935885

research-article20202020
SGOXXX10.1177/2158244020935885SAGE OpenSaleem et al.

Original Research

SAGE Open

Workplace Violence and Employee

April-June 2020: 1­–15
© The Author(s) 2020
DOI: 10.1177/2158244020935885
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020935885

Engagement: The Mediating Role of journals.sagepub.com/home/sgo

Work Environment and Organizational

Culture

Zohra Saleem1,2 , Zhou Shenbei1,

and Ayaz Muhammad Hanif3

Abstract
Employees working across all domains of professions are exposed to workplace violence (WPV). Few researchers have
investigated the effects of WPV on employee engagement (EE) and the impact of the work environment and organizational
culture on their relationship. The aim of this research is to describe the effect of WPV on EE and clarify the relationship between
WPV, work environment, organizational culture, and EE. A cross-sectional study was performed on the data, collected from
178 alumni of a university, currently employed in caring, customer care, managerial, and technology professions in Pakistan.
Structural equation modeling (SEM), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), analysis of variance (ANOVA), and Tukey post hoc
tests were employed for data analysis. The results showed that 88.7% of respondents had experienced WPV during the last
12 months. Significant differences existed in the work-related harassment and physical violence reported by occupational
groupings. WPV had a significant direct negative effect on EE (β = −.556**), work environment (β = −.440) and organizational
culture (β = −.758**). Furthermore, the work environment (β = −.123**) and organizational culture (β = −.157**) have a
significant negative effect on EE, and both mediated the relationship between WPV and EE. The results show that employees
working in caring and customer care are exposed to considerable risk of WPV. The findings underscore that a supportive
work environment and positive organizational culture play a mediating role between WPV and EE among employees.

Keywords
workplace violence, employee engagement, work environment, organizational culture

Introduction and emotionally with their role performance. Furthermore, he

Workplace violence (WPV) has been a critical problem for
organizations across the globe (Johnson et al., 2018;
Spector et al., 2014; Stutzenberger & Fisher, 2014).
Researchers have reported WPV as one of the significant
reasons for employee dissatisfaction and reduction in
employee performance (Chao et al., 2015). Managing the
devastating impact of WPV on employee well-being,
coworker relationship, and organization’s overall effective-
ness has been a challenge for organizations. Moreover, fail-
ure in doing so causes insecurity in employees, which leads
to employee’s disengagement at work. Employee engage-
ment (EE) is “the amount of discretionary effort exhibited
by employees in their jobs” (Frank et al., 2004, p. 16). It is
described based on the nature of the relationship between
an organization and its employees (Groenewold et al.,
2018; N. Li, Zhang, et al., 2019).
According to Kahn (1990), personal engagement means
that employees strive to link themselves with their work roles,
that is, to engage or harness oneself physically, cognitively,
argued that workers operating in a psychologically meaning-
ful and physiologically safe environment are more engaged
and psychologically available, hence establishing a relation-
ship between the physiological and psychological effects of
WPV and level of EE. In applying the construct of WPV to
the EE domain, we propose that a supportive work environ-
ment and organizational culture reduce violence at the work-
place and enhance the level of EE.
Supportive work environment provides transparent and
open communication, work–life balance, training and devel-
opment, recognition for hard work and strong team spirit to
its employees. However, an essential aspect of the work
1
Hohai University, Nanjing, China
2
COMSATS University Islamabad, Abbottabad Campus, Pakistan
3
Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China
Corresponding Author:
Zhou Shenbei, Business School, Hohai University, Nanjing 211100, China.
Email: zsb@hhu.edu.cn

Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of
the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages
(https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
2 SAGE Open
environment is the amount of care and support employees
perceive to be provided by their organization as well as by
their supervisor (May et al., 2004). Supportive management
creates an environment of trust and safety, which encourages
employees to prove their work potential without the fear of
failure, hence enhancing EE toward the job.
Organization culture refers to the beliefs and principles
followed in an organization. The culture followed by the
organization has a profound impact on the employees and
their relationship among themselves. Edgar Schein described
organization culture at three levels: artifacts (offices, décor,
furnishings, dress, etc.), espoused values (company slogans,
mission statements), and basic underlying assumptions
(which are unseen and not consciously identified in everyday
interactions between organizational members; Schein, 2010).
WPV researchers have given little consideration to the
relationship between the multiple contexts within which
violence and its consequences are linked with the level of
job engagement and organizational engagement. Similarly,
even though studies of EE acknowledge multiple aspects
of cognitive (May et al., 2004; Rothbard, 2001), emotional
(Men & Yue, 2019), and behavioral (Jurek & Besta, 2019)
components that are associated with individual role perfor-
mance and work environment (Olugbade & Karatepe,
2019), these accounts overlook the violence component.
However, research linking WPV with EE remains limited,
and moreover, the theoretical perspectives need to be
explored yet.
WPV is a chronic concern for organizations, which is
known to have long-term effects on employee’s psychologi-
cal health (Rasool et al., 2020). Jung and Yoon (2019) argued
that EE enhances employee commitment, job performance,
and organizational performance. The literature presents that
behaviors classified as supportive and encouraging provide a
foundation to build a productive organizational culture. This
study focuses on the aspects of WPV that exist in general and
specifically focus on how work environment and organiza-
tional culture can lead to enhance EE. Furthermore, a major-
ity of WPV literature contributes to studies conducted in the
health care industry (Y.-L. Li et al., 2020; Murray et al.,
2020). This study aims to evaluate and compare the preva-
lence of WPV against professionals working in occupational
groupings, including health care.
In this article, we intend to address the gap in both WPV
and EE research: (a) Conceptually, explore and analyze the
adverse impact of WPV on EE; (b) measure the differences
existing in WPV based on occupational groupings; (c) pro-
pose a work environment and organizational culture as key
mediators that can significantly enhance the probability of
identifying their positive impact on EE.
Based on this discussion, the research questions proposed
for this research are as follows:
Research Question 1: Does WPV affect EE, and to what
extent based on occupational differences?
Research Question 2: What is the relationship between
WPV and work environment as well as WPV and organi-
zational culture and their mediating effect on EE?
WPV and EE
Numerous researchers have reported aggression, violence,
and hostility as a true anomaly in the occupational environ-
ment (Park et al., 2015; Roldán et al., 2013; Spector et al.,
2014). Today’s fast-paced growth, hyperstressful environ-
ment, personal problems, and lack of compassion for others
are the reasons for frequent occurrences of rage, aggression,
and violence at the workplace. The workplace environment
is plagued with stress, discriminatory interpersonal interac-
tion, and mistreatment that ultimately, when reach the boil-
ing point, cause severe damage to employee morale and
ethics (Wressell et al., 2018). Furthermore, these adverse
emotional behaviors damage the aspects of organizational
well-being, resulting in exhaustion, inefficacy, and disen-
gagement of employees.
WPV
Violence is widely misinterpreted as physical assault, causing
injury or physical damage (Wressell et al., 2018). WPV is a
problem at a considerable broader domain. Any act (physical
or verbal) in which a person is abused, threatened, assaulted,
or intimidated at his or her workplace by another person,
comes under the domain of violence at the workplace
(Kamchuchat et al., 2008). WPV is also known as occupa-
tional violence, which refers to violence, in the form of verbal
(abuse such as shouting at or showing disrespect) or physical
abuse or threat (hitting, beating, biting, throwing things, stran-
gling, pushing, kicking, dragging), which can lead to health
and safety risk of an employee and sexual harassment (attempt
or force to sexual favor, to threaten or blackmail into having
sex, offering money, gifts, or privileges in exchange for sexual
favors; Arnetz et al., 2018; Fute et al., 2015)
Employees are exposed to violence while performing
their duties, which has an adverse effect on their perfor-
mance, mainly due to stressful conditions that lead to doing
mistakes, high absenteeism, reduction in job satisfaction,
and, in extreme cases, quitting job (Fute et al., 2015; Wressell
et al., 2018). Moreover, a review of the literature has pro-
vided evidence showing cause of WPV is stress, and the pri-
mary source of stress is mistreatment, harassment, or assault
of an employee by his or her coworkers or customers, mainly
resulting from gender disparities (Kulkarni et al., 2018).
Sexual violence comes under the category of sexual harass-
ment, which is underreported, and the targets are usually
women. Employees on temporary contracts are highly
exposed to such forms of violence as compared with full-
time workers. Furthermore, discriminatory harassment based
on gender, ethnicity, race, and even disabilities has received
less attention in the literature (Lippel, 2018).
Saleem et al. 3
EE
EE has been broadly explained as the physical, cognitive,
and emotional connection between the employee and the
organization (Bedarkar & Pandita, 2014). Furthermore, it is
described as the degree of alignment of employee’s personal
goals with the vision of the organization in which they are
employed (Andrew & Sofian, 2012; Bakker & Albrecht,
2018). The concept of an engaged employee is related to his
or her emotional connection with the organization, which
determines the extent to which he or she is personally
involved in meeting the organization’s objectives and its suc-
cess. To work that extra mile (effort) for the success of the
business, an employee needs to own it as his or her personal
success (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004).
An engaged employee has a progressive attitude toward the
organization, its reputation and values. Organizations strive to
inculcate an environment that encourages high engagement
level for employees, where they are fully absorbed by their
work and enthusiastic about outperforming others (Kaliannan
& Adjovu, 2015; Saks, 2006). Moreover, to engage employ-
ees, organizations must have well-defined roles, and these
must be communicated to them. Defining employee roles
requires the linking of the organization’s mission with each
employee’s daily activities. It would also help employees to
avoid burnout and disengagement, which results in positive
emotions and ethical behavior at the workplace.
Numerous researches conducted in the 90s provide ample
evidence of the relationship between EE, customer loyalty,
and profitability (Bedarkar & Pandita, 2014; Kaliannan &
Adjovu, 2015). According to Bakker and Albrecht (2018), the
key characteristics of engaged employees are self-motivated
and self-guided, creative and entrepreneurial, proactive with
well-defined roles, and who contribute to organizational
development as well as invest in personal development, active
team membership, and emotional stability.
Saks (2006) categorized EE into two types: “Job
Engagement” is the degree of employee’s commitment and
dedication toward his or her job role and “Organizational
Engagement” is the degree of employee commitment and loy-
alty toward their organization. The literature supports that the
impact of WPV on individual’s involvement, job satisfaction,
as well as enthusiasm for work is negative, which adversely
affects EE and organizational engagement (Arnetz et al.,
2018). Therefore, it can be inculcated that WPV is a signifi-
cant construct of EE. Thus, it can be hypothesized as follows:
Hypothesis 1: WPV is negatively related to EE.
Occupational Differences in WPV
Based on the occupational perspective, the occupational
grouping is relevant to the job performed by the employees.
These occupational groups are formed based on the emo-
