this study the following terms are defined operationally and conceptually.


In this study, this refers to the dedication and obligation among the university faculty members in performing their duties as agents of learning.


Associating someone's merit with their social status, race, or ethnicity is a form of prejudice. Sexist, racist, religious, homophobic, and ageism are just a few examples of forms of bias that can be practiced in the workplace (Salin, 2015).

Faculty Members

In this study, this refers to the teaching workforce handling specific courses and programs in the tertiary educational institution.

Higher Educational Institution

In this study, this refers to the academic institutions offering higher educational programs particularly in the tertiary level.


This refers to deviant workplace behaviour of low intensity that can include such behaviours as being rude, discourteous, impolite, or violating workplace norms of behaviour. People engaging in uncivil behaviour may not necessarily have bad or harmful intent.


This refers to group bullying, or a “collective campaign by co-workers to exclude, punish, and humiliate a targeted worker.” A person in a position of power or social influence usually initiates the mobbing, but his or her aggressive behaviour then quickly spreads to other employees (Nielsen & Einarsen, 2012).


In this study, this refers to the effectiveness of the performance of duties and responsibilities among university faculty members.

Psychological Harassment

Both physical and psychological repercussions are included in the term "bullying"; however, the phrase differs from "workplace bullying" in that it emphasizes the psychological aspects of bullying. Mental harassment is defined as "the treatment of an individual's mental and emotional well-being at work".


This refers to offensive or undignified behavior that is generally deemed to be socially unacceptable or inconsiderate. This includes acts ranging from incivility, to uncouthness, to discourteousness, to improper grooming.

Workplace Bullying

Office bullies are those who regularly engage in hostile behavior towards their coworkers. Such behaviour includes intimidating the target with body language or verbal threats, setting unrealistic deadlines, isolating them, enforcing contradictory rules (Ramzy et al., 2018) and taking credit for completed work. Workplace bullying can be "dispute related, arising from an original or on-going quarrel," or "predatory," where a victim is an aggressive and opportunistic target. It can happen at any level of a company's hierarchy. Some academics have identified several different types of bullies, such as the "gatekeeper," "two-headed snake," and "imitative bully" (Park & Ono, 2017).

Research Methodology

Research Design

Researchers gather evidence to address research concerns (Sacred Heart University Library, 2018). It provides many answers Alcantara et al. (2017), A descriptive cross-sectional survey was used to assess faculty productivity and dedication. This design is generic. Descriptive research accurately describes people, events, or situations, says Sekaran. Right, it's an It is a descriptive study designed to quantify the phenomenon. Descriptive research collects data to learn about subjects. It shapes global events An & Kang (2016). Exploratory and descriptive study designs collected data . Describes research gathers data. A single phenomenon or circumstance can be studied, but not an entire population. It used descriptive correlation to succeed. In an exploratory study, academic faculty productivity and dedication are examined. To look for correlations. The research triangulated qualitative narrative comments. Multiple sources, methodologies, and theories are used to triangulate data (Aniefiok et al., 2018). They did a poll. So it was a metric study. This study quantified nurse transfer and clinical learning needs. It collects, categorizes, and describes (Anjum & Muazzam, 2018). A survey will be made. In-depth analysis Goal of this study is to thoroughly analyse results. These data were essential for accurate results.

Sampling Procedure

The sampling method used is purposive. Purposive sampling, also called a judgmental sample is one that is selected based on the knowledge of a population and the purpose of the study. The subjects are selected because of their common characteristics and the others do not have (Arif, 2018). The main goal of purposive sampling is to focus on particular characteristics of a population that are of interest, which will best enable to answer the researchers questions (Asio, 2019).

The sampling procedure used in this study is the purposive sampling to select intentionally the respondents. According to Black (2010), purposive sampling is a non-probability sampling technique and used when the samples in the population were selected based on the judgment of the researcher. These perceptions of the researcher that samples can be acquired merely by judgement, to lessen the burden in time and expenses.

