1

Impact of workplace bullying on job performance and job stress of

employees in Nepalese banking industry
Anju Kafle, Ashish B.K, Niruta Dhakal, Shreya Shrestha, Sujan Tamang
School of Management, Tribhuvan University

Abstract
Bullying at workplace is a very serious issue and can be found in every other
organization. The actions of bullying could be very obvious or discreet and the people
who are victimized by workplace bullying can strike them in numerous ways. This
research is focused on the impact of workplace bullying on job performance and job
stress in Nepalese banking industry. A total of 380 employees of different banks of
Nepal took part in this study and facts were examined through Statistical Package for
the Social Sciences (SPSS). The results clearly depict the significant positive
relationship between workplace bullying and job stress, while the relationship between
the workplace bullying and job performance is significantly negative. Furthermore, this
research paper also provides the findings, conclusion and recommendations for
managers..
Keywords: Workplace bullying, Job performance, Job stress, Banking sector

Introduction
Workplace bullying has been defined as “the repeated, malicious, health-endangering
mistreatment of one employee by one or more employees” (Namie & Namie, 2003, p.
3). Workplace bullying constitutes a problem to many organizations today, irrespective
of size and sector. This antisocial behaviour confronts organizations operating in
developed and developing countries alike with the consequences well documented in
the scholarly literature. At the individual level, bullying may lead to suicide tendency,
loss of self-respect, and self-image (Djukorvik et al., 2004), high stress, post-traumatic
stress disorder, phobias, sleep disturbances, and increased depression (Salin, 2003),
unhappiness, anxiety, withdrawal, and undue cautiousness, thereby affecting
performance (Hoel & Cooper, 2003). At the organizational level, it adversely affects
employee commitment, job satisfaction, absenteeism, and turnover (Oghojafor, et al.,
2012).
Bullying is such a heavy word to any organization because it has the power to destroy
organization existence. Workplace bullying has been recognized as a harmful feature
of modern workplaces (banking sector) with long-term damaging effects for both the
bullied individuals as well as the organizations. So that’s why it has become a huge
issue of concern to human resource practitioners, management, workers and
employment relations. As of (Shelton, 2011) Bullying at workplace illustrates situations
where a worker (at any designation), is systematically and repeatedly mistreated or
victimized by colleagues, subordinates or superiors. This unhealthy behavior results
in high employee turnover, low self-confidence among sufferers, increased
absenteeism, decreased productivity . Workplace bullying has been found to be
robustly linked with lowered psychological wellness, low self-esteem, disorders in
concentration, chronic fatigue, anger, increased stress level and the experience of
psychosomatic indications (Ngale, 2018). In addition to this (Haq et al., 2018) clarified
sufferers of this negative behavior can have many psychological symptoms such as
anxiety, depression, sleep disorder, which results in low satisfaction at work. This
might hamper in the working environment of banking sector. Competition is also
growing day by day among the banking industry. The job environment of banking
employees is extremely tedious. The objective of this study is to investigate the main
causes of bullying in banking sector and what are their impact on the job performance
and job stress of the employees in Nepalese banking industry.

Literature Review
There have been done several studies on workplace bullying but the fact of the matter
is that no single universally accepted definition exists which could describe this
problem. Every author and Researcher has its own way of describing it. Workplace
bullying is a situation where an employee is dealt with aggressive and negative
behaviors at work place. Common examples are humiliation, intimidation, punishing
or frightening the victim, which cause severe harm and leads to social stress (Einarsen,
Hoel, & Notelaers, 2009). Bullying at workplace is the persistent mistreatment from
employee to another which causes physical and psychological health problems. It
affects the behavioral components such as low morale, negative mood and legal
problems which totally indicate that bullying is a stress creator and make employees
perform low at jobs (Chia & Kee, 2018).

2
The literature revealed that poor ergonomics workstation environment is among the
major contributor to the work stress problems. Zafir (2009) did a research issues in
Malaysia to examine the relationship ergonomics workstation factors and the work
stress outcomes. The major finding shows that ergonomically designed workstation is
an important strategy in minimizing the work stress outcomes in organizations.
According to The Workplace Bullying Institute did a U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey,
37% of all U.S. workers have been targets of workplace bullies. Unfortunately,
organizational leaders either do not recognize the damaging effects of workplace
bullying, or they do not know how to productively occur (Salin, 2003). As a result,
bullies continue their control of terror, and victims worry about the bully, lose trust in
the company, or leave their workplace.

