1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Workplace bullying is consistent, repeated mistreatment of one employee by

another. The bully targets one or more individual employees that are typically

different than him, vulnerable to verbal and emotional abuse and too quiet to confront

the bully (Kokemuller, 2016). Indeed, there is growing public attention throughout the

world on bullying in the workplace. Workplace bullying is a complex and multifaceted

phenomenon, according to Shabazi et al. (2013).

In the field of education, bullying is a major concern among educators globally

because of its effect not only on the teachers, who are victims of bullying, but in a

wider scale it also affect the students and the whole community as well. Considering

that workplace bullying has serious repercussions on every facet of the teachers’

lives, those in the academe and the whole community as well, have the moral

obligation to address the growing problem of workplace bullying and unearth the

conditions surrounding this phenomenon (Tolentino, 2016).

Kabeer (2014) states that literatures directly underscore the deliberate nature

or intentionality of this phenomenon. This means that perpetrators attempt to

emotionally, mentally, physically, physiologically, psychologically or socially

destabilize and undermine victims before consummating the violence (Rodriguez-

Carballeira, Almendros, Escartin, et al., 2013).

Shabazi et al (2013) reveals that many scholars have attempted to

understand bullying different perspectives. Studies have examined the predictors of

workplace bullying, the victims and perpetrators’ experience of bullying, resultant and

consequences of bullying and factors such as job satisfaction, job security, intention

to leave and depressive symptoms. Likewise, some researchers have examined

 2

workplace bullying in terms gender (Wimmer, 2009), age (Belcher, 2016) or a special

position (Cemaloglu, 2011).

Recently, a new generation of researchers has focused on bullying in

schools. While significant studies have been conducted regarding the effects of adult

bullying, most literature is from European countries where bullying at work has been

recognized as a work environment or health and safety issue, and those countries

have introduced measures to prevent bullying (Mueller, 2006).

With the signing of President Benigno Aquino of Republic Act 10627 or the

“Anti-Bullying Act of 2013” last September 6, 2013 requiring all elementary and

secondary schools to adopt policies to prevent and address bullying in their

institutions, which also in line with the Department of Education’s “Child Protection

Policy” the issue on bullying comes to the fore of public and academic discussions

(Flores & Sy, The Philippine Star, 9/19/2013). But in the following year two Bicolano

legislators filed an anti-office bullying bill but it was never signed into law by then

President Benigno Aquino. The bill aims to mandate all private and government

offices to adopt policies against bullying and similar acts of harassment and

intimidation (Diaz, The Philippine Star, July 4, 2014).

While the aforesaid lack of attention is to the Philippines there is an

increasing amount of interest in workplace bullying research particularly in Europe

and the United States, in fact, according to Mueller (2006) European countries with

strong public awareness and government-funded research, including Great Britain,

Sweden, Norway, and Finland have implemented general preventive actions against

workplace bullying, including establishing anti-bullying legislation.

The Eastern Samar State University main campus with 288 permanent

employees is relatively large state-run school, however, no scientific research yet

was conducted on this subject. According to Abe (2012), bullying can occur in any

context in which human beings interact with each other. This includes school, church,

family, workplace, home, and neighborhoods. It would be of great benefit to the

 3

institution to test the various findings conducted by researchers in our local context.

Hopefully, it might be a basis for the formulation of policy and mechanism to improve

the work environment.

Objectives of the Study

This study aimed to determine the incidence of bullying in the workplace and

its corresponding effect on job performance.

Specifically, it sought to answer the following questions:

1. To determine the profile characteristics of employees of Eastern Samar State

University main campus, in terms of:

1.1 Age

1.2 Sex

1.3 Position

1.4 Year of service.

2. To find out the incidence of bullying encountered by the respondents,

according to the following types:

2.1 Verbal Abuse

2.2 Behaviors/Action

2.3 Interference with Work Performance

2.4 Abuse of Authority

2.5 Destruction of Workplace Relationships

2.6 Isolation

2.7 Destabilization

2.8 Threat to Professional Status

2.9 Threat to Personal Standing

2.10 Threat to Personal Safety

2.11 Threat to Privacy in Cybersapce

 4

3. To determine the effect of bullying on job performance among the

respondents.

4. To determine the relationship between the profile of ESSU permanent faculty

and non-teaching employees with workplace bullying.

5. To find out the relationship between workplace bullying and the permanent

faculty’s and non-teaching employees’ job satisfaction.

6. To determine the relationship of workplace bullying and the faculty’s and non-

teaching employees’ level of performance in terms of the IPCR.

Significance of the Study

This study on the determination on the relationship between workplace

bullying and job satisfaction and performance is deemed important for several

reasons:

To the Faculty and Non-Faculty Employees. Results of this study will add

to the body of information for faculty and non-faculty workers about workplace

bullying, how and in what place it is carried out, what characteristics victims and

bullies possess, what type of workplace environment bullying occurs, and what type

of maltreatment workplace bullies inflict on victims for them to be more aware of this

social phenomenon that they will be able to react properly and accordingly once

bullying occurs.

To School Administrators. Findings of this study will enable the

administrators to formulate, improve and upgrade school program and resources

highlighting the need to create a safe work environment for their workers and create

an effective mechanism by which any untoward acts by one against another worker

can be prevented or at the very least discouraged.

To the Community. The findings of the study will benefit somehow the

community in terms of quality service ESSU will extend to its many clients. Directly or
 5

indirectly, the community will develop trust and confidence in this school for providing

their clientele with adequate knowledge and skills for their growth and development.

To the Researchers. The findings of this study will serve as an alternative

reference and will further stimulate interest to understand related studies.

Scope and Delimitation of the Study

The study will be limited to permanent faculty and non-teaching employees of

ESSU main campus and its external campuses. Only those with permanent position

or item will be considered respondents of the study. The basis of job performance will

be the respondents’ rating in the Performance-Based Bonus evaluation for the same

year.

Definition of Terms

The following terms are defined conceptually and operationally for the clear

understanding of the study.

Bully – in this study it refers to the person who inflict physical, emotional, or

psychological harm on the victim.

Impact to Job Satisfaction- in this study it refers to either negative or positive effect

of bullying to the victim in terms of any or in combination of the following impacts:

excessive absenteeism; work team disruption; drop in productivity; decline of morale;

depression and anxiety; lost work time worrying about the incident or future

interactions; lost work time avoiding the instigator; changed jobs to avoid the

instigator; positive, become more resilient or other impact that will be described by

the respondents.

Impact to the Organization – in this study it refers either negative or positive effect

of the bullying to the organization in terms of any or in combination of the following

impacts: excessive absenteeism; work team disruption; drop in productivity; decline

of morale; depression and anxiety; lost work time worrying about the incident or

future interactions; lost work time avoiding the instigator; changed jobs to avoid the
 6

instigator; positive, become more resilient or other impact that will be described by

the respondents.

Job Performance – In this study it refers to the faculty and non-faculty employees of

ESSU main campus who perform a specific job based on his/her position or

designation as specified in the individual job description and other functions as may

be assigned by his/her head or the University President.

Job Satisfaction – in this study it refers to the general feeling of satisfaction in the

performance of his/her work as characterized by high morale, freedom to express

thought without fear, competence on the job, trust and confidence of co-workers and

immediate superior, and the like.

Non-Teaching Employees – ESSU employees who are not involved in teaching and

perform work as administrative staff, utility and/or support services, unit heads,

directors and/or supervisors, and administrators who have permanent appointment

prior to January 2016.

Position in the organization – in this study it means the classification of the position

of the employee relative to other positions in the organization, as follows: Rank and

file (office worker/clerk, utility, administrative staff, faculty with no designation or

with designation but reports to a head of office; Middle Manager (Head/Chair of an

office/unit/department, Dean, Director); and Top Manager (School Administrator, Vice

President, President)

Productivity– in this study it refers to the number of produced Instructional

Materials, research completed, and extension activities’ served clients.

Target – in this study it refers to victims of bullying. The term target is preferred by

the researcher over “victim.” Victims connote helplessness and surrender to the will

of the aggressor. Targets on the other hand, can fight back or can react positively to

stop or mitigate effect of bullying.

Permanent Faculty - ESSU employees who have permanent teaching appointment.