A formula is used to determine the sampling size of the respondents.


Formula Where:

n-Sample Size

N-Number of

Population e –

Margin of Error


The researcher will select faculty members for the study because they are able to express their ideas, opinions, and feelings about workplace bullying that they have experienced on the campus of the academic institution. The researcher will administer questionnaires to each participant.

To be eligible as respondents, the following inclusion and exclusion criteria was used:

1. They should be a current regular faculty member of the university handling full time teaching load.

2. Respondents must have recently encountered and experienced as well as witnessed workplace bullying from colleagues.

3. Respondents must be working at the University for at least one (1) year.

After identifying the final categories, the items in each category will be subjected to internal consistency reliability and for this study, it is the Cronbach alpha. The minimum level of acceptance for alpha is dependent upon the number of items of the questionnaire. Since alpha is a function of item inter-correlation, it must be interpreted with number of items in mind (Cortina, 1993).

Research Instrument

The researcher will use a validated self-constructed survey questionnaire to assess workplace bullying and its impact on productivity and commitment among university faculty. The study's reliability and validity must be evaluated first. This is to find instrument flaws or problems. It was tested before the pilot test. A statistician and an adviser to the researchers evaluated its content validity. There will be a few. Regarding workplace bullying and its impact on selected university faculty members' commitment and productivity, consider the responses. The advisor reviewed the form. After approval, the questionnaire was validated by a master's and two doctoral validators. To assess each item's relevance to the construct, experts were asked to assess all aspects. They were thus acknowledged. Consider usability, transferability, conformability, and dependability. Participants' original data must be “credible”.

Using data triangulation to validate the study Participants' verification of survey data Valid tools produce data. If the instrument fails, the thesis is in jeopardy. A valid and appropriate instrument for the target group. Efficient data collection, interpretation, and use. The instrument used in this study will be validated (Karatza et al., 2016).

After all the validated data gathered, the results then tested for Content Validity Ratio following the formula of:


Ne = # of Experts Agreed

This shows the questionnaire's reliability statistics before the survey is actually conducted. The reliability of a self-made test must be 0.70 (70.0%) or higher, according to Fraenkel, Wallen, and Hyun's “How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education” 8th Edition 2011, page 157. “For research purposes, reliability should be at least 0.70, preferably higher.” The survey instrument reliability is 0.901, or 90.1%.

Thus, the test can be used as a tool to begin the study. Reliability calculated using SPSS for Windows and confirmed by a statistician.

Data Gathering Procedure

Learn about the respondents, populations, and other details. She was allowed to study alone. On the other hand, they were simple to avoid respondents becoming confused and thus affecting the results (Robert, 2018). She introduced herself and the study's aim to keep it organized. With less ambiguity and more action. To distribute the questionnaires with consent. Demographic and research questions are included. They had plenty of time. Clarified the surveys Instruction ensured understanding. Primary sources were university professors. Cooper and Schindler (2010) claim that quotas all surveys had ended. The questionnaire was adapted from several cited researchers and scholars. The survey matched the study's goals. The Likert. A statistician analyzed the data. Based on the findings, suggestions will be made.

Statistical Treatment of Data

The Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS) was used to perform all data computation in this study because it is the most commonly used program for qualitative and quantitative data analysis in the social sciences (Lippel et al., 2016). Hence, in order to arrive at an accurate interpretation of the data gathered, the following statistical tools were employed:

Frequency and percentage distribution

This will be used to determine the respondents’ profile

Where: P=percentage


N=total number of respondents

This will be used to determine the weighted percentages and distribution of the traits or characteristics of the respondents in terms of their personal profile.

Weighted Arithmetic Mean

This is to determine each item in the survey questionnaire’s relative importance of each. Weightings are to give due importance to each item in the survey questionnaire and determines the descriptive ratings.