In 2008, Judy Fisher-Blando wrote a doctoral research dissertation on Aggressive

Behavior: Workplace Bullying and Its Effect on Job Satisfaction and Productivity. The
data in this study determined that 75% of participants reported witnessing mistreatment
of coworkers sometime throughout their careers, 47% have been bullied during their
career, and 27% admitted to being a target of a bully in the last 12 months. This study
also examined the most frequent negative acts by workplace bullies as reported by the
participants. Einarsen et al. (2003) stated that the cases of workplace bullying needs to
be explored in a sustained and systematic way because all the organizations have a
responsibility to protect their employees from the psychological harassment of a
workplace bully. Additionally, workplace bullying has a negative impact on a
company’s profitability and organizational leaders have to cure this issue effectively
which can help the organizations to meet their goals (Keashly & Jagatic, 2003)

(Smith & Coel, 2018) clarifies that the number of American employees who are
affected by workplace bullying in their organizations is approximately sixty million.
According to the authors primary features of workplace bullying are duration, repetition
and frequency of miss treatment. Screaming at person does not means he or she (target)
is being bullied, but the repetition of that screaming over a period of time that describes
bullying. They describe bulling as “a toxic combination of unrelenting emotional
abuse, social ostracism, interactional terrorizing, and other destructive
communication that erodes organizational health and damages employee well-being”.

3
According to (Hershcovis, Reich, & Niven, 2015), workplace bullying has several
Consequences. It not only has an impact on employee but destroys organization
and society as well. Authors divided into three categories – human cost,
organizational cost and Spillover/crossover cost. Human cost refers all the
psychological distress victim face, which includes emotional disorder, sleeping
disorders and even symptoms similar to those associated with posttraumatic stress
disorder (PTSD). Second category is the organizational cost. When victims are
attacked by bullying, it creates low job satisfaction, create absenteeism due to sickness
and ultimately low job productivity and performance. Third is spillover/crossover
category. As of authors, it refers to “trickle-down” effect, which means when an
employee is bullied, he/she transfers that aggression to its subordinates. Those
subordinates are more likely transfer that aggression and anger to their juniors, so on
and so forth. This chain not only ends at working place but transfer to individual’s
homes, creating an unhealthy society. In terms of the relationship between bullying and
task performance, past research studies (Jackson et al., 2002; McMillan, 1995) have
revealed that higher exposure to bullying at work was associated with impaired job
performance, and one meta-analysis also showed that higher levels of workplace
harassment (a label frequently used to describe workplace bullying) were related to
lower levels of job performance. Apparently no research study of this kind has been
carried out in Nepalese banking sector. To fill this research gap, this study aims to find
out the forms of bullying existent in banking sector of Nepal and the relationship
between bullying, employee performance and job stress in Nepalese context.

Methodology
Descriptive research design was used in this study, where survey was carried out by
sending questionnaire to the employees working in the banks, to describe the
frequency and percentage of the gender, age, marital status, education level and job
position of the respondents. The correlation research design has also been used to
find association between workplace bullying and job performance and workplace
bullying and job stress.

The population of our study is 33429 i.e. the total number of employees in Nepalese
banking industry. Our sample size is 380. By calculating the sample size at 95%
confidence level with 5% margin of error from the 33429 population size, we derive

4
the appropriate sample size of 380. Structured questionnaires were distributed to
employees of different commercial banks of Nepal through online forms. The study
was conducted from the employee point of view. Primary data were collected
through online questionnaire where the questionnaires contained close-ended
questions, prepared with the help of Google forms. The questionnaire data were
analyzed using SPSS software. Frequency analyses, percentage analysis, and mean
were used as a statistical tool to analyze the characteristics of the respondents.
Pearson’s correlation matrix was used to determine the relationship workplace
bullying and job performance and workplace bullying and job stress.

Data Analysis and presentation

This chapter presents the results from the findings of a study of Banking Industry of
Nepal. The findings are from the data analyzed from the questionnaires based on the
research objectives. Data was obtained from the questionnaires distributed to 380
respondents. The data is presented in tables resulted from SPSS.