 7

Types of Workplace Bullying – in this study, these are the various types of

workplace bullying that the target has experienced, which can happen singly or

severally among the following: VERBAL ABUSE, e.g. shouting, swearing, name

calling (calling you with different names like kulang, bakla, hubya, waray hibabroan,

etc., offending jokes, malicious sarcasm, threats to safety; BEHAVIORS/ACTION,

e.g. public or private that were threatening, intimidating, humiliating, hostile,

offensive, inappropriately cruel conduct; INTERFERENCE WITH WORK

PERFORMANCE, e.g. sabotage, discouragement, ensuring failure, overwork, setting

impossible deadlines; ABUSE OF AUTHORITY, e.g. undeserved evaluation, denial

of promotion, stealing credit, tarnished reputation, instruction that is not part of your

function or not in the office policy, unsafe assignments; DESTRUCTION OF

WORKPLACE RELATIONSHIPS, e.g., with coworkers, higher authority or clients;

ISOLATION, e.g., withholding necessary information, ignoring, excluding,

unreasonable refusal of application for leave, training or promotion;

DESTABILIZATION, e.g., shifting of goals, constant undervaluing of efforts,

persistent attempt to demoralize target, removal of areas of responsibility without

consultation; THREAT TO PROFESSIONAL STATUS, e.g., persistent attempts to

belittle and undermine work, unjustified criticism and monitoring of target’s work,

persistent attempts to humiliate in front of colleagues, intimidating use of discipline or

competence procedures; THREAT TO PERSONAL STANDING, e.g., undermining

personal integrity, making inappropriate jokes about target, persistent teasing,

physical violence, violence to property; THREAT TO PERSONAL SAFETY, e.g.,

inappropriate touching, jokes with sexual themes, sexual favor is made as a condition

in the granting of favorable compensation, terms, conditions, promotions, or

privileges; or the refusal to grant the sexual favor results in limiting, segregating or

classifying the employee which in a way would discriminate, deprive or diminish

employment opportunities; THREAT TO SOCIAL SPACE CYBERBULLYING, e.g.,

bullying done through the use of technology or any electronic means resulting to
 8

harassment, intimidation, or humiliation, through the use of other forms of

technology, such as, but not limited to texting, email, instant messaging, chatting,

internet, social media, online games, or other platforms or formats

Workplace Bullying - is the repeated, malicious mistreatment of a target by a

harassing bully driven by the bully’s desire to control the target (Namie, 2003).

“Workplace bullying is persistent, unwelcome, intrusive behavior of one or more

individuals whose actions prevent others from fulfilling their duties” (Field, 1996, p.

46). In this study it refers to situation in which one or more individual faculty and

employees of ESSU who perceived they are subjected to consistent, persistent, and

repetitive negative acts that are meant to harm them. These acts can be inflicted by

one or more coworkers, supervisors, or subordinates, causing the target mental or

physical stress and anguish. Bullying behavior can take many forms, including

defamatory remarks, intimidation, social exclusion, and physical violence. Bullying

exerts short-term and long-term psychological effects on both bullies and their

targets.
 9

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

In order to gain insights on the ideas and concepts written and published

which have bearing to the present study, the researcher exhausted efforts in

reviewing and looking into the different works related to the study.

Related Literature

On Age and Bullying. Belcher (2016) opines that workplace bullying is just

as serious an issue as the school-related problem; its impact to the company will not

be measured only in terms of monetary cost it can cause stress to the employees

which can result in higher-than-usual turnover rate. According to Lawyers.com,

workplace bullying affects half of the entire workforce in the United States, and is

often "unreported and unresolved," states the site. In some instances, workplace

bullying can be age-related, no matter if the employee is either unusually young for

the profession or nearing retirement age.

Age-related workplace bullying occurs when a colleague or manager

harasses, frightens or otherwise intimidates another employee based on his age

Belcher (2016). It may be something non-violent, like making sarcastic remarks about

another employee, or a more severe action, like physical violence, stalking or sexual
 10

harassment. Age-related bullying can be targeted at employees of any age; the only

defining characteristic is that the bullying is due to a problem the bully has with the

person's age.

In terms of frequency of being bullied some researchers found no significant

difference between young and old employees (Quine 2002). However Einarsen and

Rankes (1997), Hoel and Cooper (2000) and Quine (1999) discovered that

employees at young ages were at more risk of being a victim. In contrast to these

findings, it was reported at Einarsen and Skogstad’s (1996) study that older

employees were exposed to being bullied more that the younger employees

(Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996) in Deniz and Gulen Ertosun (2010).

According to Belcher (2016) the effects of age-related workplace bullying can

be widespread. More than just the bully and the person being bullied can be affected.

For example, others in the office might have fears of speaking up or saying anything

to their supervisor or the bully himself. The company might have higher-than-usual

turnover because of it or end up with a group of employees who are so intimidated

they are all less effective in their various positions.

On Gender and Bullying. The gender difference in bullying arise from

socialization into gender roles, are relevant to this study. Turkel (2007) concludes

that males were found to bully more directly that females. This finding supports the

theory that males are socialized to exhibit aggressive behavior. Many researchers

have agreed that there are differences in the ways males and females bully, how

they are bullied about.

Denise Salin (2012), one of the foremost researchers of workplace bullying,

reveals some facts about gender and workplace bullying:

• Women are more likely to self-label as a target of bullying than men

• Women are more likely to label their past experiences as bullying when
discussing them with others
 11

• Women more often define bullying as emotional abuse and professional

discrediting

• Men more often define bullying as manipulation of work

• Men emphasize victim characteristics more than women

• Women are more likely to conceptualize bullying as an organizational

problem, with organizational antecedents and consequences

• Both men and women experience negative health as a result of being

bullied, although the effects seem to be more poignant for women

• Women are more likely to seek social support and avoid the bully, while
men are more assertive

• Male HR managers are more likely to refrain from taking action

• Gender of the target, perpetrator and witness all effect whether the witness
labels what they observe as bullying

• Witnesses do not think men suffer health consequences

• Targets who exhibit gender-incongruent behavior are more likely to be

bullied

• Research does not yet show whether gender matters in terms of job
satisfaction, commitment, intention to stay, absenteeism, etc, as they relate
to workplace bullying

• Gender is relevant for experience of bullying and for intervention purposes

Corollary to above findings the Gender and Workplace Bullying 2010 WBI

Survey reveals almost the same findings: Gender of targets: 58% are women; 42%

are men; Gender of perpetrators: 62% men; 38% women; Men bullies target men

in 55.5% of cases; women in 45.5%. What tends to make news (based on the 2007

WBI findings) is that women bullies target women in 79.8% of cases; men in 20.2%.

In 2007, the woman-on-woman bullying prevalence was 71%. Now it is 80%. WBI

concludes that the American workplace is growing ever more toxic for women, at the

hands of women. The frequencies of all gender dyads of all bullying: 34% male

perp/male target; 30% female perp/female target; 28% male perp/female target; and

8% female perp/male target.

According to Namie (2012) the explanation might be two fold. First the fact

than men report a higher current rate of bullying may be due to a willingness to
 12

“tough it out” and stay in abusive situations not wanting to allow the male bully to

“win.” Perhaps this poses a challenge to American men’s “rugged individualism.” If

stubbornness is not an explanation, than the pattern might be understood by saying

that women targets are quicker to leave, or be forced out of, bullying situations when

the bully is male. In those cross-gender pairings, women may have a legitimate

sexual harassment complaint.

Regardless of the explanation it seems women report more historical bullying

by men than men. Their memories may be more resistant to extinction. The pattern

does not occur when the perpetrator is female. However, when we sum over

perpetrator gender, female targets still report a higher historical rate of bullying than

their male counterparts. The higher frequency for historical bullying emerged for both

men and women targets.

On Office Rank and Bullying.

It has been established by numerous researches that bullying is common in

the workplace. This is especially so that organizations are stratified in terms of power

and responsibility. Farrington (1993) stated that bullying include an inequality in

power. People who have a higher power in organizations can misuse that power.

Niedl (1995) stated that the major issue in workplace bullying is the balance of

power. A manager generally has more power and authority than those below them in

an organization. In a similar study conducted by Hoel and Cooper (2000) they

discovered that 80% of workplace bullies in the United Kingdom were managers.

They may use excessive punishments as they believe that it can change their

employee’s behavior. However this can lead to people feeling intimidated in the

workplace. The work ‘harassment’ has been substituted by ‘bullying’. A Gallup poll

found that 60% to 75% of employees reported that the worst aspect of their day

involved dealing with immediate supervisors (as cited in R. Hogan, 1994). Targets

spend the majority of their day on a high state of alert, hoping that their bullies will not
 13

detect them. Privately, they are ashamed and confused at their inability to fight back

and protect themselves (Himmer, 2016). Leymann (1993), on the other hand, found

that male Kindergarten teachers, male nurses, and male librarians, all in a minority

position, were bullied more often than their female counterparts were.

Despite that there is a significant increase in the research on workplace

bullying in recent decades, the main focus has been on ‘downwards bullying’ and

some more recent research ‘horizontal bullying’ (Lewis & Sheehan, 2003).

On the other hand, Furnham (2005) states that bullying has spread

worldwide. “Bullying at work is any form of behavior (verbal, written or physical) used

to coerce, frighten or threaten staff”. It is general an abuse and misuse of power.

Arguments and occasional raising of one’s voice would not necessarily be classified

as bullying. There is evidence to show that bullying can have an effect on work

performance as victims of bullying tend to suffer from lower self-esteem and may be

seen as an easy target such that the victim who was bullied for having low self-

esteem will have a repeated chance to be bullied again for the same reason.

According to Adam (1992) low self-esteem and personal security could cause an

increase in an individual’s chance of becoming a target for bullying. Workplace

bullies use their authority to undermine, frighten, or intimidate another person, often

leaving the victim feeling fearful, powerless, incompetent and ashamed (Yahaya et

al, 2012).

Accidental bullies are the most common and usually are individuals in

supervisory positions with very tough management styles and coarse interpersonal

styles. They are very demanding and task oriented with tight deadlines. They lack

self-awareness and empathy. This type of bully is usually amenable to intervention,

and they often are shocked when they learn of the consequences of their behavior

(Namie & Namie, 2011).