Xw=the arithmetic mean

Ʃx=the sum of data number

Ʃn=the sum of weights of all data

Pearson product moment coefficient of correlation

Where: x= values of any of the individual variables

y= Impact of the workplace bullying on the productivity and the commitment of selected university faculty members.

R= Correlation

This will be used to determine the significant relationship of the workplace bullying towards the productivity and commitment of selected university faculty members.

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)

Where: F = ANOVA Coefficient

MST = Mean Sum Squares due to Treatment

MSE = Mean Sum of Squares due to Error

This will be used to determine the significance and variability in relation to the significance level of the workplace bullying on the productivity and the commitment of the selected university faculty members.

Scoring Procedure

The assessment scoring key is based on the likert-scale format which is shown in Table 1 below. The study is descriptive type; therefore, it can easily be quantified because the respondents shall answer the evaluation form by selecting among the five (5) levels which are defined each at the table. Through the scaling method it can determine how the respondents can level their interest per items written in the survey questionnaire form.

Table 1 Scoring Key
Scale Descriptive Rating
1 Strongly Disagree
2 Disagree
3 Moderately Agree
4 Agree
5 Strongly Agree

AWM to Descriptive Rating Equivalent

Table 2 below is the Arithmetic Weighted Mean (AWM) to descriptive rating equivalent reference.

Table 2 AWM to Descriptive Rating Equivalent
Scale Descriptive Rating
1–1.80 Strongly Disagree
1.81– 2.60 Disagree
2.61–3.40 Moderately Agree
3.41–4.20 Agree
4.21–5.00 Strongly Agree

A 5-point Likert rating scale was used to interpret the degree of validity of the questionnaire. The level of validity of the tool was established using the scale below which was shown in Table 3:

Table 3 Descriptive Rating Equivalent for Validity
Scale Statistical Range Descriptive Equivalence
5 4.20–5.00 Very highly valid
4 3.40–4.19 Highly valid
3 2.60–3.39 Moderately valid
2 1.80–2.59 Fairly valid
1 1.00–1.79 Not valid

The following scale of interpretation was used to analyze the strength of relationships as reflected by Pearson’s r.

The IBM Predictive Analysis Software (a.k.a. SPSS) version 21 was used in all statistical computations. The decision to reject (or accept) a hypothesized relationship was based on the 0.05 level of significance which was shown I Table 4.

Table 4 Descriptive Rating Equivalent for the Extent of Correlation
0.00–0.09 No correlation
0.10–0.29 Weak correlation
0.30–0.49 Moderate correlation
0.50–0.69 Strong correlation
0.70–0.79 Very strong correlation
0.80–1.00 Multi-collinear correlation

The data tables, analysis, and interpretation are in this chapter. They were analyzed with SPSS (SPSS). The study relied on descriptive statistics. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. For each response, we calculated the frequency counts and percentages. To assess the impact of workplace bullying on university faculty productivity and loyalty, the researcher used a survey this chapter summarizes the study's findings. Participants filled out a verified self-created survey questionnaire (Wolf et al., 2018).

Presentation, Analysis, and Interpretation of Data

It had two (2) sections. Create a demographic profile of the survey respondents, focusing on university academics. This section categorizes the respondents and ranks them. As University faculty members, this section examines how respondents view workplace bullying.

Demographic Profile of the Respondents

The table below shows the teachers-respondents' age, gender, civil status, greatest educational attainment, academic rank, length of service, and teaching load. The researcher obtained demographic data using a survey questionnaire and evaluated it uses frequency and percentage distributions as shown in the table below.

The below table depicts the survey's demographic profile of teachers. 100 people answered a survey. Professors are study subjects. It displays the respondent's demographics in frequency and percentage. Most respondents (38%) are 25-29. Most respondents aged 35-39 are under 35. (7 percent of the population). That the study's participants are mostly middle-aged teachers is correct as it was shown in Table 5.