Table 1: Respondent’s profile based on gender, age, marital status, and education level
and job position
Demographic Category Frequency Percentage
variables
1. Gender Female 199 52.4
Male 181 47.6
Total 380 100%
2. Age 20-25 188 49.5
26-30 87 22.9
31-35 36 9.5
36-40 39 10.3
Above 40 30 7.9
Total 380 100%
3. Marital status Single 207 54.5
Married 173 45.5
Total 380 100%

5
 4. Education SLC - -
level
+2 - -
Bachelor 132 34.7
Masters and above 248 65.3
Total 380 100%
5. Job position Junior officer 49 12.9
Officer - -
Trainee 52 13.7
HOD 73 19.2
Manager 8 2.1
Assistant 149 39.2
Others 49 12.9
Total 380 100%

Since the age group 20-25 has majority of respondents, this study is highly influence
by the opinions of youths 25 years of age followed by the age group 26-30. Female
respondents of this study are little more than that of male respondents, so the findings
of this study is applicable mostly to female employees of banking industries. This study
is mostly inclined towards the response of the single employees of banking industries.
More than half of the respondents have obtained masters degree or above, which
implies that the findings of the study is applicable to employees who have completed
master’s degree or further degrees. Majority of the respondents of this study are at
assistant level of banks, which implies that the findings of this study are applicable to
the employees working at assistant level at banking sector.

1. Cross tabulation between Gender and Faced bullying or not

Table 2: Cross tabulation between Gender and faced bullying or not

Faced bullying or not?
Yes No Total
Gender Female Count 159 40 199

6
 % within gender 79.9% 20.1% 100.0%
Male Count 121 60 181
% within gender 66.9% 33.1% 100.0%
Total Count 280 100 380
% within gender 73.7% 26.3% 100.0%

The table shows that majority of male and female employees face bullying at
workplace. Among all, female employees face workplace bullying more than male
employees. It means that the findings of the study are more inclined towards female
employees who faced bullying at work.

2. Cross tabulation between Age and Faced bullying or not

Table 3: Cross tabulation between Age and faced bullying or not

Faced bullying or not?
Yes No Total
Age 20-25 Count 126 62 188
% within age 67.0% 33.0% 100.0%
26-30 Count 75 12 87
% within age 86.2% 13.8% 100.0%
31-35 Count 29 7 36
% within age 80.6% 19.4% 100.0%
36-40 Count 29 10 39
% within age 74.4% 25.6% 100.0%
Above 40 Count 21 9 30
% within age 70.0% 30.0% 100.0%
Total Count 280 100 380
% within age 73.7% 26.3% 100.0%

The table shows that employees of the age-group 26-30 face bullying more at
workplace. Majority of employees of every age group face bullying at workplace. This

7
shows that the findings of the study are applicable to the employees of age group 26-
30 who face bullying.

3. Cross tabulation between Marital status and faced bullying or not

Table 4: Cross tabulation between Marital status and faced bullying or not
Faced bullying or not?
Yes No Total
Marital Single Count 151 56 207
status % within marital
72.9% 27.1% 100.0%
status
Married Count 129 44 173
% within marital
74.6% 25.4% 100.0%
status
Total Count 280 100 380
% within marital
73.7% 26.3% 100.0%
status

The table shows that both married and single bank employees face bullying at
workplace. As compared to married employees, married employees face more bullying
at work. This means that the study is inclined more towards measuring the impact of
workplace bullying on job performance and job stress of married employees.

4. Cross tabulation between Job position and faced bullying or not

Table 5: Cross tabulation between Job position and faced bullying or not
Faced bullying or not?
Yes No Total
Job Junior Count 39 10 49
position officer % within job
79.6% 20.4% 100.0%
position
Trainee Count 47 5 52

8
 % within job
90.4% 9.6% 100.0%
position
HOD Count 44 29 73
% within job
60.3% 39.7% 100.0%
position
Manager Count 8 0 8
% within job
100.0% 0.0% 100.0%
position
Assistant Count 110 39 149
% within job
73.8% 26.2% 100.0%
position
Others Count 32 17 49
% within job
65.3% 34.7% 100.0%
position
Total Count 280 100 380
% within job
73.7% 26.3% 100.0%
position

The table shows that bank employees at every level face bullying at workplace.
Managers of the bank face workplace bullying more than employees at other level. The
findings of the study are applicable more to managers. But our study is sufficiently
applicable to trainee, HOD, and employees at other level.

5. Forms of Bullying Faced

Table 6: Forms of bullying faced by Respondents

Forms of
Bullying Faced Mean Std. Dev.
Overt Behavior 3.64 0.1385
Covert Behavior 3.60 0.1517
Work Related 3.90 0.4771

9
 Table 6 shows that the most of the respondents agreed that they have faced the work
related bullying more than the other two. It implies that in banking sector of Nepal,
work related bullying are more pronounced than the personal bullying.