tional control required while interacting with the public.
According to Brotheridge and Grandey (2002), labor is clas-
sified into types of occupational groupings:
•• Caring professions (health care, teaching, social
work): Workers employed in this category report sig-
nificantly higher level of customer interaction, and
display sympathy and concern.
•• Customer service professions (retail associates, sales-
people, hairstylist) usually require to display positive
and friendly emotions with customers.
•• Managerial professions (bankers, company execu-
tives) display authority and dominance in the
workplace.
•• Technology professions (IT jobs, designer, freelancer)
usually have the least interaction with other people
and perform duty in isolation.
It has been commonly assumed that there is something
unique about “caring” and “customer service” professions
that make their occupants more likely to experience highest
level of verbal or physical assaults in the workplace and are
vulnerable to violence at workplace done by customers,
patients, students, their relatives, and colleagues (Ahmad
et al., 2015; Arnetz et al., 2018; Fute et al., 2015; Wressell
et al., 2018). Whereas, managerial and technology profes-
sions are relatively less exposed to violence from outside
organizations. Cases of violence are reported by low-level
staff (frontline managers) against senior executives for the
misuse of their authority. Therefore, based on this proposi-
tion, it can be hypothesized that there is a difference in the
extent to which WPV happens in different occupational
groups.
Hypothesis 2: Employees in “caring and customer ser-
vice professions” experience more WPV than do employ-
ees in other occupational groups.
Work Environment and Organizational
Culture
According to Kaliannan and Adjovu (2015), work environ-
ment and organizational culture are effective EE strategies
that positively affect organizational success. The work envi-
ronment is symbolically considered as employees’ second
home because it encompasses a dominant position in employ-
ees’ work–life balance. Their study also indicates that orga-
nizations’ prevailing culture determines the type of labor
force attracted toward the company and their turnover rate.
Work Environment as a Mediator of WPV
Organizations strive to harness the physical, emotional, and
cognitive well-being of employees, so that employees perform
their work roles with commitment and efficiency (Kahn,
1990). Due to the presence of WPV and the disturbance caused
4 SAGE Open
by it in work ethics, the level of emotional and intellectual
commitment of employees toward the organization reduces.
Furthermore, a supportive environment is characterized by
openness and justice, allowing employees to experiment with
new ideas without the fear of consequences. When employees
are provided with a healthy work environment, they feel moti-
vated and committed toward their job, feel good about going
to work, and this positivity prevails along the day (Rhoades &
Eisenberger, 2002). Furthermore, supportive supervisor rela-
tions were found to be positively related to psychological and
physiological safety (May et al., 2004), which we propose to
be a healthy sign toward preventing WPV.
Studies have reported numerous consequences of WPV
that have a tremendous impact on the lives of employees as
well as on their productivity and customer care quality (Ahmad
et al., 2015; N. Li, Zhang, et al., 2019). Most of the conse-
quences directly affect the physical and psychological health
of an employee, however, it is correlated with work dissatis-
faction; decreased performance, productivity, and efficiency;
and increased employee turnover. WPV causes an interruption
in the functioning of an effective work environment (Johnson
et al., 2018). Therefore, based on the proposition, the next
hypothesis to test understudy is proposed as follows:
Hypothesis 3: WPV is negatively related to supportive
work environment.
Moreover, the supportive work environment is a key indica-
tor of organizational support for professional employees
(Allen & Shanock, 2013). Employees yearn for a better work
environment, which creates a conducive setting under the
support provided by leadership for employee retention
(Johnson et al., 2018). To foster a talented workforce and
sustain viable growth and performance, it is significant for
organizations to maintain a learning and working climate.
Researchers have found a positive association between sup-
portive work environment and employee outcomes such as
job satisfaction, commitment, and EE (Kundu & Lata, 2017).
Kaliannan and Adjovu (2015) referred to the work envi-
ronment as the “second home of employees” because it
serves as a hub for every worker. Authors have termed work
environment as an “umbrella” for the employees as well as
customers, which provides a “consistent culture of quality,
safety and value.” Furthermore, the work environment
defines employee–supervisor relationship a significantly
important indicator of EE. Supportive employee–supervisor
relationship yields cohesive bonding under which employees
experience satisfaction and functional stability (Evans,
1970). We therefore predict the following:
Hypothesis 4: Supportive work environment is positively
related to EE.
Laschinger and Grau (2012) found that supportive supervi-
sor and coworker relationships are essential indicators of job
satisfaction, work stress, turnover intentions, and burnout of
employees. Furthermore, in their research, they found that
WPV (bullying) and incivility have adverse outcomes such
as enhanced emotional exhaustion and reduced organiza-
tional commitment. Studies show that work–life fit and vio-
lence are interlinked with each other (Laschinger & Grau,
2012; Smith et al., 2010).
Similarly, research had proved that employees feel toxic-
ity among peer or coworker relationship, due to the poor
work environment (Sprigg et al., 2018). When the work envi-
ronment is not supportive, employees face occupational
stress, which leads to negative consequences such as low
work engagement, absenteeism, and work destruction
(Rasool et al., 2020). WPV is the result of conflict among
employees, which lessens work performance. Supportive
work environment helps employees engage in the positive
exchange of behaviors, hence reducing violence at the work-
place and improving work environment (Reio & Sanders-
Reio, 2011). Based on this outset, this study predicted that
there could be the mediating effect of supportive work envi-
ronment on the relationship between WPV and EE, and the
proposed hypothesis is as follows:
Hypothesis 5: Supportive work environment mediated
the relationship between WPV and EE.
Organizational Culture as a Mediator of WPV
Organizational culture is one of the significant indicators of
employee turnover than job satisfaction (Sheridan, 1992).
Moreover, a strong organizational culture is developed by
identifying and strategically incorporating employees’ orga-
nizational needs within the cultural norms (Kundu & Lata,
2017). Literature states that engaged employees are the stra-
tegic asset of an organization, who need to be retained
through organizational engagement. It emphasizes perfor-
mance-based rewards and provides them with the opportu-
nity to develop, grow, and perform at their full potential.
According to Parent and Lovelace (2018), positive organiza-
tion culture reduces aggressive behavior, violence, and mood
swings in employees, hence helping organizations to attract
and retain high-quality, valuable employees.
The incidence of violence at the workplace is seldom for-
mally reported, and that is because of the phenomenon called
“normalization” of the workplace. It creates a professional
viewpoint that WPV is a part of the job, which needs to be
tolerated and dealt with expert advisability. Furthermore,
employees do not report because there is no culture to report
such incidents, and doing so may even make the position of
the employee more vulnerable and untenable (Beattie et al.,
2018; Wressell et al., 2018). Majority of the violence cases
are not reported due to lack of administrative support, cul-
tural barrier, lack of evidence (as in case of verbal abuse),
and most importantly, the risk of losing the job. Furthermore,
reporting such incidence is considered to have an adverse
Saleem et al. 5
Figure 1.  Hypothetical model.
effect on customer service; therefore, no significant preven-
tive actions are practiced in organizations. Hence, it can be
stated that WPV negatively affects the relationship between
employees and organization and deteriorates organizations’
culture. Thus, the following can be hypothesized:
Hypothesis 6: WPV is negatively related to effective
organizational culture.
Review of literature shows that organizational culture along
with effective leadership, is a prerequisite for organiza-