Table 5 Summary table of Demographic Profile Distribution of Teacher-Respondents
Age Range Frequency Percent (%)
25-29 Years Old 38 38.0
30-34 Years Old 25 25.0
35-39 Years Old 7 7.0
40-44 Years Old 9 9.0
45-49 Years Old 8 8.0
50 & Above 13 13.0
Total 100 100.0
Gender Frequency Percent (%)
Male 45 45.0
Female 55 55.0
Total 100 100.0
Civil Status Frequency Percent (%)
Single 54 54.0
Married 46 46.0
Total 100 100.0
Highest Educational Attainment Frequency Percent (%)
Bachelor’s Degree Graduate 9 9.0
Professional Degree (Law, Medicine, etc) 1 1.0
Master’s Degree Candidate 5 5.0
Master’s Degree Graduate 58 58.0
Doctoral Degree Graduate 27 27.0
Total 100 100.0
Academic Rank Frequency Percent (%)
Instructor 51 51.0
Assistant Professor 20 20.0
Associate Professor 13 13.0
Professor 16 16.0
Total 100 100.0
Length of Service Frequency Percent (%)
1 – 4 years 33 33.0
5 – 9 years 28 28.0
10 – 14 years 12 12.0
15 – 19 years 10 10.0
20 years and above 17 17.0
Total 100 100.0
Assigned Teaching Load Frequency Percent (%)
Graduate Studies 4 4.0
Major Subjects 92 92.0
Minor Subjects 3 3.0
Mixed 1 1.0
Total 100 100.0

It is a malignant mix of performance degradation, coercion, and sabotage. Workplace bullying causes loss of focus, confidence, and fear of control. They are often humiliated and afraid of the bully's power. According to the descriptive statistics, 55% of respondents are female teachers. Giorgi discovered mostly male university lecturers. Aggressive and disparaging attitudes in the workplace cause bullying. Socially tense behavior includes hiding, bullying, punishing, and scaring. Workers' comp abuse affects their health. All of these indicators point to bullying as a source of workplace anxiety and low morale. The remaining 44% are married teachers. According to Adera (2017), most workplace bullying victims were single. It is a major social issue in many industries and countries. A psychological link between occupational harassment vulnerability and preparedness to manage it, they claim. Workplace discrimination is an issue affecting many nations and industries. They discovered that occupational harassment sensitivity is linked to psychological sadness.

Workplace abuse and emotional competence are linked, say 250 Italian private researchers. Most respondents have Master's degrees, and one has a professional degree. Clark (2017) claims most respondents have postgraduate degrees. It looked at the links between physical abuse, mental distress, and EQ. Affecting one or more employees negatively impacts the organization's performance and working environment. Job abuse comes in many forms. Ignoring one's own errors, making false claims, etc. Professors outnumber instructors. Contrary Workplace bullying includes work conditions, workload, and security. Bullying can cause psychiatric disorders like anxiety, depression, and PTSD. Most respondents had taught for 1 to 4 years. Notably, most respondents are new academic lecturers, as found by Friedman et al. (2019). Bullying is escalating, increasing power imbalances between attacker and survivor. Attainments against coworkers can also erode People want loving relationships. Employers and communities are threatened. Harassment involves supervising suspected abusers. Even if their boss isn't abusive, bystanders can be. It has a number of negative employment implications. Injuries to the mind or body can occur.

Bullying has been linked to mental health issues. Statistically, teacher-respondents cover important topics in their fields. Hardship in the classroom causes anxiety in most teachers, says. Bullying in the workplace hurts both parties. Bullying has been linked to depression, anxiety, and isolation. Bullying hurts both. The five most common workplace bullying principles may restrict reporting.

Forms of Workplace Bullying Encountered by University Faculty Members

The following table represents the appraisal and evaluation of the selected University faculty member in terms of actions and words from superiors, co-teachers, students, and other university staff. The supervisors' inaction and the perpetrators' disciplinary measures have also been analyzed and evaluated (Table 6).