6. Correlation analysis

Table 7: Pearson’s correlation between workplace bullying and job performance

Workplace bullying Job Performance
Workplace Pearson Correlation 1 -.119*
bullying Sig. (2-tailed) .020
N 380 380
Job Pearson Correlation 1
Performance Sig. (2-tailed)

N 380

Table 8: Pearson’s correlation between workplace bullying and job stress

Workplace bullying Job Stress
Workplace Pearson Correlation 1 .066
bullying Sig. (2-tailed) .202
N 380 380
Job stress Pearson Correlation 1
Sig. (2-tailed)
N 380

Table 7 shows that workplace bullying and job performance is negatively correlated. It
means that when workplace bullying increases/decreases job performance
decreases/increases. On the other hand, Table 8 shows the positive correlation between
workplace bullying and job stress. It means than when workplace bullying
increases/decreases than job stress increases/decreases. This correlation is significant
at 5% level of confidence.

10
Findings and Conclusion

The study was conducted to determine the impact of workplace bullying on job
performance and job stress. In our study, the proportion of male respondents (52.4%)
and female respondents (47.6%) are comparable to each other. Hence, the result can be
generalized for both male and female employee of Nepalese banking sector. Nearly half
of the respondents (49.5%) were of age category 20-25 years. It might be due to large
involvement of youth in banking sector of Nepal. Due to large proportion of youth
respondents, the result of our study might be biased towards opinion of youths in
Nepalese bank. In our sample, the majority of respondents were unmarried (54.5%), it
might be due to large percentage of youth in Nepalese banking sectors. Similarly,
majority of our respondents had Masters and above education level (65.3%). Hence,
our results can be generalized for the highly educated employee of bank. Also, majority
of the respondents of this study were at assistant level of banks (39.2%), which implies
that the findings of this study are applicable to the employees working at assistant level
at banking sector.

The study showed that number of female respondents who faced bullying was more
than the male respondents. Moreover, single female employees who faced bullying
were more (46.95) than married female employees (35.8%). This might be due to
perception that single female is more likely to engage in new affair than the married
ones. Also, it may be due to perceived safety with single women as they are seen weak
in developing country like Nepal. This finding is consistent with the findings of
research by Tangri et al., 1982. The majority of respondents who faced work related
bullying (28.95%) were in Assistant level. This might be due to positional power
entitled to boss.

The classification of three forms of bullying i.e. work related, overt behavior, and covert
behavior partly aligns with Maglich-Sespico, Faley, and Knapp (2007)’s types of
bullying (work related, psychological/emotional, and physical). Work related bullying
was the major form of bullying faced by employees of bank in Nepal, followed by Overt
Behavior and the Covert Behavior. This finding is in consistent with the findings of
research by Hutchinson et al., 2010, Dhar, R. L. (2012). A common reason for large
frequency of work-related bullying might be positional power that creates opportunities
for the bully to exert power over the target. Controlling resources and withholding
information were seen as major forms of bullying impacting the work process as
concluded by Baillien, Neyens, DeWitte, & De Cuyper, 2009.

11
Workplace bullying is a deleterious problem that leads to physical, emotional and
psychological damages to the employees leading towards significant decrease in
employee performance. Organizations incur damage such as decrease of performance,
employee lack of morale, and monetary costs due to this problem (Cheryl, 2009). In
this study, a quantitative approach explored the problem of workplace bullying from a
theoretical perspective. This study also found that increase in workplace bullying
causes decrease in employee performance as concluded in research by Hauge et., al,
2010. It might be because of the fact that bullying can disrupt the physical and
psychological well-being of a person. The study found that there is positive relationship
between workplace bullying and job stress as concluded research by Robert, 2018. This
might be because of similarities in working practices in banking sectors over the
countries.

Practical implication

Bullying is a critical issue in the workplace that occurs in a variety of formats, impacting
individuals and organizations. The study adds to the organizations’ effort to understand
the relationship among workplace bullying, employee performance and job stress. The
findings suggested that different forms of bullying exist in organizations. Everyone
should be aware of different types of it. This research sheds light on that there is strong
positive relationship between workplace bullying and employee performance.