On the effect of bullying on work performance. Bullying has been defined

as all those repeated actions and practices that are directed to one or more workers,
 14

which are unwanted by the victim, which may be done deliberately or unconsciously,

but clearly cause humiliation, offence and distress, and that may interfere with work

performance and cause an unpleasant working environment (Einarsen and Raknes,

1997 in Yahaya, A. et.al, 2012). Work related bullying behaviors are giving

unachievable task, impossible deadlines, unmanageable workloads, meaningless

task or supplying unclear information, threat about security etc. (Beswick, Gore,

Palferman, 2006 in Yahaya, A. et.al., 2012). Workplace bullying includes being

ridiculed in the presence of other employees, being lied about to others, feeling

always being on guard, not able being to focus on work tasks, lost of self-confidence

on the job and out of control anxiety (Kuhot, 2007). Workplace bullying is about a

personalized, often sustained attack on one colleague by another colleague using

behaviors which are emotionally and psychologically punishing (Oade, 2009).

Falconer (2004) stated workplace bullying is an essentially an aggressive act, usually

involve psychological violence but sometimes minor physical aggression. It is

important to note that bullying may have extremely serious and possibly life-

threatening. Stennett-Brewer (1997) coined the term chronic work trauma and wrote

about “the erosion of well-being and self-worth that can result from chronic

mistreatment or devaluation at work.”

Miles et.al (2002) in Yahaya, et.al. (2012) determined that perceptions of

workplace environment such as interpersonal conflict, related to negative emotions,

which all of this positively correlated with counterproductive behaviors. Workplace

bullying, such as belittling comments, persistent criticism of work and withholding

resource, appears to inflict more harm on employees. It can affect the ability of an

individual to perform well and the organization as well. It is costly to both individual

and the organization. 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). It has also a

deleterious problem leading physical, emotional, and psychological damages to

 15

employees. Additionally, organizations incur damage such as decrease of

performance, employee lack of morale, and monetary costs due to this problem

(Lentz, 2009). It is important, according to Yahaya, et.al. (2012) 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.

Bullying at work results in extreme forms of social stress, and although single

acts of incivility occur in everyday situations, repeated exposure to intentional

aggression has been linked to severe health problems (Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2004)

in Himmer (2016). Targets experienced more somatic symptoms, anxiety, insomnia,

social dysfunction, and severe depression than

their colleagues, but these differences were not statistically significant (Sá & Fleming,

2008) in Himmer (2016).

Related Studies

The study of workplace bullying, which can be categorized as individual, work

group, or organizational bullying, is complex (Hoel, Rayner, & Cooper, 1999).

In the phenomenological study of Tolentino (2016) on bullying of teachers in

the workplace revealed that bullying of teachers in the workplace is prevalent. Four

major types of bullying as experienced by teachers emerged, such as emotional

bullying, verbal bullying, physical bullying and cyberbullying. Workplace bullying

negatively affected all facets of the teachers’ lives, their physical health,

psychological health and social health, being the emergent themes as consequences

of workplace bullying. The participants had different approaches in coping with the

experience, either personal struggle or group support. Based on the results of the

study, it came out that most bullying incidents are perpetrated by the school head or

the authority figures in the school, co-teachers and students.

 16

Nolasco and Tieng (2016) study reveals that the economic cost of workplace

bullying is underestimated with underreporting of cases of violence against women.

Their focus on workplace bullying was in the form of sexual harassment against

women workers. Their research begins with the examination of the nomenclature of

workplace violence. A specific focus is paid two forms of workplace violence: explicit

or overt forms as well as explicit or tacit forms. The period of observation covers the

years 1995-2015. The result of this study shows that sexual harassment goes

beyond the concept of a discrete type of consummated violence. The infraction on

the rights of women had developed continuously across a maximum of four periods.

In each period, violence against women had become more diversified to project

domination and effect more aggressive forms of violence. The set of findings

generally implies the need to rethink our view of the rights and welfare of women in

the workplace.

Gabriel and Gabriel (2016) in their study on education teachers and

workplace bullying in Nueva Ecija also concludes that workplace bullying when left

unchecked would cost high both in terms of human and material capital. Teachers

who are bullied exhibit certain behavioral patterns. The study revealed that there is a

weak correlation between the respondents’ personal attributes and descriptors of

workplace bullying. Except on the presence of injustice in promotion where majority

of elementary and secondary school teachers considered present in the workplace.

The factor of injustice in promotion is culture laden. In general, factors leading to

workplace bullying is not rampant in the respondents’ workplaces. But the

organization is not completely free from behaviors antecedent to workplace bullying.

Majority of the respondents considered that formal organizational structure to prevent

workplace bullying is established likewise majority claimed that they have not

experienced attending a school sponsored training and seminar on workplace

bullying.
 17

The results of the study of Montes et al (2013) among healthcare workers

indicated that the chance of a healthcare worker referring to him/herself as bullied

increases among those who work on a shift schedule, perform monotonous and

rotating tasks, suffer from work stress, enjoy little satisfaction from their working

conditions, and do not perceive opportunities for promotions in their organizations.

The present work summarizes an array of outcomes and proposes within the usual

course of events that workplace bullying could be reduced if job demands were

limited and job resources were increased. The implications of these findings could

assist human resource managers in facilitating, to some extent, good social

relationships among healthcare workers.

In a research study by Namie (2014) a question was posited to their

respondents: Think of the perpetrator and target of repeated abusive mistreatment at

work. What as the gender of each? The result reveals the following:

“The vast majority of bullies are men (69%). Male

perpetrators seem to prefer targeting women (57%) more than
other men (43%). Women bullies were less “equitable” when
choosing their targets for bullying. Women bullied women in 68% of
cases.”

Another study of Deniz and Gulen Ertuzon (2010) avers that workplace

bullying, which is frequently in discussion at organizations and academia, and effects

badly quality of both work and private life of victims and witnesses can be prevented

if the antecedents of the phenomenon is known. Some researchers stress on

organizational and individual antecedents while some others refuse personality

factor. School-based studies found significant relationship between personality and

bullying which is the start point for workplace bullying studies about personality

factors. Significant relations were found between personality and bullying which is

similar to the available international researches.

Zapf, Escartín, Einarsen, Hoel, and Vartia (2011) found that age-related

bullying correlations were inconclusive. In the study, age groups were divided into

three categories: < 35, 36 to 50, and > 51. In the youngest group, women (25%) were
 18

bullied more than men (15%) were. There was no statistically significant difference in

the other two age brackets.The results showed that 16.6% of respondents were

classified as victims of bullying, applying bullying criteria based on behavioral

approach, that is individuals experienced at least one negative act “at least once a

week” during the past six months. This number was in line with previous research

among university employees (Zabrodska & Kveton, 2012).

Confirming the previous studies, it was discovered that the most prevalent

forms of bullying were related to work. Victims of bullying experienced more

psychological distress, than non-victims. Findings showed that 5.5% of the variance

in psychological distress was explained by bullying. There was a small, negative

correlation between bullying and social support, with high levels of perceived bullying

associated with low levels of social support. Finally, the paper showed that bullying

was significantly correlated with employees’ turnover intention. As for work

engagement, absenteeism, and transfers within the same organization there was

observed no significant relationship between the variables. Finally, the results did not

provide support for the hypotheses that socio-demographic and work situation factors

such as age, gender, and work experience affect the likelihood of becoming a victim.

Hierarchical status, confirming the hypothesis, appeared not to be statistically

significant in bullying experience. The findings from this study could be useful in

developing work environment in university sector. (Koval, 2014)

It is important to note that bullying is a complex and multifaceted

phenomenon and scholars have attempted to understand it from different

perspectives. Recent studies have examined predictors of workplace bullying, the

targets and perpetrators’ experience of bullying or some researchers attempted to

find the relationship between bullying and factors such as job satisfaction, job

security, intention to leave and depressive symptoms. Likewise, some researchers

have examined workplace bullying in terms of gender or a special profession

(Shahbazi et al., 2013). Research showed how bullying affects a victim’s ability to do
 19

their job, which then effects the organization also (Oldapo & Banks, 2013). Due to

bullying, job satisfaction was also seen to have been affected as absenteeism

increased. Hoel and Cooper (2000) discovered that victims of bullying took more sick

days a year than those who were never bullied.

In 2014, 56% of bullies were supervisors, 33% were coworkers, and 11%

came from lower levels of organizations (WBI, as cited in Namie et al., 2014).

Further statistics from the 2014 WBI study indicated that men comprised 69% of

bullying perpetrators and 57% of women were targets. Women targeted women 68%

of the time, and men targeted men 43% of the time. Bullying was found to be 4 times

more prevalent than harassment, and 62% of employers ignored the problem. A total

of 45% of targets reported stress-related health problems, and only 60% of them

actually reported that they had been bullied; 97% of targets took no legal action

(WBI, as cited in Namie et al., 2014).

Blando (2008) states the discovery of associations between workplace

bullying and its effect on job satisfaction to be significant because the identified direct

and indirect relationships can influence productivity and profit. The dynamic

relationships between bullying actions and job satisfaction can affect employee

morale, as well as organizational operations. Blando (2008) concludes in her study

that bullying could be significantly reduced in the workplace through

preventive measures. It is a sad testimony to the workplace culture, what her study

showed that 75% of 218 respondents admit they have been a target or have

witnessed bullying on the job. European studies have shown that one in four people

are bullied at work. This study of two professional organizations in the United States

also reveals that one in four people have been bullied within the past 12 months. Two

out of four people have been bullied throughout their career, and 34% of the

participants said the bullying was still ongoing.