Table 6 Summary Table of Respondent’s Assessment of the Workplace Bullying Being Encountered
  5 (SA) 4 (A) 3 (N) 2 (D) 1 (SD) (n) AWM SD Descriptive Rating
I have experience several forms of bullying among superiors
9 61 19 7 4 100 3.77 0.517 Agree
Workplace bullying has been perpetrated by colleagues 8 67 17 5 3 100 3.91 0.637 Agree
There are students who do bullying acts among teachers 45 53 1 1 0 100 3.62 0.536 Agree
University Faculty has been discriminated based on their racial origin 2 21 33 42 2 100 2.08 0.344 Disagree
Discrimination happens within the faculty room 6 59 29 6 0 100 3.4 0.556 Moderately
There are instances wherein the faculty members have been discriminated based on his educational attainment 14 72 12 2 0 100 3.88 0.683 Agree
Regional speech defect can caused discrimination  and bullying 2 50 46 2 0 100 3.35 0.665 Moderately Agree
Faculty members’ personality contributes to the existence of bullying and discrimination among them 9 77 11 3 0 100 3.56 0.607 Agree
Sexual orientation is  a big factor on being discriminated by colleagues and superiors within the University 6 54 31 9 0 100 3.44 0.552 Agree
There are colleagues who are impolite among
their co-faculty members
8 74 17 1 0 100 3.22 0.637 Moderately Agree
Superiors do not observe equal respect among their subordinates 7 52 37 4 0 100 3.16 0.637 Moderately Agree
There are discourteous and rude students within the university 45 51 4 0 0 100 4.82 0.754 Strongly Agree
Superiors have aggressive behavior 9 50 38 3 0 100 3.95 0.575 Agree
There are certain experiences among faculty members who have been humiliated by superiors and colleagues 7 71 22 0 0 100 3.49 0.657 Agree
Workplace dignity has been maintained by superiors 4 63 27 5 1 100 4 0.62 Agree
There are university faculty members who have been psychological harassed and degraded 8 73 17 1 1 100 3.94 0.708 Agree
There are group of faculty members who do harassment among faculty members 7 72 17 4 0 100 3.88 0.726 Agree
Inappropriate behavior has been tolerated by the administration 4 59 25 11 1 100 3.78 0.651 Agree
Disciplinary action is not consistent in imposing punishment for those who perpetrated workplace bullying 6 58 22 13 1 100 3.77 0.642 Agree
There is inaction on the cases of bullying and other forms 7 58 25 10 0 100 3.59 0.657 Agree
Grand Arithmetic Weighted Mean               3.63 Agree

Bullying affects university teachers' productivity and loyalty to the institution. The survey respondents agreed with most of the descriptive equivalents but disagreed on one. Based on the arithmetic weighted mean, four questions have moderate agreement and one has great agreement. Employee bullying has a grand arithmetic weighted mean of 3.63, which is the descriptive equivalent of “Agree”. According to Attell et al. (2017), most teachers have been bullied by different personalities. Workplace bullying is the result of socially induced uncivil contact. Employees are the bullies and the targets.

The firm itself is hostile. Any organization can encourage bullying. Bullying thrives in environments that reward aggressiveness and short-term planning. Higher education breeds bullies due to power imbalances and uncivil societies. Universities are unique organizations with a daunting communal culture.

Impact of Workplace Bullying Towards University Faculty Members’ Productivity

The below Table 7 summarizes the respondents' evaluation of the impact of workplace bullying on their productivity. Based on the descriptive statistics, 100% of the respondents agreed on all of the statements. The grand arithmetic weighted mean is 3.94, which means “Agree”. This result is in line with findings that workplace bullying reduces employee productivity and willingness to work with enthusiasm. Job performance is characterized as successfully dealing with superiors, juniors, colleagues, and customers while achieving organizational goals. Employee performance is critical to achieving an enterprise's ultimate goals. Quality generally refers to the work of the organization and the personnel.