tional performance (Ogbonna & Harris, 2000). Zhang and
Zheng (2009) stated in their research that culture influences
attitude. Today, organizations need to develop an inclusive
and supportive workplace culture, to enhance the interplay
between reporting of an incident and the organization’s
response to report. It has become imperative that when a
healthy employee–supervisor relationship is infused into
the culture of the organization, it leads to employee well-
being and psychological health. Furthermore, Jill et al.
(2003) stated that organizational culture has a significant
impact on an organization, and its employees’ behavior and
motivation, which ultimately affects its financial
performance.
Furthermore, employees who receive organizational sup-
port from leadership and coemployees reciprocate with a
higher level of EE. Adequate training and development of
skills, social and physical security at workplace, and provi-
sion of resources would be repaid in terms of positive behav-
ior, attitude, and higher engagement in the job role and
organizational role by employees (Albrecht et al., 2015).
Therefore, it can be concluded that fostering a culture of
friendship and personal relationships at the workplace must
be a significant part of a strategic human resources (HR)
management component in an organization.
Hypothesis 7: Effective organizational culture is posi-
tively related to EE.
Jill et al. (2003, p. 5) stated that “an organization that is peo-
ple-oriented, values and respects its people and treats them
fairly and with tolerance, will engender reciprocal responses
of commitment, satisfaction and propensity to remain with
the organization.” Furthermore, such reciprocity leads to
organizationally desired behaviors in employees, such as
work engagement and loyalty. Hence, an organizational cul-
ture that emphasizes justice will engender positive responses
within employees, encourage a friendly environment, and
reduce violence at the workplace.
Building a personal relationship with employees will help
inculcate emotional bonds, which is the key to creating an
engaged workforce. Organizations need to facilitate employ-
ees so that employees can establish social interaction based
on equality, avoiding biases, respect each other (Sheridan,
1992), and other reasons for violence at the workplace.
Indeed, it can be proposed that effective organizational cul-
ture sets guidelines and follows procedure designed to pro-
vide justice and equity to its employees, hence preventing
violence at the workplace and enhancing EE (Pilch & Turska,
2015).
Hypothesis 8: Effective organizational culture mediates
the relationship between WPV and EE.
Based on the discussion and the evidence provided by litera-
ture, a framework is proposed (Figure 1) depicting the
hypothesized relationships among variables.
Method
The standard research methodology was adopted for the data
collection and estimation of research findings. To test the
proposed hypotheses, a quantitative method was used to
obtain the data. A survey questionnaire was developed, and
selective sampling technique was used to select respondents
employed in occupational groupings mentioned earlier.
Descriptive statistics and structural equation modeling
(SEM) were used to estimate the relationships.
Research Design
A cross-sectional study is conducted, using a questionnaire
for the data collection on WPV, work environment, organiza-
tional culture, and EE.
6 SAGE Open
Sample
The respondents were graduates of COMSATS University
Islamabad, contacted through the alumni center. The inclu-
sion criteria were as follows: (a) had work experience of
more than 3 years in any sector and (b) provide consent to
participate. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (a) had
never been employed in any organization, (b) are currently
unemployed, (c) is on leave (sick, maternity, or annual) or
studying (local or abroad) during the research investigation.
A sample of 280 full-time Pakistani employees who were
potentially eligible were contacted for this study. Of 280, 225
volunteered to participate in the survey, which was con-
ducted in their respective workplace. Thirty-six respondents
stated that they were currently unemployed or on leave, thus
their responses were excluded from analyses. Eleven surveys
were discarded due to missing data; therefore, the final sam-
ple was of 178 respondents. The effective response rate was
63.6%.
Measures
Sociodemographic Characteristics of the
Respondents
This section includes demographic and professional infor-
mation of respondents such as age, gender, marital status,
educational status, years of work experience, and training
received to dealing with violence.
WPV
Workplace Violence Scale (WVS) was adapted and modified
from the research conducted by Alyaemni and Alhudaithi
(2016) in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and Workplace Harassment
Questionnaire comprises 21 items (α = .93) by Lee et al.
(2016) for Korean finance and service workers.
Frequency of WPV. This was measured using seven items
regarding the frequency of violence, type of violence, time and
source of violence, place, and reaction to violence.
Consequences of violent incidents.  This section contains nine
items, eight closed questions and one open-ended question.
These questions addressed the consequences of violent inci-
dents, reasons for not reporting, cause of violence, and satis-
faction with incident handling.
WPV.  This was assessed using nine items. The questionnaire
included a 5-point Likert-type scale with measures ranging
from 1 (never) to 5 (almost every day). The item included for
“work-related harassment” was “I was humiliated or yelled
at in front of others”; for “Defamation of character,” it was “I
was insulted with demeaning expressions regarding my
appearance or behavioral characteristics”; and for “Physical
violence,” it was “I experience physical violence or threats
(including threats imposed by throwing things).” In this
study, Cronbach’s alpha was .739, average variance extracted
(AVE) was .65, and composite reliability (CR) was .93, and
the factor loadings of the nine items were higher than 0.73,
indicating a greater level of both convergent validity and
internal reliability for the scale.
EE
Employee Engagement Scale (EES) was adapted from the study
conducted by Saks (2006) on antecedents and consequences of
EE based on social exchange theory. Job Engagement Scale
comprises six items (α = .82) and Organization Engagement
Scale comprises five items (α = .90). EES used for this study
was modified and adopted eight items, which are based on a
5-point Likert-type scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to
(5) strongly agree. There are four items each for job engage-
ment “I really ‘throw’ myself into my job” and organization
engagement “Being a member of this organization make me
come ‘alive.’” In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha was .829,
AVE was .57, and CR was .91, and the factor loadings of the
eight items were higher than 0.68, indicating a greater level of
both convergent validity and internal reliability for the scale.
Work Environment and Organizational Culture
Work Environment Scale (WES) was adopted (Saks, 2006)
and modified from the eight-item scale (α = .89) of per-
ceived organizational support (POS). WES comprises of
seven items that are based on a 5-point Likert-type scale
ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree.
Sample items are “My organization shows concern for me”
and “Help is available from my organization when I have a
problem.” In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha for WES was
.946, AVE was .73, and CR was .95, and the factor loadings
of the seven items were higher than 0.77.
Organizational Culture Scale (OCS) was measured by the
eight-item scales (α = .75) of organizational citizenship
behavior directed to the individual (OCBI) and organiza-
tional citizenship behavior directed to the organization
(OCBO; Saks, 2006). OCS also comprises of seven items,
which are based on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from
(1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree. Sample items are
“Give up time to help others who have work or non-work
problems” and “Take action to protect the organization from
potential problems.” In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha for
OCS was .839, AVE was .52, and CR was .88, and the factor
loadings of the seven items were higher than 0.53, indicating
a greater level of both convergent validity and internal reli-
ability for both the scales.
Data Collection Procedure
The purpose of the research and the assurance of confidentially
were communicated to the selected respondents. After receiv-
ing the written consent of participation from respondents, the
Saleem et al. 7