Theoretical Framework of the Study

 20

This study is anchored on the theory of Abraham Maslow. Within the

workplace, each employee has needs and it is their right for their needs to be met.

Maslow’s theory (1954) is a well-known theory used in organizations for the wellbeing

of the employees. It focuses on the five types of human needs. These five needs are

put in a hierarchical way; Physiological needs (Air, water, food and shelter), safety

and security needs (secure, predictable and non-threatening atmosphere), social

needs (Interacting with colleagues) and self-actualization needs (self-fulfillment and

desire to be the best they can be).

Basic to all needs are the physiological needs. Satisfying these needs enable

man to survive and thrive physically. After their physiological needs have been

satisfied, people can work to meet their needs for safety and security. Safety is the

feeling people get when they know no harm will befall them, physically, mentally, or

emotionally; security is the feeling people get when their fears and anxieties are low

(Martin and Joomis, 2007).

After the physiological needs and the needs for survival and for safety and

security have been met, an individual can be motivated to meet the needs

represented at higher levels of the pyramid. The third level of the pyramid are needs

associated with love and belonging. These needs are met through satisfactory

relationships— relationships with family members, friends, peers, classmates,

teachers, and other people with whom individuals interact. Satisfactory relationships

imply acceptance by others. Having satisfied their physiological and security needs,

people can venture out and seek relationships from which their need for love and

belonging can be met (Martin and Joomis, 2007). Save for physiological needs and

self-actualization needs in the hierarchy Maslow’s theory demonstrate well how

bullying can significantly threaten security needs as well as love and belonging needs

and if left unfulfilled could have a deleterious effect to the total well-being of the

person.
 21

Another theory which is very common in behavioral management are Conflict

Management and Conflict Resolution. This theory will help elucidate response both

horizontally and vertically in the ESSU organizational hierarchy. Conflict

management is the process of limiting the negative aspects of conflict while

increasing the positive aspects of conflict. The aim of conflict management is to

enhance learning and group outcomes, including effectiveness or performance in

organizational setting (Rahim, 2002). Properly managed conflict can improve group

outcomes (DeChurch & Marks, 2001). Conflict resolution involves the reduction,

elimination, or termination of all forms and types of conflict. Five styles for conflict

management are as identified by Thomas and Kilmann (1976) are: Competing,

Compromising, Collaborating, Avoiding, and Accommodating.

DeChurch and Marks (2001) examined the literature available on conflict

management at the time and established what they claimed was a "meta-taxonomy"

that encompasses all other models. They argued that all other styles have inherent in

them into two dimensions - activeness ("the extent to which conflict behaviors make

a responsive and direct rather than inert and indirect impression") and agreeableness

("the extent to which conflict behaviors make a pleasant and relaxed rather than

unpleasant and strainful impression"). High activeness is characterized by openly

discussing differences of opinion while fully going after their own interest. High

agreeableness is characterized by attempting to satisfy all parties involved.

In the study they conducted to validate this division, activeness did not have a

significant effect on the effectiveness of conflict resolution, but the agreeableness of

the conflict management style, whatever it was, did in fact have a positive impact on

how groups felt about the way the conflict was managed, regardless of the outcome.

Conflict management and conflict resolution can foment a response from top

management to address enmity and other psychological effect towards the victims

and bully themselves.

 22

Conceptual Framework of the Study

There were two variables identified in the study, namely: the independent

variables and the dependent variables. The independent variables are the Profile

Characteristics of respondents, namely: age, gender, academic rank, year of service,

level of job satisfaction and level of job performance; and the type of bullying inflicted

on the victims. On the other hand, the dependent variable is the impact on job

satisfaction and job performance in terms of Individual Performance Commitment

Review (IPCR). The assumed relationship of the variables regarded as relevant in

the study is simplified in a schema shown in Figure 1.

The framework further shows the independent variables as they will be

correlated with the dependent variable in terms of job satisfaction and performance

as indicated by an arrow.

Independent Variables Dependent Variable

Profile Characteristics

- Age
- Gender
Impact on Job
- Academic Rank
Satisfaction and
- Year of service Job Performance
- Level of Job Satisfaction in terms of
- Level of Job Performance Individual
Performance
Commitment
Review (IPCR)

Experience of workplace
bullying as victim in terms of:

- Degree
- Types of bullying inflicted
 23

Figure 1. The Conceptual Framework Depicting the Relationship of the

Independent and Dependent Variables of the Study

Hypotheses

This study will advance the following null hypotheses.

1. There is no significant relationship between the characteristic profiles of

respondents with workplace bullying.

2. There is no significant relationship between workplace bullying and the

employees’ job satisfaction.

3. There is no significant relationship between workplace bullying and the

employees’ level of performance in terms of the Individual Performance

Commitment Review (IPCR)

 24

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the method and procedure employed in the conduct of

the study. The description of the research design, the respondents of the study, the

instrument that will be used, and the statistical analysis of the data will also herein be

discussed.

Research Design

This study will utilize the descriptive-correlational method of research with

documentary analysis employing a survey questionnaire. Copies of the questionnaire

will be administered to target respondents to obtain their reactions pertaining to

workplace bullying.

This is a descriptive research since it will describe the profile characteristics

of the faculty and non-teaching personnel of ESSU main campus and its external

campuses (Guiuan, Salcedo, Can-Avid, and Maydolong). Correlational since the

study will attempt to determine the relationship between the profile characteristics of

the faculty and non-teaching personnel and workplace bullying; the relationship

between the respondents’ job satisfaction and bullying and the relationship between
 25

their job performance based on their IPCR vis-à-vis their experience with workplace

bullies.

Research Locale

This study will be conducted all across campuses.

Respondents of the Study

A total of 471 faculty and 234 non-teaching personnel with permanent

appointment in the ESSU system will be chosen as the respondents of the study.

Also, for the purpose of correlating their performance to the Individual Performance

Commitment Review.

Determination of Sample Size

To determine the sample size for the teaching and non-teaching employees in

the main campus with permanent appointment the Slovin’s Formula will be used.

n= N
1 + Ne2

Where:n = sample size

N = population size

e = 0.05 (marginal error)

At a decided 5 percent marginal error and with a total population of 707

permanent employees at the entire ESSU system (Human Resource Management

Office and Planning and Development Office, 2021), the sample size is teaching and

non-teaching employees. It is broken down as follows:

Table 1. The Sample Size of Respondents from the Teaching and Non-Teaching
Groups in the main campus.

Permanent
ESSU Campus Employee Sample
s Size

Borongan 338 108 (144)

 26

Maydolong 60

Can-Avid 66

Salcedo 122

Guiuan 121
Total 707

Sampling Procedure

The simple random sampling will be used in selecting the teaching and non-

teaching respondents. This will be done by using the “lottery method”, wherein a

separate list of the names of all teaching and non-teaching employees per campus

will be written in a coupon. The coupon will be rolled tightly to assure that the names

will not be exposed and will be placed in a box corresponding to their campus, one

box for the teaching and another for the non-teaching employees. Before the names

will be drawn the box will be shaken thoroughly, the researcher will then pick the

corresponding number of coupons from the box representing the number of the

teaching and non-teaching employees in the main campus.

Instrumentation

A researcher-developed questionnaire will be used by the researcher in

gathering the needed data (Appendix A).

The survey questionnaire will be composed of three parts. The first part will

elicit information about the profile characteristics of the respondents. The second part

contains items which will ask the respondents of their personal experience of bullying

as a target, in what manner bullying was executed, for how long, by whom (position

of bully in the bureaucracy). The third part will draw information about the effects of

bullying to their job satisfaction and job performance. This will be patterned from the

questionnaire used by Blando (2008) in her doctoral dissertation entitled “Workplace

Bullying: Aggressive Behavior and Its Effects on Job Satisfaction and Productivity.”
 27

A documentary analysis will likewise be done on the gathered data from the

questionnaire.

Instrument Validation

The trial run of the instrument will be administered by the researcher to faculty

and non-teaching personnel of Eastern Samar State University – Maydolong

Campus, Maydolong, Eastern Samar since this is not included in the study, to

determine its comprehensibility, usability and administrability and identify items not

understood by the target respondents.

The feedback from the trial run of the instrument will be used for its

improvement. Once polished the questionnaire will be reproduced according to the

number of respondents and will be administered to them.

Data Gathering Procedure

The researcher will start the gathering of data by asking permission from the

University President of ESSU, in Borongan City, to allow her to administer the survey

questionnaire and to borrow some documents from the Human Resource

Management Office for the respondents’ IPCR Form (Individual Performance

Commitment Review) which will be used in this study as the basis of the employee’s

performance in the year given. Upon approval of the request, the researcher will

distribute the questionnaire to the respondents who will be randomly selected in

order to ensure accuracy. Retrieval will be done right after the questionnaire is

completed. This will be done starting the second week of April through May 2021.