Table 7 Summary Table of Respondent’s Assessment on the Impact of Workplace Bullying Towards Productivity
  5 (SA) 4 (A) 3 (N) 2 (D) 1 (SD) (n) AWM SD Descriptive Rating
Bullying affects the ability of faculty members to perform
their duties and responsibilities
23 72 5 0 0 100 3.99 0.703 Agree
The existence of discrimination prevents faculty members from excelling in their jobs 24 68 6 1 1 100 3.91 0.78 Agree
Faculty members who have  experience discrimination is less  productive in their jobs due to psychological impact 23 70 5 1 1 100 4 0.765 Agree
The negative effect of bullying has been reflected on their work performance 25 68 6 0 1 100 3.92 0.787 Agree
The fear of bullying will result  to  inactivity  and lesser work performance 27 68 4 1 0 100 3.95 0.796 Agree
The deviant workplace behavior affects the productivity among faculty members 23 64 12 1 0 100 3.87 0.8 Agree
The negative impression of the existing workplace bullying makes faculty members unhappy at work 30 67 3 0 0 100 3.92 0.8 Agree
The rudeness among superiors, colleagues and students drives away the     work   enthusiasm among faculty members 28 67 5 0 0 100 3.91 0.683 Agree
The culture of bullying has negative impact on the productivity amon faculty members 27 66 5 1 1 100 4.01 0.732 Agree
Giving hard time among faculty members makes them not interested to excel in their duties and responsibilities 27 66 4 2 1 100 3.93 0.655 Agree
Grand Arithmetic Weighted Mean               3.94 Agree

Impact of Workplace Bullying Towards University Faculty Members’ Commitment

Bullying creates a fear culture among university faculty members, and most have been bullied. Managerial bullying reduces faculty commitment to their roles. Job deadlines cause loss of focus. Statistically, most questions were agreed upon, with three exceptions. The grand arithmetic weighted mean is 4.03. This corroborates Rai & Agarwal (2019) findings that faculty commitment and competence are harmed by Workplace bullying occurs when coercion or sabotage is used to harm another employee's performance. Workplace bullying causes difficulty focusing, loss of workplace confidence, and uncontrollable anxiety. Inquire about the relationship between physical violence, psychiatric trauma, and emotional intelligence Working conditions, employee morale, and company performance are all affected by workplace bullying. In many forms. Public humiliation of flaws is constant in Table 8.

Table 8 Summary Table of Respondent’s Assessment on the Impact of Workplace Bullying Towards Commitment
  5 (SA) 4 (A) 3 (N) 2 (D) 1 (SD) (n) AWM SD Descriptive Rating
Any form of workplace Bullying drives away better faculty members 32 66 2 0 0 100 4.16 0.564 Agree
Bullying  creates  a culture of fear among university faculty members 33 61 5 1 0 100 4.21 0.591 Strongly Agree
The intimidation among the superiors over their subordinates makes faculty members to become less committed in their duties and
34 59 6 0 1 100 4.21 0.608 Strongly Agree
The creation of inconsistent rules and regulations among faculty members being bullied by their superiors will let faculty members to find another job 31 64 4 0 1 100 4.12 0.753 Agree
Commitment of faculty members has been affected by workplace bullying 30 64 5 0 1 100 4.10 0.611 Agree
Inconsistent work deadlines make faculty members less dedicated in their work 34 63 2 0 1 100 4.22 0.759 Strongly Agree
Faculty members victimized by workplace bullying have been affected psychologically 30 62 5 2 1 100 3.99 0.800 Agree
Faculty members are not amenable on any forms of bullying which gives negative impact among them 28 66 2 3 1 100 3.79 0.634 Agree
The level of determination among faculty members has been decreased once there is an existence of workplace bullying 25 68 6 1 0 100 3.46 0.532 Agree
Psychological degradation produce
Incompetent faculty members
32 61 6 1 0 100 4.01 0.664 Agree
Grand Arithmetic Weighted Mean   4.03 Agree

Significant Impact of Workplace Bullying Among University Faculty Members

Anova and F-test were used to assess the impact of workplace bullying on university faculty. A p-value less than 0.05 reject the null hypothesis. As Notelaers et al. (2019) found, workplace bullying reduces employee productivity and motivation. Poor workplace communication leads to workplace bullying. The group has bullies and targets. The organization itself encourages bullying. Bullying negatively impacts job performance, employee morale, and financial results in Table 9. Workplace bullying causes physical and mental stress, and there is a link to job satisfaction and productivity.