Table 1.  Demographic Characteristics of Respondents (n = 178). Frequency and Consequences of WPV
Variable n % M SD Range Among 178 respondents, the incident of violence was
reported to occur during the day shift (91.1%); moreover, the
Age 31.2 5.6 25–38
perpetrator of violence identified was a staff member in 54
Gender
cases (30.3%) and manager/supervisor in 46 cases (29.9%).
 Male 58.7  
Incidents of violence were reported to occur in office
 Female 41.3  
Marital status
(56.2%). Forty-six respondents (25.8%) took no action
 Married 54.3   against it, 34 (19.1%) told the person to stop, and 27 (15.2%)
 Unmarried 45.7   reported it to a senior staff member. Majority (128 cases)
Educational level respondents did not report the incident, and the reasons men-
  Master’s degree 166 93.2   tioned for not reporting were “it was not important” (51.6%)
  PhD degree 12 6.8   and “afraid of negative consequences” (24.1%). Detailed
Occupational group results are presented in Table 2.
 Caring 75 42.1   In all, 61.8% of respondents stated that the case was
  Customer service 15 8.4   investigated, although 23.1% of cases were never investi-
 Managerial 51 28.7   gated, or status is unknown (15.1%). The most common
 Technology 37 20.8   cause was a misunderstanding (30.3%) and communica-
Years of experience 6.5 2.5 1–10 tion/language barrier (23.6%). In most of the cases, the
management/employee (46.6%) and head of department
(30.3%) were responsible for investigating the incident. A
questionnaire (along with instructions) was emailed to them. majority (69.2%) of the respondents believe that verbal
The instructions comprised explanation and clarification to warning was issued, and 23.1% stated that nothing hap-
ensure consistency and remove the difficulty in the interpreta- pened to their abusers. Majority of respondents (61.5%)
tion of terms. All the questionnaires were filled out indepen- stated that after the violent incident, they had the opportu-
dently by volunteered respondents working in their respective nity to speak about or report it, and 30.8% received coun-
organization and collected via Google Forms. seling services from the management. Overall, the
respondents ranked moderate satisfaction (38.5%), very
satisfied (30.6%), and satisfied (15.4) with the ways the
Statistical Analysis
management handled the incident, whereas 15.4% ranked
The responses were collected and checked for complete- dissatisfaction.
ness (missing values). The data from MS Excel was
exported to SPSS version 25.0 for data analysis. The demo-
graphic characteristics of the respondents, frequency and CFA
consequences of WPV, EE, work environment, and organi- Three additional models were tested along with the four-
zational culture were presented using descriptive statistics. factor model (baseline model) for comparison (Table 3).
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in analysis of moment The four-factor model (Model A) was compared with the
(AMOS) was used to check model fit, validity, and reliabil- three-factor model (Model B), two-factor model (Model C),
ity. Correlation analysis was used for explaining the and one-factor model (Model D). Model B combined work
strength and direction of the relationship between major environment and organizational culture based on the con-
study variables. WPV among different occupational groups cept that both constructs represent “positive and supportive
was tested using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) environment.” Model C combined EE along with work
and Tukey post hoc comparison. SEM with AMOS 26.0 environment and organizational culture based on the con-
was used to test the hypotheses. cept that all the constructs represent the “employee engage-
ment strategies.” Model D had all the items combined into
Results a single “managing workplace violence” factor. The results
of CFA show that the four-factor model (WPV, EE, work
Demographic Characteristics of Respondents environment, and organizational culture) had a reasonably
Respondents’ demographic characteristics are presented in adequate fit to the data, χ2 = 491.7, goodness of fit index
Table 1. The majority of respondents were male (59%). The (GFI) = 0.912, standardized root mean square residual
average age was 31.2 ± 5.6 years and the mean years of (SRMR) = 0.054, comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.957,
work experience in their respective occupation were 6.5 root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) =
years. All respondents held a master’s degree (93.2%) and 0.044. The results of CFA show that the model fits well and
above. satisfies the basic requirements.
8 SAGE Open