Measurement of Variables

The personal experience of being bullied in the workplace will be assigned

with the following category and description:

Category Description

1 Yes
 28

2 No

The age of respondents had the following categories:

Age Category

29 and below 1

30-39 2

40-49 3

50 and above 4

For the gender of respondents the following categories were used:

Category Description

1 Female

2 Male

The position in the organization of respondents will be categorized and

described as follows.

Category Description

1 Rank and file (office worker/clerk, utility,

administrative staff, faculty with no designation or

with designation but reports to a head of office)

2 Middle Manager (Head/Chair of an

office/unit/department, Dean, Director)

3 Top Manager (School Administrator, Vice

President, President)

The year of service of respondents will be categorized and described as

follows.

Category Description

1 0-10

2 11-20
 29

3 21-30

4 31-40

The type of workplace bullying as experienced by the respondent will be

assigned with values presented in the descriptive equivalent and numerical rating

such as:

VERBAL ABUSE, e.g. shouting, swearing, name calling (calling you with

different names like kulang, bakla, hubya, waray hibabroan, etc.

(italicized words are by the researcher) , offending jokes, malicious

sarcasm, threats to safety (Blando, 2008).

BEHAVIORS/ACTION, e.g. public or private that were threatening,

intimidating, humiliating, hostile, offensive, inappropriately cruel

conduct (Blando, 2008)

INTERFERENCE WITH WORK PERFORMANCE, e.g. sabotage,

discouragement, ensuring failure, overwork, setting impossible

deadlines (Blando, 2008).

ABUSE OF AUTHORITY, e.g. undeserved evaluation, denial of promotion,

stealing credit, tarnished reputation, instruction that is not part of your

function or not in the office policy, unsafe assignments (Blando, 2008).

DESTRUCTION OF WORKPLACE RELATIONSHIPS, e.g., with coworkers,

higher authority or clients (Blando, 2008).

ISOLATION, e.g., withholding necessary information, ignoring, excluding,

unreasonable refusal of application for leave, training or promotion

(Blando, 2008).

DESTABILIZATION, e.g., shifting of goals, constant undervaluing of efforts,

persistent attempt to demoralize target, removal of areas of

responsibility without consultation (Blando, 2008).

 30

THREAT TO PROFESSIONAL STATUS, e.g., persistent attempts to belittle

and undermine work, unjustified criticism and monitoring of target’s

work, persistent attempts to humiliate in front of colleagues,

intimidating use of discipline or competence procedures (Blando,

2008).

THREAT TO PERSONAL STANDING, e.g., undermining personal integrity,

making inappropriate jokes about target, persistent teasing, physical

violence, violence to property (Blando, 2008).

THREAT TO PERSONAL SAFETY, e.g., inappropriate touching, jokes with

sexual themes, sexual favor is made as a condition in the granting of

favorable compensation, terms, conditions, promotions, or privileges;

or the refusal to grant the sexual favor results in limiting, segregating

or classifying the employee which in a way would discriminate, deprive

or diminish employment opportunities (Blando, 2008).

THREAT TO PRIVACY IN CYBERSPACE, e.g., bullying done through the

use of technology or any electronic means resulting to harassment,

intimidation, or humiliation, through the use of other forms of

technology, such as, but not limited to texting, email, instant

messaging, chatting, internet, social media, online games, or other

platforms or formats (Blando, 2008).

Scale Weight Description

1.00-1.79 1 Never experienced being bullied in the workplace (if

there had been instances that the respondent was

never been bullied in the workplace during the year

under study)

1.80-2.59 2 Rarely experienced being bullied in the workplace (if

there had been instances that the respondent was

 31

bullied in one or two occasions during the year under

study)

2.60-3.49 3 Sometimes being bullied in the workplace (if there had

instances that the respondent was bullied in three or

four occasions during the year under study)

3.50-4.29 4 Often being bullied in the workplace (if there had been

instances where the respondents was bullied four to five

occasions during the year under study)

4.30 – 5.00 5 Always bullied in the workplace (if there had been

instances that the respondent was bullied six or more

occasions during the year being studied)

The bully or harasser of respondent will be categorized and described as

follows.

Category Description

1 Solo bully

2 Several bullies

The rank of the bully relative to the respondent will be categorized and

described as follows.

Category Description

1 Lower Rank

2 Same Rank

3 Higher Rank

The impact on job satisfaction of the respondent will be categorized and

described as follows.

Category Description

1 None at all

2 Yes, but very little

 32

3 Yes, moderately

4 Yes, extremely

The personal impact of workplace bullying as experienced by the

respondent as manifested by behavioral descriptions below will be assigned with

values presented in the descriptive equivalent and numerical rating such as:

Category Description

1 Absenteeism
Scale Weight Description
2 Work team disruption
1.00-1.79 1 Never (if there was no instance that the problem
3 Drop in productivity
happened during the year being studied)
4 Decline of morale
1.80-2.59 2 Rarely (if instances of occurrence happened to be
5 Depression and anxiety
rare or have shown a low level of incidence during
6 Lost work time worrying about the incident
or future interaction
the year being studied)
7 Lost of work time avoiding the bully
2.60-3.49 3 Occasionally (if instances of occurrence happened to
8 Changed job to avoid the bully
be occasional or have shown a moderate level of
9 Become more resilient
incidence during the year being studied)
10 Become more productive
3.50-4.29 4 Frequently (if instances of occurrence happened to
11 Others
be frequent or have shown a high level of incidence

during the year being studied)

4.30 – 5.00 5 Always (if instances of occurrence happened to be

very frequent or have shown a very high level of

incidence during the year being studied)

The level of job satisfaction of the respondent will be categorized and

described as follows.

Category Description
 33

1 Very Low

2 Low

3 Average

4 High

5 Very High

The rating of the respondent in the 2016 Performance-Based Bonus will be

categorized and described as follows.

Category Description

1 Good

2 Better

3 Best

The prevalence of workplace bullying as perceived by the respondent will

be categorized and described as follows.

Category Description

1 No such thing happen

2 Yes lightly prevalence

3 Yes moderately prevalent

4 Yes extremely prevalent

Data Analysis

Percentage and mean will computed for the primary data obtained. To test

the null hypotheses, the Cramer’s V (ᵠ c) coefficient correlation will be computed for

nominal-nominal variables. In determining the relationship of continuous and nominal

variables, point-biserial correlation (rpb) was used, while rank-biserial correlation for

ordinal-nominal variables. The level of significance will be set at 0.05 level of

significance for rejecting and accepting the null hypotheses.

 34

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents and discusses data analysis in detail, along with its

findings of this study. The result is analyzed, tabulated and presented under the

following major headings; the profile characteristics of the permanent teaching and

non-teaching employees of Eastern Samar State University across campuses,

incidence of workplace bullying, effects of bullying on job performance on the

employee. In order to draw the relationship between workplace bullying and profile

characteristics of the employees, as well as their job satisfaction and IPCR rating,

various associations and correlations were used.

Profile Characteristics of Employees of Eastern Samar State University

Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of teaching and non-teaching

employees in Eastern Samar State University. Majority of the participants age ranges

were between the ages 30 – 39 years old. In addition, 29 and younger employees

made up of 24.1% of the workforce, and employees aged 40 to 49 years made up

the same percentage. Additionally, female preponderance was observed (147 out

of 86) in the workplace, while male employees comprised 36.3%.

The respondents were predominantly in rank-in-file positions (84.8%), these includes

the teachers and administrative staff, utility workers who reports to a head of office.

Furthermore, 14.7% belongs to the middle management positions (head of the

office/unit/departments, college deans and directors) and 0.4% belongs to the top

management (school administrators, vice-presidents and presidents). However, it

was observed that there were respondents remain anonymity on their positions, age,

gender and years of experience.

 35

On the length of service, a predominance was observed that the employees have 0

to 10 years of work experience, this result was relatively observed and can related to

the age range of the employees which comprises 39 years old and below (54.1%).

Table 2. Profile characteristics of permanent teaching and non-teaching

employees of Eastern Samar State University

Freq. Percentage
Profile Characteristics
(n=237) (%)

Age
50 years old and above 46 19.4
40 – 49 years old 57 24.1
30 – 39 years old 71 30.0
29 years old and below 57 24.1
Prefer not to answer (6) (2.5)

Sex
Male 86 36.3
Female 147 62.0
Prefer not to answer (4) (1.7)

Position
Rank and File 190 84.8
Middle Management 33 14.7
Top Management 1 0.4
Prefer not to answer (13) (5.5)

Year of Service
31 – 40 years 11 4.7
21 – 30 years 34 14.6
11 – 20 years 53 22.7
0 – 10 years 135 57.9
Prefer not to answer (4) (1.7)

Incidence of Bullying Encountered by ESSU Employees

Incidence of workplace bullying was observed by the respondents during the

study conducted. Table 3 enumerated the categories on the type of workplace

bullying the employee experienced. The study shows that among the 237 employees,

only 37 (15.6%) acknowledged that they have encountered bullying during the year

under study. For those who experienced bullying, the respondents have to answer

what type of bullying they have undergone and assigned descriptive equivalent to it.
 36

While the those who have not experienced bullying under the year of the study, no

further questions have to be answered in the questionnaire.