Table 9 Significant Impact of Workplace Bullying
  F p-value
Impact of Workplace Bullying 4.92 0.0001

Relationship of Respondent’s Demographic Profile and The Impact of Workplace Bullying

The Table 10 below shows the relationship between the respondents' demographics and workplace bullying incidence and impact. As a result of the statistical analysis, these two variables have a negative multi-linear this is similar to the findings of who claim that the core problem of obesity prejudice is that assumptions are simply beliefs that, in some cases, are not valid and create a toxic environment that does not support or inspire the obese person. It is the responsibility of the individual, community, and private and public sectors. Employers must either continue to be pragmatic in their recruiting practices or introduce new weight control initiatives.

Table 10 Correlation of Respondent’s Demographic Profile and the Impact of Workplace Bullying
  Coefficient Significance Descriptive Equivalent
Demographic           versus         Impact        of Workplace Bullying -0.992 0.081 Negative Multi-linear correlation/Insignificant
Demographic versus Impact       of Workplace Bullying -0.992 0.081 Negative Multi-linear correlation/Insignificant

Summary and Conclusion

The results of the analyses done on the data gathered for the purpose of determining the impact of the workplace bullying on the university faculty member’s productivity and commitment needs yield a definitive argument for the problem stated at the beginning of this research paper. Included in this section are the summary of findings, conclusions and recommendations that go along with the proposed study.

Summary of Findings

The previous chapter has thoroughly discussed the results of the survey being conducted by the researcher relative to the impact of workplace bullying on the university faculty members’ productivity and commitment. The research findings are summarized as follows.

1. The majority of the respondents for this study are faculty members who are in the age range of 25 to 29. The descriptive statistics have shown that 55 percent of the population is female. Most of them are single in terms of their civil status. The greater number of teacher respondents has already completed their respective master’s degree Education. In terms of their academic rank most of them is Instructor as being assessed by their respective university. The large number of the respondents in this study has spent a minimum of 1 to 4 years in their teaching experience in the university. Out of 100 percent total population, there 92 percent of university faculty members who handles major subjects in their respective field.

2. Majority of the faculty members have experienced and encountered several forms of workplace bullying and have impacted them in several ways.

3. The huge number of respondents has agreed that workplace bullying have an impact on their productivity and commitment.

4. There is a significant impact of workplace bullying towards university faculty members.


The conclusion has been drawn based on the findings of the study as presented on the previous chapter that has shown positive results relative to the research questions that the researchers have set for this study. Based on the research findings majority among the university faculty members have experienced or encountered some form of workplace bullying being done by their superiors, colleagues, students, and other personalities in the academic institution.

Furthermore, it has also found out that the impact of workplace bullying among comes into several forms both affecting the productivity and the commitment of a certain individual. The assessment has been done by the researcher through a survey questionnaire based on the respondent’s experiences and perception on the question presented by the researcher. There is a significant impact on the university faculty members the workplace bullying they have had experienced and encountered. Thus, the researcher has concluded that workplace bullying is a major concern that needs to be addressed on the university.


In the light of the foregoing conclusions, the following suggestions are hereby recommended:

1. There should be an intervention program to address workplace bullying in the university.

2. There should be continuous management support on addressing the incidence of workplace bullying in the university.

3. There should be extensive seminars and workshops relative to the negative effects of workplace bullying.

4. There should be future studies to be done in relation to workplace bullying in their respective university.


Adera, R.B. (2017). The impacts of workplace bullying on organizational climate(Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland University College).