Workplace bullying has a negative impact on a company’s profitability and

organizational leaders have to cure this issue effectively which can help the
organizations to meet their goals (Keashly & Jagatic, 2003). A potential solution for
workplace bullying is having a separate department for looking and handling such
problems. Organizations should have a vigilant approach on looking out for targets of
bullying behavior. For example, the use of anti-bullying policies is a recommended
practice but must be accompanied with strict sanctions against perpetrators. Complaints
should be investigated promptly. Direct complaints or rumors of bullying in the
workplace shouldn’t be ignored. Banks should Take immediate action because the
longer the bullying is permitted to occur, the greater the damage to the victim and
potential liability to the company.

12
 REFERENCES

Adenuga, O. A. (2009). Bullying at workplace:Coping strategies. African Journal of

Research in Personal and Counselling Psychology , 1 (1), 153-158.

Ahmad, A., Sharif, M. Y., & Kausar, A. R. (2014). HR Professionals’ Competencies

and Performance in the Banking Sector of Pakistan. World Applied Sciences
Journal , 31 (12), 2001-2009.

Baillien, E., Neyens, I., De Witte, H., & De Cuyper, N. (2009). A qualitative study on
the development of workplace bullying: Towards a three way model. Journal
of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 19(1), 1-16.
Bartlett, J. E., & Bartlett, M. E. (2011). Workplace Bullying: An Integrative Literature
Review. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13(1), 69–84.

Chia, S., & Kee, D. (2018). Workplace bullying and task performance: A study on
salespeople in retail industry. Management Science Letters , 8 (6), 707-716.

Dhar, R. L. (2012). Why do they bully? Bullying behavior and its implication on the
bullied. Journal of workplace behavioral health, 27(2), 79-99.
Crank, J. P., Regoli, R., Hewitt, J. D., & Culbertson, R. G. (1995). Institutional and
organizational antecedents of role stress, work alienation, and anomie among
police executives. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 22(2) , 152-171.

Devonish, D. (2013). Workplace bullying, employee performance and behaviors: The

mediating role of psychological well-being. Employee Relations, 35(6), 630-
647.
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Notelaers, G. (2009). Measuring exposure to bullying and
harassment at work: Validity, factor structure and psychometric properties of
the Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised. Work & Stress, 23(1), 24-44.

Hutchinson, M., Vickers, M. H., Jackson, D., & Wilkes, L. (2010). Bullying as
circuits of power: An Australian nursing perspective. Administrative Theory &
Praxis, 32(1), 25-47.

McMillan, I. (1995), “Losing control”, Nursing Times, Vol. 91 No. 15, pp. 40-43.
Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised. Journal of work,23(1) , 24-44.

13
Hauge, L. J., Skogstad, A., & Einarsen, S. (2010). The relative impact of workplace
bullying as a social stressor at work. Scandinavian journal of
psychology, 51(5), 426-433.
Ikyanyon, D. N., & Ucho, A. (2013). Workplace bullying, job satisfaction and job
performance among emloyees in a federal hospital in Nigeria. European
Journal of Business and Management , 5 (23), 116-120.

Jackson, D., Clare, J. and Mannix, J. (2002), “Who would want to be a nurse?
Violence in the workplace – a factor in recruitment and retention”, Journal of
Nursing Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 13-20.
Keashly, L., & Jagatic, K. (2011). North American perspectives on hostile behaviors
and bullying at work. Bullying and harassment in the workplace:
Developments in theory, research, and practice, 2, 41-71.
Khalique, M., Arif, I., Siddiqui, M., & Kazmi, S. W. (2018). Impact of Workplace
Bullying on Job Performance, Intention to Leave, OCB and Stress. Pakistan
Journal of Psychological Research , 33 (1).

Lee, R., & Brotheridge, C. (2006). When Prey turns predatory:Workplace bullying s a
predictor of counter aggression/bullying, coping and well-beign. European
Journal of work and organizational Psychology , 15 (3), 352-377.

Ndegwa, I. N., & Moronge, D. M. (2016). Effects of workplace bullying on employee

performance in the civil sevice in kenya: A case of the ministry of
education,science and technology. Journal of management , 3 (2), 16-21.

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

Tangri, S. S., Burt, M. R., & Johnson, L. B. (1982). Sexual harassment at work: Three
explanatory models. Journal of social Issues, 38(4), 33-54.

Williams, L. &. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors

of organizational citienship and in-role behaviors. Journal of
Management,17(3) , 601-617.

Yahaya, A., Ing, T. C., Lee, G. M., Yahaya, N., Boon, Y., Hashim, S., et al. (2012).
The impact of workplace bullying on work. Archives Des Sciences , 65 (4),
20-21.

14