The result showed that among the 37 individuals who come across bullying in

their workplace, they have rarely experienced being bullied. “Verbal Abuse” was

ranked first, with an average of 2.49 (st. dev. = 1.15). Verbal abuse includes

shouting, swearing, name calling, offending jokes and malicious sarcasm (Blando,

2008). However, society at large, it is observed that this behavior is being

“normalized”. This is prevalent in workplace, public places, homes, media,

entertainment, etc. that the one who is being bullied or bullying would not be aware of

themselves. However, studies shows that symptoms such as stress, elevated fight-

or-flight response, anxiety, depressions, anxiety, headaches, low morale and low

productivity are somewhat related to verbal abuse. Mostly, the respondents

encountered were name callings (“hubya”, “waray hibabruan”, “bulok”), offending

jokes, being shouted and swore at.

Secondly, “rarely experienced” workplace bullying incidence experienced by the

respondents was “Interference with Work Performance”, with an average of 2.43

(s.d. = 1.24). Interference with work performance includes sabotage,

discouragement, ensuring failure, overwork, setting impossible deadlines (Blando,

2008). Quoted from one of the respondents “he/she is discouraged by others

because inexperience with work-related activities and others see his/her work as a

failure. Several employees experienced “setting meeting and deadlines for urgent

reports and receive communications on short notice”.

“Abuse of Authority” was the third in rank as being reported “Rarely

Experienced” as workplace bullying incidence encountered by the employees (ave. =

2.27, s.d.=1.14). According to Blando (2008), abuse of authority refers to the

underserved evaluation, denial of promotion, stealing credit, tarnished reputation,

instruction that is not part of one’s function or not in the office policy and unsafe

assignments. A number of employees has included as work-related bullying, such as

 37

giving instructions/tasks that is not part of their functions and undeserved evaluation

during IPCR rating.

Table 3. Incidence of bullying encountered and types of workplace bullying

experienced by the employees

Experience of Bullying in Workplace Freq. Percentage

Encountered Bullying
Yes 37 15.6
No 200 84.4

Types of Workplace Bullying Mean Interpretation

Verbal Abuse 2.49 ± 1.15 Rarely experienced
Behaviors/Action 2.14 ± 1.25 Rarely experienced
Interference with work performance 2.43 ± 1.24 Rarely experienced
Abuse of authority 2.27 ± 1.24 Rarely experienced
Destruction of workplace relationship 2.11 ± 1.20 Rarely experienced
Isolation 2.05 ± 1.20 Rarely experienced
Destabilization 2.00 ± 1.37 Rarely experienced
Threats to professional status 2.00 ± 1.31 Rarely experienced
Threats to personal standing 2.03 ± 1.26 Rarely experienced
Threats to personal safety 1.41 ± 0.87 Never experienced
Threats to privacy in cyberspace 1.32 ± 0.75 Never experienced

Effects of Bullying on Job Performance among ESSU Employees

Table 4 enumerated the positive and negative effects of bullying on the job

performance of the employees. The negative effects listed were absenteeism, work

team disruption, drop in productivity, morale decline, depression and anxiety, lost of

work time due to worrying, changing jobs. However, workplace bullying can have

positive to job performance such as employees look at it as a challenge and become

more resilient and productive.

Among the negative impacts, absenteeism was reported the highest average

among the effects of bullying on job performance of the respondents (ave.=2.81,

s.d.=0.93). The respondents “Occasionally” experienced or the occurrence of

absenteeism have shown a moderate level of incidence during the year being

studied, resulting from workplace bullying. The second negative impact is “Decline in

Morale”, with and average of 2.16, interpreted as he/she “Rarely” experienced or

 38

have shown a low level of incidence during the year being studied. Impacts of

workplace bullying on job satisfaction can cost to the university increased turnover of

employee, a shift in how employees view the university, and a decline in employee

engagement (McKay, et al., 2008). On the positive side, becoming more resilient and

more productive was listed as effect of bullying on job performance of the employees

(2.54, 2.54).

Table 4. Effects of workplace bullying on job performance among ESSU

employees

Effects of Bullying on the Job

Mean Std. Dev. Interpretation
Performance

Absenteeism 2.81 0.93 Occasionally

Work Team disruption 1.70 0.99 Never
Drop in Productivity 1.65 1.06 Never
Decline in Morale 2.16 1.30 Rarely
Depression and anxiety 1.68 1.08 Never
Lost work time worrying about the 1.43 0.93 Never
incident or future interactions
Lost work time avoiding instigator 1.38 0.89 Never
Changed jobs to avoid instigator 1.32 0.85 Never
Become more resilient 2.54 1.79 Rarely
Become more productive 2.54 1.66 Rarely

Relationship between the Profile Characteristics of ESSU Employees with

Workplace Bullying

In order to determine the relationship of the profile characteristics with

workplace bullying, several correlations and associations were employed. The result

shows, relationship between the profile characteristics of ESSU employees in terms

of age, gender, position and years of experience to work place bullying were not

significant at 0.05 level of significance.

Similarly, the study of Quine (2002) found no significant difference on the

frequency of being bullied between young and old. However, there were studies on

age and bullying that employees at discovered that young workers had a higher

probability of becoming victims (Hoel & Cooper, 2000; Quine, 1999; Einarsen &
 39

Rankes, 1997). In contrast to these findings, Einarsen and Skogstad's (1996) study

found that older employees were more likely than younger employees to experience

bullying (Deniz & Gulen Ertosun, 2010).

On gender-bullying, the results (Table 5) show no significant difference. This

means there is no gender difference when it comes to workplace bullying. However,

according to Salin (2012) reveals facts about gender and workplace bullying. Among

the findings are; “women are more likely to self-label as a target of bullying than

men”, and “men emphasize victim characteristics more than women” among others.

On office position-bullying, Table 5 show no significant difference, however,

there are numerous studies in said otherwise. According to Hoel and Cooper (2000),

discovered that 80% of workplaces bullies in the United Kingdom were managers

and use excessive punishments on what they believe can change the employee’s

behavior.

Table 5. Relationship between the profile characteristics of ESSU employees

with workplace bullying

Workplace Correlation/
Profile p-value Interpretation
Bullying Association

Age Experience rpb = 0.127 0.055 Not Significant

Gender Workplace ᵠc = 0.037 0.577 Not Significant
Position Bullying rrb = 0.092 0.223 Not Significant

Relationship between Workplace Bullying and Employees’ Job Satisfaction

The results show in Table 6 that there is no significant relationship workplace

bullying and employees job satisfaction. The result also may indicate low frequency

of employees indicated the personal experience on workplace bullying hence, there

is no sufficient evidence on the relationship between the variables. However, in the

study of Drydakis (2018) found out that there is a negative association between

workplace bullying and job satisfaction. This implies an increase on the frequency of

workplace bullying, the lower the job satisfaction the employee have. Similarly, Quine
 40

(2001) reported that nurse employees experienced workplaces bullying significantly

lowers level of job satisfaction, and significantly higher levels of depression, anxiety

and propensity to leave.

Table 6. Relationship between workplace bullying and employee’s job

satisfaction

Correlation/
p-value Interpretation
Association

Workplace Bullying *
Employees Job Satisfaction rrb = -0.014 0.742 Not Significant
Employee’s

Relationship of Workplace Bullying and Employees’ Level of Performance in

terms of the IPCR Rating

Table 7 show the relationship between the workplace bullying ang the

employee’s level of performance in IPCR rating. The result showed non-significant in

their association between the employee’s performance in their IPCR rating and

workplace performance. This may imply that there is no sufficient evidence between

the two variables. In addition, based on employees IPCR rating, their performance

did not decline despite subjected to workplace bullying.

Table 7. Relationship between workplace bullying and level of performance in

terms of IPCR rating

Correlation/
p-value Interpretation
Association

Workplace Bullying * IPCR

rrb = 0.023 0.598 Not significant
Rating
 41

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

This chapter presented the summary based on the findings of the study, the

corresponding conclusion and recommendation of the study.

SUMMARY

The summary of this study was based on the findings in accordance with the

statement of the problem. The research key topics of this study were on the profile

characteristics of permanent (teaching and non-teaching) employees of Eastern

Samar State University, the incidence and types of workplace bullying, effects of

bullying on job performance on the employee, the relationships between the

workplace bullying and other variables such as employees’ profile, job satisfaction

and IPCR rating.

The research was conducted across campuses of Eastern Samar State

University. Slovin’s formula and was used to get the sampling size and a simple

random sampling was utilized to get the samples from the study. Descriptive analysis

(mean, standard deviation, frequency and percentage) was used on the profile

characteristics, incidence of workplace bullying, effects of bullying on job

performance and the effects of workplace bullying on job performance of

respondents. Measures of correlation (point biserial and rank biserial) and

association (Cramer’s V) was used to understand the significance on the relationship

of the dependent and independent variables.

On the profile characteristics of the employees, findings shows that majority

of the respondents age ranges were between the ages 30 – 39 years old and female

preponderance was observed (147 out of 86) in the workplace, while male

employees comprised 36.3%. The respondents were predominantly in rank-in-file

 42

positions (84.8%), these includes the teachers and administrative staff, utility workers

who reports to a head of office. On the length of service, a predominance was

observed that the employees have 0 to 10 years of work experience, this result was

relatively observed and can related to the age range of the employees which

comprises 39 years old and below (54.1%).