Table 2.  Frequency and Consequences of WPV.

Frequency and pattern of WPV n % Consequences of WPV n %

Working shift Any investigation done
 Day 162 91.1  Yes 110 61.8
 Evening 16 8.9  No 41 23.1
Perpetrator   Do not remember 27 15.1
 Subordinate 31 17.4 Cause of violence
  Staff member 54 30.3   Lack of training 41 23.1
  Relative of staff member 19 10.7   Communication or language barriers 42 23.6
  Manager or supervisor 46 25.9   Fault of oneself 27 15.2
  External colleague 28 15.7   Personal problem of coworker 14 7.8
Place  Misunderstanding 54 30.3
 Office 100 56.2 Investigated by whom
  Meeting room 27 15.2  Management/employer 83 46.6
  Recreational room 9 5.0   Head of department 54 30.3
  Boss’s office 19 10.6   Police/security office 14 7.8
 Other 23 13.0   It was not investigated 27 15.3
Initial reaction Consequences for the attacker
  Took no action 46 25.8  None 41 23.1
  Tried to pretend it never happened 27 15.1   Verbal warning issued 123 69.2
  Told the person to stop 34 19.1   He was fired 14 7.7
  Tried to defend self physically 11 6.2 Type of support provided by management
  Told friends/family 8 4.5  Counseling 54 30.8
  Sought counseling 11 6.2   Opportunity to speak about or report it 110 61.5
  Told a colleague 9 5.1   Other support 14 7.7
  Reported it to a senior staff member 27 15.2  
  Completed incident or accident form 5 2.8  
Reported incidence  
 Yes 50 28.0  
 No 128 72.0  
Reason for not reporting the incident  
  It was not important 92 51.6  
  Felt ashamed 5 3.0  
  Afraid of negative consequences 43 24.1  
  Useless (nothing would be done) 33 18.3  
  Did not know who to report to 5 3.0  

Note. WPV = workplace violence.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations of Major
Study Variables
The mean, standard deviation, and correlations of major
study variables among respondents are presented in Table
4. All the variables are significantly correlated with each
other. WPV shows negative correlation with work environ-
ment (r = −.413, p < .001), organizational culture (r =
−.753, p < .001), and EE (r = −.804, p < .001), hence
proving negative association between them. Furthermore,
work environment (r = .581, p < .001) and organizational
culture (r = .709, p < .001) show positive relationship
with EE. Moreover, work environment and organizational
culture (r = .371, p < .001) show a positive correlation
with each other.
WPV Among Different Occupational Groups
The results show that out of the 178 respondents, 158 (88.7%)
had experienced WPV during the last 12 months. The occur-
rence of verbal attack, physical violence, and sexual harass-
ment was 87.9%, 25.5%, and 4.9%, respectively. The results
show that the verbal attack was the most common type of vio-
lence happening in the workplace in every occupational group.
Based on the categories of occupational groups, Table 5 shows
the frequency of violence experienced in the last 12 months:
zero = none, low frequency = once, moderate frequency = 2
to 3 times, and high frequency = >3 times.
Test of Hypothesis: ANOVA and Tukey Test
Hypothesis 2 was tested using one-way ANOVA and Tukey
post hoc comparison. The results are presented in Table 6.
Saleem et al. 9

Table 3.  Comparison of Measurement Models.

Model χ2 df GFI SRMR CFI RMSEA

A. Four factors (baseline model) 491.7*** 428 0.912 0.054 0.957 0.044
B. Three factors (work environment and organizational 920.0*** 430 0.865 0.165 0.861 0.081
culture combined into one factor)
C. Two factors (work environment, organizational culture, 1,228.5*** 432 0.770 0.155 0.810 0.162
and employee engagement combined into one factor)
D. One factor 1,744.6*** 433 0.740 0.160 0.733 0.174

Note. N = 178. GFI = goodness of fit index; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square
error of approximation.
***p < .001.

Table 4.  Mean, Standard Deviation, and Correlations of Major Study Variables (n = 178).

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4
1. Workplace violence 2.34 1.14 1.000  
2. Work environment 3.38 1.19 −.413** 1.000  
3. Organizational culture 3.26 1.22 −.753** .371** 1.000  
4. Employee engagement 3.17 1.15 −.804** .581** .709** 1.000

**Correlation is significant at the .01 level (two tailed).

Table 5.  Prevalence of Workplace Violence in Occupational Groups (n = 178).

Verbal attack Physical violence Sexual harassment

Occupational
group Frequency n % n % n %
Caring 0 56 31.4 103 57.9 123 69.1
1 30 16.9 35 19.7 32 18.0
2–3 89 50 34 19.1 23 12.9
>3 3 1.7 6 3.3 0 0
Customer 0 143 80.3 156 87.7 172 96.7
service 1 25 14.0 12 6.7 5 2.8
2–3 7 4.0 10 5.6 1 0.5
>3 3 1.7 0 0 0 0
Managerial 0 151 84.8 169 95 175 98.3
1 14 7.8 5 2.8 3 1.7
2–3 7 4.0 3 1.7 0 0
>3 6 3.4 1 0.5 0 0
Technology 0 166 93.3 172 96.7 178 100
1 10 5.6 6 3.3 0 0
2–3 2 1.1 0 0 0 0
>3 0 0 0 0 0 0

The bold values shows the highest percentage of frequency of violence experience.

Consistent with previous WPV studies (Courtney, 2019),
the current study shows that the highest mean value (3.329)
was for the caring profession, which differs significantly from
customer service, but not from the other occupations. The
mean levels for customer service (2.533) was comparatively
higher than the other two occupations. Furthermore, the mean
level of defamation of character was significantly highest
(1.938) for the caring profession and at a significantly lowest
level (1.467) for customer service than managerial and tech-
nology professions. The third WPV dimension, presenting
physical violence, represents the highest mean (4.542) for car-
ing profession workers, significantly higher than managerial
employees. The results are graphically depicted in Figure 2,
which shows that technology profession workers experience
the least kind of violence at the workplace, whereas manage-
rial professions are exposed to a moderate level of defamation
of character as violence at the workplace. Overall, the data
partially support the hypothesis (Hypothesis 2) that employees
in “caring and customer service professions” experience more
WPV than do employees in other occupational groups.
10 SAGE Open
Table 6.  One-Way ANOVA and Tukey Post Hoc Comparison (n = 178).
Variable Caring (n = 75) Customer service (n = 15)
Work-related harassment 3.329a
Defamation of character 1.938b
Physical violence 4.542c
Note. Cells with matching superscripts have significantly different (p < .05) mean value. ANOVA = analysis of variance.
Figure 2.  Workplace violence among different occupational groups.
Test of the Hypothesized Model
The result showed good model fit (Figure 3; χ2 < 1.762, p =
.184, df = 1, GFI = 0.995, adjusted goodness of fit index
[AGFI] = 0.951, incremental fit index [IFI] = 0.998,
RMSEA = 0.066, normed fit index [NFI] = 0.996, root
mean square residual [RMR] = 0.028).
Effect Estimates
Based on the final model, the SEM analyses confirmed all
the proposed hypotheses. WPV had a significant negative
direct effect on EE (β = −.556, p < .001) and the model
explained 73.6% of the variances of EE. Hence, Hypothesis
1 was accepted.
WPV had a significant negative direct effect on work
environment (β = −.440, p < .001). Whereas, work environ-
ment positively (weak) predicted EE (β = .279, p < .001).
Moreover, the standardized indirect effect (i.e., mediated by
work environment) of WPV on EE showed a weak negative
effect (β = −.123, p < .001) and the model explained 17.1%
of the variances. Based on these results, Hypotheses 3, 4, and
5 were also accepted.
Managerial (n = 51) Technology (n = 37)
2.533a 1.693 1.892
1.467b 1.837 1.676
3.6 1.366c 0.477
Moreover, WPV had a significant and strong negative
direct effect on organizational culture (β = −.758, p < .001).
Whereas, organizational culture positively predicted EE (β
= .207, p < .05). Moreover, the standardized indirect effect
(i.e., mediated by organizational culture) of WPV on EE
showed a weak negative effect (β = −.157, p < .05) and the
model explained 56.7% of the variances. Based on these
results, Hypotheses 6, 7, and 8 were also accepted. Effect
estimates of the hypothesized model (standardized coeffi-
cients) are summarized in Table 7.
Discussion
This article contributes by linking a supportive work envi-
ronment and positive organizational culture to WPV and EE.
To date, no model exists linking these four indicators.
WPV in “Caring” and “Customer Care”
Professions
“Human service” workers are reported to experience a sig-
nificantly higher level of WPV throughout the globe
(Gerberich et al., 2004; Hamdan, 2015; Kamchuchat et al.,
Saleem et al. 11

Figure 3.  Final model (work environment and organizational culture play mediating role between workplace violence and employee
engagement).