Indexed at, Google Scholar

Agarwal, U.A., & Rai, A. (2019). Exploring bullying among Indian managers: a grounded theory approach. Journal of Asia Business Studies.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Alcantara, G.M., Claudio, E.G., & Gabriel, A.G. (2017). Prognosis of workplace bullying in selected health care organizations in the Philippines. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 5(9), 154-174.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

An, Y., & Kang, J. (2016). Relationship between organizational culture and workplace bullying among Korean nurses. Asian nursing research, 10(3), 234-239.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Aniefiok, A.G., Vongsinsirikul, S., Suwandee, S., & Jabutay, F. (2018). The impacts of workplace conflict on employees's contextual performance and employee's commitment: A case study of private Universities in Thailand. In 2018 5th International Conference on Business and Industrial Research (ICBIR) (pp. 355-359). IEEE.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Anjum, A., & Muazzam, A. (2018). The gendered nature of workplace bullying in the context of higher education. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research, 493-505.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Arif, S. (2018). Impact of organizational justice on turnover intentions: moderating role of job embeddedness. SEISENSE Journal of Management, 1(2), 34-52.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Attell, B.K., Brown, K.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.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Asio, J.M.R. (2019). Students bullying teachers: Understanding and behavior of college students from a higher education institution. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 3(2), 11-20.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Karatza, C., Zyga, S., Tziaferi, S., & Prezerakos, P. (2016). Workplace bullying and general health status among the nursing staff of Greek public hospitals. Annals of general psychiatry, 15(1), 1-7.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Lippel, K., Vézina, M., Bourbonnais, R., & Funes, A. (2016). Workplace psychological harassment: gendered exposures and implications for policy. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 46, 74-87.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

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

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Notelaers, G., Törnroos, M., & Salin, D. (2019). Effort-reward imbalance: A risk factor for exposure to workplace bullying. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 386.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

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

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Park, J.H., & Ono, M. (2017). Effects of workplace bullying on work engagement and health: The mediating role of job insecurity. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(22), 3202-3225.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Rai, A., & Agarwal, U.A. (2018). Workplace bullying and employee silence: A moderated mediation model of psychological contract violation and workplace friendship. Personnel Review.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Ramzy, O., El Bedawy, R., & Maher, A. (2018). Dysfunctional behavior at the workplace and its impact on employees’ job performance. International Journal of Business Administration, 9(4), 224-233.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Robert, F. (2018). Impact of workplace bullying on job performance and job stress. Journal of Management Info, 5(3), 12-15.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Rodríguez‐Muñoz, A., Moreno‐Jiménez, B., Sanz Vergel, A.I., & Garrosa Hernández, E. (2010). Post‐Traumatic symptoms among victims of workplace bullying: Exploring gender differences and shattered assumptions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(10), 2616-2635.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Salin, D. (2015). Risk factors of workplace bullying for men and women: The role of the psychosocial and physical work environment. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 56(1), 69-77.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Wolf, L. A., Perhats, C., Clark, P.R., Moon, M.D., & Zavotsky, K.E. (2018). Workplace bullying in emergency nursing: Development of a grounded theory using situational analysis. International Emergency Nursing, 39, 33-39.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Woudstra, M.H., Janse van Rensburg, E., Visser, M., & Jordaan, J. (2018). Learner-to-teacher bullying as a potential factor influencing teachers’ mental health. South African Journal of Education, 38(1), 1-10.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Received: 05-Mar-2022, Manuscript No. AEJ-22-11491; Editor assigned: 07-Mar-2022, PreQC No. AEJ-22-11491(PQ); Reviewed: 17-Mar-2022, QC No. AEJ-22-11491; Revised: 22-Mar-2022, Manuscript No. AEJ-22-11491(R); Published: 24-Mar-2022

Get the App