On the incidence of workplace bullying, the study shows that among the 237

employees, only 37 (15.6%) acknowledged that they have encountered bullying

during the year under study. Among the types of workplace bullying, the top three

were “Verbal Abuse” (2.49), “Interference with work performance” (2.43) and “Abuse

of Authority” (2.27), However, the result indicated that the employees only rarely

experienced this type of workplace bullying. The effect of bullying on job

performance among employees both shows negative and positive effect. Among

these were employees occasionally experienced “Absenteeism” (2.81), rarely

experienced “Decline in morale” (2.16), rarely experienced become more resilient

(2.54) and more productive (2.54)

In order to determine the relationship of the profile characteristics with

workplace bullying, findings shows that there was no significant relationship between

the profile characteristics of the employees (age, gender, and position) to workplace

bullying. In addition, the study shows that there is no significant relationship between

workplace bullying and employees job satisfaction, as well as, the relationship

between the workplace bullying to IPCR rating of the respondents.

CONCLUSION

From above summary, the following can be concluded from this study;

1. The low frequency on the incidence of personal experience of workplace bullying

may be possibly attributed to low level of awareness of the respondents toward

workplace bullying, or other factors attributed to it.

 43

2. There is no significant relationship between the profile characteristics (age,

gender, position) of the employees and workplace bullying.

3. There is no significant relationship between workplace bullying and employees’

job satisfaction.

4. There is no significant relationship between workplace bullying and employees’

level of performance in terms of IPCR rating.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The researcher recommends the following:

1. Include in the study the level of awareness of the workplace bullying, and its

corresponding symptoms (physical, mental and emotional) associated to it.

2. Include permanent and non-permanent workers in the study regarding workplace

bullying to broaden the scope of population and higher retrieval of questionnaires.

3. In-depth study on the levels of measurement to gauge frequency of bullying.

4. Paki-ibani or dugangi nala Ate Enoi. Salamat.

 44

REFERENCES

Abe, R. (2012). Bullying engagement and classroom discipline techniques: basis for
developing administrative intervention program. Unpublished Thesis,
Technological University of the Philippines.

Adam, A. (1992). Bullying at work. London: Viago Press.

Belcher, Lynda M. (2016). Age-related Workplace Bullying at

http://smallbusiness.chron.com/agerelated-workplace-bullying-20425.html.

Blando, Judity Lynn F. (2008). Workplace Bullying: Aggressive Behavior and its
Effect on Job Satisfaction and Productivity. Published Dissertation:
University of Phoenix

Cemaloglu, N. (2011). Primary Principals’ Leadership. Journal of Educational

Administration, depressive symptoms in the French working 49(5): 495-512.

DeChurch, L. A; Marks, M. A. (2001). Maximizing the benefits of task conflict: The

role of conflict management. The International Journal of Conflict
Management. 12: 4–22.

Drdakis, N. (2018). School-Age Bullying, W Workplace Bullying and Job Satisfaction:

Experiences of LGB People in Britain.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/manc.12257

Einarsen, Stale, Helge, Hoel, Dieter Zapf, Cary L. Cooper, Bullying and Emotional
Abuse in the Workplace: International , 2002, CRC Press.

Falconer, H. (2004). IRS Managing Conflict in the Workplace. United Kingdom: Reed
Elsevier (UK) Ltd.

Furnham (2005). The psychology of behavior a work: the individual in the

organization. 2nd ed. Sussex: Psychology Press

Himmer, R. (2016). The Effect of Target Demographics and Emotional Intelligence on

Workplace Bullying. Walden University: Doctoral Dissertation

Hoel, H., & Cooper, C. L. (2000). Destructive conflict and bullying at work. Retrieved
from http://sites.google.com/

Hoel, H., M.J. Sheehan, C.L. Cooper and S. Einarsen (2011). Organizational effects
of workplace bullying. In Einarsen, S., Hoel, Bullying and Harassment in
the workplace: H., Zapf, D. and Cooper, C.L. (Eds), Bullying and
Developments in Theory, Research and Practice. Emotional Abuse in the
Workplace: International London: Taylor & Francis, pp: 129-148.
 45

Kabeer, N. (2014). Violence against women as ‘relational’ vulnerability: engendering

the sustainable human development agenda. New York: UNDP HRDO.

Keashly, L. & Jagatic, K. (2003). American Perspectives on Workplace Bullying. In

Yahaya, et.al. (2012)

Kohut. M. (2007). The Complete Guide to Understanding, Controlling, and Stopping

Bullies & Bullying at Work. United States: Atlantic Publishing, Inc.

Kokemuller, Neil (2016). Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace.

http://smallbusiness. chron.com/bullying-harassment-workplace-47763.html

Koval, O. (2014). Bullying among university employees: Prevalence, Correlates, and

Consequences. Published Master’s Thesis. Faculty of Social Sciences,
Norwegian School of Hotel Management.

Lentz, C. (2009). The refractive thinker: an anthology of higher Learning , Volume 1.

The Lentz Leadership Institute LLC.

Leymann, H. (1996). The content and development of mobbing at work. European

Journal of Work. Organizational Psychology, 5: 165-184.

Leymann, H. (1993). Mobbing: Psychoterror am Arbeitsplatz und wie man sich

dagegen wehren kann as cited in Himmer, R. (2016). The Effect of Target
Demographics and Emotional Intelligence on Workplace Bullying. Walden
University: Published Doctoral Dissertation

Martin, D. & Joomis, K. (2007). Building Teachers: A Constructivist Approach to

Introducing Education. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth

McKay, R., Arnold, D.H., Fratzl, J. et al. (2008). Workplace Bullying In Academia: A
Canadian Study. Employ Respons Rights J 20, 77–100 (2008).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-008-9073-3

Montes, Antonio A., Muniz, Noel M., Simo, Marai Jose M., and Padilla, Rafael Angel
A. (2013). Workplace Bullying Among Healthcare Workers. International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health at
www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph

Namie, G., & Namie, R. F. (2011). The bully-free workplace: Stop jerks, weasels, and
snakes from killing your organization. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Namie, G., & Namie, R. (2012). U.S. workplace bullying survey: 2012 survey.
Retrieved
from http://bullyinginstitute.org/

Namie, Gary (2014). 2014 WBI U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey. Workplace Bullying
Institute.

Niedl, K. (1996). Mobbing and well-being: Economic and personal development

development implications. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 5, 239-250.
 46

Nolasco, Liberty I. and Tieng, Deneisha (2016). A New Conceptual Framework of

Workplace Violence Against Women: On Rectifying Mismeasures of Sexual
Harassment using the Philippine Data. A Paper presented at the DLSU
Research Congress 2016 De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines

Oade. A. (2009). Managing Workplace Bullying. New York: Palgrave Macmillan

Oladapo, V., & Banks, L. (2013). Management Bullies: The Effect on Employees.
Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, 4(4), 107-120

Rahim, M. A. (2002). Toward a theory of managing organizational conflict. The

International Journal of Conflict Management. 13: 206–235. 

Rodriguez-Carballeira, A., Almendros, C., Escartin, J., Porrua, C., Martin-Peña, J.,
Javaloyn, F., et al. (2013). Preliminary taxonomy of psychological abuse
strategies: within partner relationships, at the workplace, and in
manipulative groups. International Journal of Cultic Studies, 4, 1-13.

Salin, Denise (2005). “Workplace Bullying among Business Professionals:

Prevalence, Gender Differences and the Role of Organizational Politics”,
Pistes, vol 7, no3.

Shahbazi, G., Naami, A., and Aligholizadeh, S. (2013). An Empirical Study of the
Relationship Between Three Components of Paternalistic Leadership and
Workplace Bullying: The Case of an Iranian Bank. World Applied Science
Journal 22.

Stennett-Brewer, L. (1997). Trauma in the workplace: The book about chronic work
trauma. Decatur, IL: Nepenthe as cited in Himmer (2016). The Effect of
Target Demographics and Emotional Intelligence on Workplace Bullying.
Walden University: Doctoral Dissertation

Thomas, K. W. (1976). Conflict and conflict management. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.),

Handbook in industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand
McNally.

Tolentino, Alma C. (2016). Bullying of Teachers in the Workplace: A

Phenomenological Study. International Journal of Learning and Teaching
Vol. 2, No. 1.

Yahaya, A. et.al. (2012). The impact of workplace bullying on work performance.

Archives Des Sciences Vol. 65, No. 4

Zabrodska, K. & Kveton, P. (2013). Prevalence and forms of workplace bullying

among university employees. Employ Response Rights, 25, 89-108

Zapf, D., Einarsen, S., Hoel, H. and Vartia, M. (2003). Empirical findings on bullying
in the workplace. In: Einarsen S, Hoel H, Zapf D and Cooper C (Eds)
Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International Perspectives
in Research and Practice. London: Taylor & Francis, pp: 103-126.
 47

APPENDIX A

LETTER TO THE ESSU PRESIDENT

March 17, 2021

DR. ANDRES C. PAGATPATAN, JR

University President
Eastern Samar State University
Borongan City, Eastern Samar

Dear Sir,

Greetings!

I am currently enrolled in thesis writing as a final requirement for a Master’s

degree in Management at the Eastern Samar State University – Main Campus. My
research is entitled “Bullying, Job Satisfaction, and Performance of ESSU
Employees.” The study aims to determine the relationship of workplace bullying and
job satisfaction and performance of ESSU main campus employees.