Table 7.  The Results of Hypotheses Test.

Structural paths Direct effects Indirect effects Total effects R2 Result Comments
WPV → EE −0.556** −0.280** −0.836** .736 Supported Hypothesis 1 Accepted
WPV → WE −0.440** — −0.440** .171 Supported Hypothesis 3 Accepted
WE → EE 0.279** — 0.279** Supported Hypothesis 4 Accepted
WPV → WE → EE — −0.123** — Supported Hypothesis 5 Partial mediation
WPV → OC −0.758** — −0.758** .567 Supported Hypothesis 6 Accepted
OC → EE 0.207* — 0.207* Supported Hypothesis 7 Accepted
WPV → OC → EE — −0.157* — Supported Hypothesis 8 Partial mediation

Note. WPV = workplace violence; EE = employee engagement; WE = work environment; OC = organizational culture.
*p < .05. **p < .01 (two tailed).

2008; Lin & Liu, 2005; Mohamed, 2002; Pinar & Ucmak,
2011; Rose, 1997). The current research shows that more
than 16% of employees working in caring professions had
confronted no less than one incident of verbal or physical
violence, whereas 18% reported an incident of sexual harass-
ment at the workplace in the previous year. Similarly,
employees working in customer care professions had
reported at least one incident of verbal (14%), physical vio-
lence (more than 6%), whereas less than 3% reported the
incident of sexual harassment at the workplace in the last
year.
The research analysis provides support that WPV nega-
tively influences the level of EE in an organizational context
(Johnson et al., 2018), specifically employees working in
caring and customer service professions. As suggested ear-
lier, employees caring for others (doctors, nurses, teachers,
customer service providers, etc.) are frequently exposed to
direct contact with people, crowded surroundings, stressful
environment, service delays due to workload, and limited
communication (N. Li, Zhang, et al., 2019). These factors
result in a reduction in the level of engagement constructs
such as job satisfaction, employee motivation and commit-
ment, proactive behaviors, and organizational citizenship
behavior; thus, a sense of disengagement sets in the
employees.
Overall, there were no significant occupational differ-
ences (managerial and technological professions) in the
“work-related harassment” and “defamation of character,”
suggesting that these occupations are less prone to violence
and uncivilized behavior comparatively, but the aspect of
violence at the workplace still cannot be totally eliminated.
Work Environment and Organizational Culture
Played a Mediating Role Between WPV and EE
The findings of this research reveal that the negative influ-
ence of WPV on EE can be reduced through the improved
work environment and organizational culture. The study
12 SAGE Open
(Table 6) provides ample evidence to support the fact that
healthy work environment and organizational culture can
reduce the violence level and enhance EE, which is consis-
tent with the findings of previous researchers (Kundu &
Lata, 2017; H. Li, Sajjad, et al., 2019; Parent & Lovelace,
2018). The supportive role of healthy and friendly work
environment has an enormous impact on employees’ behav-
ior in context to employees working in caring professions.
Notably, organizations’ culture can create and develop a
relationship of trust and honor among employees, which dis-
courages any act of violence at the workplace (Johnson et al.,
2018). The significant mediating effect of organizational cul-
ture between WPV and EE intends that positive culture can
reduce the aggression and violence at the workplace by pro-
viding a safe working environment, with constant monitor-
ing of rules and regulations, justice among employees, and
protection of employee’s rights. Employees develop trust in
their leader/supervisor when they observe that their leader is
fair, caring, helpful, and fulfills their promise, which conse-
quently improves EE.
Although there is a higher frequency of WPV in “caring”
and “customer care” professions, if the management wants to
alleviate the negative impact of WPV on EE, it can take mea-
sures to improve the work environment. Therefore, it can be
concluded that positive characteristics of the work environ-
ment and organizational culture boost employee trust and
confidence in the organization substantially, which leads to
the engaged workforce (Li, Zhang, et al., 2019).
This study contributes to the existing WPV literature by
introducing a new construct that helps to combine the
research work in the domains of EE, work environment, and
organizational culture. Most important, this study showed a
comparative analysis between different occupational group-
ings based on frequency and type of WPV. Finally, this study
analyzes the mediating role of the work environment and
organizational culture between WPV and EE.
Implications for Management
The findings of this study support the hypotheses and describe
the significance of work environment and organizational cul-
ture for enhancing EE and creating a healthy workplace with-
out violence, supporting Johnson et al.’s (2018) and Reio and
Sanders-Reio’s (2011) theoretical works that WPV is signifi-
cantly linked to organizational outcomes. The implications of
this study exist in the area of HR management. HR manage-
ment must pay attention to provide a secure work environment
and focus in the areas where employees feel unprotected due
to physical, verbal, or sexual violence.
This research offers a few implications for HR manage-
ment in organizations. First, management should develop a
friendly work environment that discourages violence and
develop an environment of trust and respect among employ-
ees. The findings imply that employees are influenced by the
support provided by the management (including care for
their well-being, as well as concern for their opinion), which
subsequently has a positive impact on EE level (Kundu &
Lata, 2017). Hence, organizations must provide a dynamic
and supportive work environment to retain and motivate tal-
ented employees.
Second, these results also support the view that organiza-
tional culture needs to be supportive and healthy. Effective
employee training should be provided to employees to improve
their behavior at the workplace (Graham et al., 2004). Provision
of a secure, encouraging, and helpful working environment
where employees are not scared to interact with each other, and
in case of a problem, feel free to seek help from the manage-
ment. Management that ensures an effective working environ-
ment, where employees can express their suggestions, share
excellent experiences, identify mistakes, share knowledge, and
discuss work-based problems with their leaders, is likely to
exhibit a higher level of EE (Li, Sajjad, et al., 2019).
Third, in the presence of WPV, EE cannot exist in an orga-
nization. Therefore, organizations need to develop strategies
to promote sustainable organizational culture and environ-
ment. The management must ensure that preventive actions
will be taken to control and illuminate the potential chances
of violence. Whereas, in case of occurrence of violence,
management must encourage it to be reported, and strict
action must be taken. To protect against violence and prevent
violence, workgroups should be monitored regularly. An
effective communication channel must be developed so that
actions of violence are not hidden from the management.
Finally, a primary practical implication of this study is the
need to develop legislation on employee protection at the
state level. Majority of Western countries have legislations or
regulations that ensure appropriate action against culprits and
take preventive measures to avoid occupational violence.
Practice and policies (violence prevention policy, follow-up
procedure, reporting of an incident, action taken) need to be
administered at the organizational level (Friis et al., 2019).
Limitations
Some limitations to be addressed are as follows: first, the
homogeneity of the data (i.e., collected among graduates of
single university). The selective sampling limits the general-
ization of results due to potential selection bias. Second, the
generalizability of findings and conclusions is limited to
employees working in all the occupational groups due to the
small sample size, which might cause biased results. Last,
the number of EE strategies addressed in the study are lim-
ited and do not provide a complete picture. The need is to
expand the conceptual model and incorporate more strate-
gies for comprehensive understanding.
Future Directions
Future researchers can use variables such as age, gender,
ownership, and experience of employees for empirical
Saleem et al. 13
relationship analysis in this model. The model is open to test
for more moderating and mediating variables in the future.
Similarly, a comparative study can be conducted to test the
conceptual framework in the South Asian, African, and
European contexts. Furthermore, the sample size can be
increased for the generalization of results to the overall
population.
Conclusion
This article aimed to describe the relationship between these
variables: WPV, work environment, organizational culture,
and EE, as well as to investigate WPV based on occupational
groups. This research proves that WPV negatively affects the
level of EE. An employee who feels insecure at the work-
place feels unsatisfied, and this causes stress and reduction in
productivity level. Professions in which employees are
exposed to more human interactions are more prone to report
the occurrence of WPV. Therefore, there is a need for con-
stant vigilance for such behaviors, and unbiased justice must
be provided.
At some point in time, everyone experiences violence in
their workplace. Nevertheless, if they are provided support,
opportunity to share, justice, and right conditions, every
employee can strive through this phase of adversity and look
upon it as a growth experience. This research suggests that
the provision of a successful work environment is well within
the control of the organization’s management. Management
must inculcate positive cultural norms and values in the
organization to create the right atmosphere for their employ-
ees (free of violence) to engage in their job. A secure and
healthy work environment has a direct impact on employees’
motivation to work, commitment toward the employing
organization, and turnover intention.
It can be concluded that a satisfied employee trusts the
employing organization, which results in improved perfor-
mance. Employees’ positive behavior creates harmony in the
environment, their performance level increases, and due to the
positive attitude, the relationship between employee, his col-
leagues at all hierarchical levels, and management also strength-
ens. Furthermore, when an employee’s behavior is positive, it
reduces the prevalence of violence at the workplace, improving
overall performance and effectiveness of the organization.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank all the respondents for participating in this
research.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
Ethical Statement
This material has not been published in whole or in part else-
where; the article is not currently being considered for publica-
tion in another journal; all authors have been personally and
actively involved in substantive work leading to the article, and
will hold themselves jointly and individually responsible for its
content.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants
included in the study.
ORCID iD
Zohra Saleem https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0301-0592
Note
**  Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
References
Ahmad, M., Al-Rimawi, R., Masadeh, A., & Atoum, M. (2015).
Workplace violence by patients and their families against
nurses: Literature review. International Journal of Nursing and
Health Science, 2(4), 46–55.
Albrecht, S. L., Bakker, A. B., Gruman, J. A., Macey, W. H., &
Saks, A. M. (2015). Employee engagement, human resource
management practices and competitive advantage: An inte-
grated approach. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness:
People and Performance, 2(1), 7–35. https://doi.org/10.1108/
JOEPP-08-2014-0042
Allen, D. G., & Shanock, L. R. (2013). Perceived organizational
support and embeddedness as key mechanisms connecting