In this regard, I would like to seek your assistance that I be allowed to

administer my questionnaire among faculty members of the different colleges and
external campuses administrative personnel and heads/directors. Rest assured that
all the data elicited from the questionnaires will be held in strict confidentiality and will
be used solely for the purpose of the research work being conducted.

Your most favorable response will help me finish my study at the soonest
possible time. Thank you and more power.

Very respectfully yours,

ELEANOR BALBIN-SABAS
Researcher
Recommending Approval:

Dr. FELIX A. AFABLE

Dean and Thesis Adviser, Graduate School

Approved:

DR. ANDRES C. PAGATPATAN, JR

University President
 48

APPENDIX B

LETTER TO THE RESPONDENTS

March 17, 2021

Dear Sir/Madam,

Greetings!

I am currently enrolled in thesis writing as a final requirement for a Master’s

degree in Management at the Eastern Samar State University – Main Campus. My
research is entitled “Bullying, Job Satisfaction, and Performance of ESSU
Employees.” The study aims to determine the relationship of workplace bullying and
job satisfaction and performance of ESSU main campus employees.

In this regard, you are chosen as one of the respondents. Please feel free to
answer the herein attached questionnaire as honestly as you can. Rest assured that
your responses will strictly be held in utmost confidentiality.

Your favorable response will help me finish my study at the soonest possible
time.

Thank you very much!

Very respectfully yours,

ELEANOR BALBIN-SABAS
Researcher
Recommending Approval:

Dr. FELIX A. AFABLE

Dean and Thesis Adviser, Graduate School
 49

APPENDIX C

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
BULLYING, JOB SATISFACTION, PERFORMANCE OF ESSU EMPLOYEES

Part I. Personal Profile

Direction: Please supply the needed information by indicating on the appropriate

space/s provided or put a check (√) mark on the appropriate space provided for your
answer.

1. Name (Optional):
2. What is your position in the university?___________________________________
3. Age: ________________
4. Gender: [ ] Male [ ] Female
5. Year/s of Service:
[ ] 0-10 years [ ] 11-20 years [ ] 21-30 years [ ] 31-40 years

Part II. Experience on Workplace Bullying

1. At work, have you been repeatedly subjected to ANY of the types of

workplace bullying, which appears in question number 2?
[ ] Yes [ ] No

If your answer is NO, your survey is complete. If YES, please proceed.

2. Which of the following types of workplace bullying have you been subjected
to? Please check whichever is appropriate and describe in your own words
the manner in which it was acted:

[ ] VERBAL ABUSE, e.g. shouting, swearing, name calling (calling you with
different names like kulang, bakla, hubya, waray hibabroan, etc., offending
jokes, malicious sarcasm, threats to safety
______________________________________________________________
__
______________________________________________________________
__
______________________________________________________________
__

[ ] BEHAVIORS/ACTION, e.g. public or private that were threatening,

intimidating, humiliating, hostile, offensive, inappropriately cruel conduct
______________________________________________________________
__
______________________________________________________________
__
______________________________________________________________
__
 50

[ ] INTERFERENCE WITH WORK PERFORMANCE, e.g. sabotage,

discouragement, ensuring failure, overwork, setting impossible deadlines
______________________________________________________________
__
______________________________________________________________
__
______________________________________________________________
__

[ ] ABUSE OF AUTHORITY, e.g. undeserved evaluation, denial of

promotion, stealing credit, tarnished reputation, instruction that is not part of
your function or not in the office policy, unsafe assignments
______________________________________________________________
__
______________________________________________________________
__
______________________________________________________________
__

[ ] DESTRUCTION OF WORKPLACE RELATIONSHIPS, e.g., with

coworkers, higher authority or clients
______________________________________________________________
__
______________________________________________________________
__
______________________________________________________________
__

[ ] ISOLATION, e.g., withholding necessary information, ignoring, excluding,

unreasonable refusal of application for leave, training or promotion
______________________________________________________________
__
______________________________________________________________
__
______________________________________________________________
__

[ ] DESTABILIZATION, e.g., shifting of goals, constant undervaluing of

efforts, persistent attempt to demoralize target, removal of areas of
responsibility without consultation
______________________________________________________________
__
______________________________________________________________
__
______________________________________________________________
__
 51

[ ] THREAT TO PROFESSIONAL STATUS, e.g., persistent attempts to

belittle and undermine work, unjustified criticism and monitoring of target’s
work, persistent attempts to humiliate in front of colleagues, intimidating use
of discipline or competence procedures
______________________________________________________________
__
______________________________________________________________
__
______________________________________________________________
__

[ ] THREAT TO PERSONAL STANDING, e.g., undermining personal

integrity, making inappropriate jokes about target, persistent teasing, physical
violence, violence to property
______________________________________________________________
__
______________________________________________________________
__
______________________________________________________________
__

[ ] THREAT TO PERSONAL SAFETY, e.g., inappropriate touching, jokes

with sexual themes, sexual favor is made as a condition in the granting of
favorable compensation, terms, conditions, promotions, or privileges; or the
refusal to grant the sexual favor results in limiting, segregating or classifying
the employee which in a way would discriminate, deprive or diminish
employment opportunities
______________________________________________________________
__
______________________________________________________________
__
______________________________________________________________
__

[ ] CYBERBULLYING, e.g., bullying done through the use of technology or

any electronic means resulting to harassment, intimidation, or humiliation,
through the use of other forms of technology, such as, but not limited to
texting, email, instant messaging, chatting, internet, social media, online
games, or other platforms or formats
______________________________________________________________
__
______________________________________________________________
__
______________________________________________________________
__
 52

3. Did the bully work ALONE or were there SEVERAL PEOPLE involved in the
mistreatment?
[ ] Solo Bully [ ] Several bullies

If several bullies, please refer ONLY to the principal harasser or instigator for
the following questions:

4. The bully’s sex: [ ] Male [ ] Female

5. What was the bully’s rank relative to you?
[ ] Higher Rank [ ] Same Rank [ ] Lower Rank

Part III. Impact on Job Satisfaction and Performance

1. Was there any impact on your job satisfaction as a result of bullying?

[ ] Yes extremely [ ] Yes moderately [ ] Yes but very
little [ ] None at all
2. What IMPACT ON YOUR JOB SATISFACTION, if any, did you observe?
Check all that apply.
[ ] excessive absenteeism
[ ] work team disruption
[ ] drop in productivity
[ ] decline of morale
[ ] depression and anxiety
[ ] lost work time worrying about the incident or future interactions
[ ] lost work time avoiding the instigator
[ ] changed jobs to avoid the instigator
[ ] become more resilient
[ ] become more productive
[ ] other, please specify
__________________________________________
3. What IMPACT ON THE ORGANIZATION, if any, did you observe? Check all
that apply.
[ ] decline of positive work relations
[ ] excessive absenteeism
[ ] work team disruption
[ ] drop in productivity
[ ] morale decline
[ ] discrimination complaints
[ ] employee sabotage as a result
[ ] damaged employer reputation
[ ] lost work time worrying about the incident or future interactions
[ ] brought cohesion and unity among office workers
[ ] brought more productive work to the organization
[ ] others, please specify
__________________________________________
4. What is the level of job satisfaction did you have as a result of bullying?
[ ] Very High
[ ] High
 53

[ ] Average
[ ] Low
[ ] Very Low
5. Did the incident of bullying somehow affected your productivity in terms of
your Individual Performance Commitment Report (IPCR)?
[ ] Yes extremely [ ] Yes moderately [ ] Yes but very
little [ ] None at all
6. What rating did YOU received in your Individual Performance Commitment
Form (IPCR)?
[ ] Best [ ] Better [ ] Good

Thank you very much for your cooperation!

 54

APPENDIX D

CERTIFICATION FROM THE EDITOR

This is to certify that the undersigned was the editor of this thesis of

ELEANOR BALBIN-SABAS, titled “BULLYING, JOB SATISFACTION, AND

PERFORMANCE OF ESSU EMPLOYEES” was edited by the undersigned.

____________________________
Editor
 55

APPENDIX E

CERTIFICATION FROM THE STATISTICIAN

This is to certify that the undersigned was the statistician of this thesis of

ELEANOR BALBIN-SABAS, titled “BULLYING, JOB SATISFACTION, AND

PERFORMANCE OF ESSU EMPLOYEES”.

JOHANNA C. CASILLANO
Statistician
 56

APPENDIX F

CERTIFICATION FROM THE PROOFREADER

This is to certify that this thesis titled “BULLYING, JOB SATISFACTION,

AND PERFORMANCE OF ESSU EMPLOYEES” by ELEANOR BALBIN-SABAS,

was reviewed by the undersigned.

__________________________
Proof Reader
 57

APPENDIX G

CERTIFICATION FOR ETHICAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

This is to certify that this study “BULLYING, JOB SATISFACTION, AND

PERFORMANCE OF ESSU EMPLOYEES” of the graduate school and with

reference number ___________ has been reviewed and passed the ethical protocols

of the Eastern Samar State University.

Given this __ th day of June 2022 at the Eastern Samar State University.

DELBERT A. DALA
Chairman, Ethical Executive Committee
 58

APPENDIX G

GANTT CHART
(Timetable of the Study)
 59

APPENDIX H

TURNITIN SIMILARITY INDEX