socialization tactics to commitment and turnover among
new employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(3),
350–369.
Alyaemni, A., & Alhudaithi, H. (2016). Workplace violence against
nurses in the emergency departments of three hospitals in
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: A cross-sectional survey. NursingPlus
Open, 2, 35–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.npls.2016.09.001
Andrew, O. C., & Sofian, S. (2012). Individual factors and work
outcomes of employee engagement. Procedia—Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 40, 498–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
sbspro.2012.03.222
Arnetz, J., Hamblin, L. E., Sudan, S., & Arnetz, B. (2018).
Organizational determinants of workplace violence against
hospital workers. Journal of Occupational and Environmental
Medicine, 60(8), Article 693.
Bakker, A. B., & Albrecht, S. (2018). Work engagement: Current
trends. Career Development International, 23(1), 4–11.
Beattie, J., Innes, K., Griffiths, D., & Morphet, J. (2018). Healthcare
providers; neurobiological response to workplace violence
perpetrated by consumers: Informing directions for staff well-
being. Applied Nursing Research, 43, 42–48.
Bedarkar, M., & Pandita, D. (2014). A study on the drivers of
employee engagement impacting employee performance.
Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 133, 106–115.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.174
14 SAGE Open
Brotheridge, C. M., & Grandey, A. A. (2002). Emotional labor
and burnout: Comparing two perspectives of “people work.”
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60(1), 17–39.
Chao, M.-C., Jou, R.-C., Liao, C.-C., & Kuo, C.-W. (2015).
Workplace stress, job satisfaction, job performance, and
turnover intention of health care workers in rural Taiwan. Asia
Pacific Journal of Public Health, 27(2), NP1827–NP1836.
Courtney, J. (2019, November 21). H.R. 1309—116th Congress
2019–2020: Workplace Violence Prevention for Health Care
and Social Service Workers Act. https://www.congress.gov/
bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1309
Evans, M. G. (1970). The effects of supervisory behavior on the
path-goal relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 5(3), 277–298.
Frank, F. D., Finnegan, R. P., & Taylor, C. R. (2004). The race
for talent: Retaining and engaging workers in the 21st century.
Human Resource Planning, 27(3), 12–25.
Friis, K., Pihl-Thingvad, J., Larsen, F. B., Christiansen, J., &
Lasgaard, M. (2019). Long-term adverse health outcomes of
physical workplace violence: A 7-year population-based fol-
low-up study. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 28(1), 101–109.
Fute, M., Mengesha, Z. B., Wakgari, N., & Tessema, G. A. (2015).
High prevalence of workplace violence among nurses working
at public health facilities in Southern Ethiopia. BMC Nursing,
14(1), Article 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-015-0062-1
Gerberich, S. G., Church, T. R., McGovern, P. M., Hansen, H.
E., Nachreiner, N. M., Geisser, M. S., Ryan, A. D., Mongin,
S. J., & Watt, G. D. (2004). An epidemiological study of the
magnitude and consequences of work related violence: The
Minnesota nurses’ study. Occupational and Environmental
Medicine, 61(6), 495–503.
Graham, K., Osgood, D. W., Zibrowski, E., Purcell, J., Gliksman,
L., Leonard, K., Pernanen, K., Saltz, R. F., & Toomey, T. L.
(2004). The effect of the Safer Bars programme on physical
aggression in bars: Results of a randomized controlled trial.
Drug and Alcohol Review, 23(1), 31–41.
Groenewold, M. R., Raymond, F. R., Vanoli, K., Raudabaugh, W.,
Nowlin, S., & Gomaa, A. (2018). Workplace violence injury
in 106 US hospitals participating in the Occupational Health
Safety Network (OHSN), 2012–2015. American Journal of
Industrial Medicine, 61(2), 157–166.
Hamdan, M. (2015). Workplace violence towards workers in the
emergency departments of Palestinian hospitals: A cross-sec-
tional study. Human Resources for Health, 13(1), 28.
Jill, A., McKinnon, L., & Harrison, G. L. (2003). Organizational
cultural: Association with commitment, job satisfaction, pro-
pensity to remain, and information sharing in Taiwan. Journal
of Development Studies, 39(6), 1–22.
Johnson, A., Nguyen, H., Groth, M., & White, L. (2018). Workplace
aggression and organisational effectiveness: The mediating role
of employee engagement. Australian Journal of Management,
43(4), 614–631.
Jung, H. S., & Yoon, H. H. (2019). How does workplace harass-
ment influence the employees’ response in a deluxe hotel? The
Service Industries Journal, 39(11–12), 877–900.
Jurek, P., & Besta, T. (2019). Employees’ self-expansion as a media-
tor between perceived work conditions and work engagement
and productive behaviors. Current Psychology, 38, 1–10.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engage-
ment and disengagement at work. Academy of Management
Journal, 33, 692–724.
Kaliannan, M., & Adjovu, S. N. (2015). Effective employee engage-
ment and organizational success: A case study. Procedia—
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 172, 161–168. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.350
Kamchuchat, C., Chongsuvivatwong, V., Oncheunjit, S., Yip, T.
W., & Sangthong, R. (2008). Workplace violence directed at
nursing staff at a general hospital in southern Thailand. Journal
of Occupational Health, 50(2), 201–207.
Kulkarni, S. J., Mennicke, A. M., & Woods, S. J. (2018). Intimate
partner violence in the workplace: Exploring gender differ-
ences in current health-related quality of life. Violence and
Victims, 33(3), 519–532.
Kundu, S. C., & Lata, K. (2017). Effects of supportive work envi-
ronment on employee retention: Mediating role of organiza-
tional engagement. International Journal of Organizational
Analysis, 25(4), 703–722.
Laschinger, H. K. S., & Grau, A. L. (2012). The influence of per-
sonal dispositional factors and organizational resources on
workplace violence, burnout, and health outcomes in new
graduate nurses: A cross-sectional study. International Journal
of Nursing Studies, 49(3), 282–291.
Lee, M., Kim, H., Shin, D., & Lee, S. (2016). Reliability and valid-
ity of the workplace harassment questionnaire for Korean
finance and service workers. Annals of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine, 28(1), Article 45.
Li, H., Sajjad, N., Wang, Q., Muhammad Ali, A., Khaqan, Z.,
& Amina, S. (2019). Influence of transformational leader-
ship on employees’ innovative work behavior in sustainable
organizations: Test of mediation and moderation processes.
Sustainability, 11(6), Article 1594.
Li, N., Zhang, L., Xiao, G., Chen, J., & Lu, Q. (2019). The rela-
tionship between workplace violence, job satisfaction and turn-
over intention in emergency nurses. International Emergency
Nursing, 45, 50–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ienj.2019.02.001
Li, Y.-L., Li, R.-Q., Qiu, D., & Xiao, S.-Y. (2020). Prevalence of
workplace physical violence against health care professionals
by patients and visitors: A systematic review and meta-anal-
ysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health, 17(1), Article 299.
Lin, Y.-H., & Liu, H.-E. (2005). The impact of workplace violence
on nurses in South Taiwan. International Journal of Nursing
Studies, 42(7), 773–778.
Lippel, K. (2018). Conceptualising violence at work through a gen-
der lens: Regulation and strategies for prevention and redress.
SSRN Electronic Journal, 1, Article 25.
May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (2004). The psycho-
logical conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability
and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(1), 11–37.
Men, L. R., & Yue, C. A. (2019). Creating a positive emotional cul-
ture: Effect of internal communication and impact on employee
supportive behaviors. Public Relations Review, 45, Article
101764.
Mohamed, A. G. (2002). Work-related assaults on nursing staff
in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Journal of Family & Community
Medicine, 9(3), 51–56.
Saleem et al. 15
Murray, R. M., Davis, A. L., Shepler, L. J., Moore-Merrell, L.,
Troup, W. J., Allen, J. A., & Taylor, J. A. (2020). A systematic
review of workplace violence against emergency medical ser-
vices responders. New Solutions: A Journal of Environmental
and Occupational Health Policy, 29(4), 487–503.
Ogbonna, E., & Harris, L. C. (2000). Leadership style, organi-
zational culture and performance: Empirical evidence from
UK companies. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 11(4), 766–788.
Olugbade, O. A., & Karatepe, O. M. (2019). Stressors, work
engagement and their effects on hotel employee outcomes. The
Service Industries Journal, 39(3–4), 279–298.
Parent, J. D., & Lovelace, K. J. (2018). Employee engagement,
positive organizational culture and individual adaptability. On
the Horizon, 26(3), 206–214.
Park, M., Cho, S.-H., & Hong, H.-J. (2015). Prevalence and perpe-
trators of workplace violence by nursing unit and the relation-
ship between violence and the perceived work environment.
Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 47(1), 87–95.
Pilch, I., & Turska, E. (2015). Relationships between
Machiavellianism, organizational culture, and workplace bul-
lying: Emotional abuse from the target’s and the perpetrator’s
perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(1), 83–93.
Pinar, R., & Ucmak, F. (2011). Verbal and physical violence
in emergency departments: A survey of nurses in Istanbul,
Turkey. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 20(3–4), 510–517.
Rasool, S. F., Wang, M., Zhang, Y., & Samma, M. (2020).
Sustainable work performance: The roles of workplace
violence and occupational stress. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(3), 912.
Reio, T. G., Jr., & Sanders-Reio, J. (2011). Thinking about work-
place engagement: Does supervisor and coworker incivility
really matter? Advances in Developing Human Resources,
13(4), 462–478.
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organiza-
tional support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87(4), 698–714.
Roldán, G. M., Salazar, I. C., Garrido, L., & Ramos, J. M. (2013).
Violence at work and its relationship with burnout, depression
and anxiety in healthcare professionals of the emergency ser-
vices. Health, 5(02), 193–199.
Rose, M. (1997). A survey of violence toward nursing staff in one
large Irish accident and emergency department. Journal of
Emergency Nursing, 23(3), 214–219.
Rothbard, N. P. (2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of
engagement in work and family roles. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 46(4), 655–684.
Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee
engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600–
619. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940610690169
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job
resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement:
A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior:
The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and
Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 25(3), 293–315.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (Vol.
2). John Wiley.
Sheridan, J. E. (1992). Organizational culture and employee reten-
tion. Academy of Management Journal, 35(5), 1036–1056.
Smith, L. M., Andrusyszyn, M. A., & Spence Laschinger, H. K.
(2010). Effects of workplace incivility and empowerment on
newly-graduated nurses’ organizational commitment. Journal
of Nursing Management, 18(8), 1004–1015.
Spector, P. E., Zhou, Z. E., & Che, X. X. (2014). Nurse exposure
to physical and nonphysical violence, bullying, and sexual
harassment: A quantitative review. International Journal of
Nursing Studies, 51(1), 72–84.
Sprigg, C. A., Niven, K., Dawson, J., Farley, S., & Armitage, C.
J. (2018). Witnessing workplace bullying and employee well-
being: A two-wave field study. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 24, 286–296.
Stutzenberger, A. L., & Fisher, B. S. (2014). The extent, nature and
responses to workplace violence globally: Issues and findings. In
M. Gill (Ed.), The handbook of security (pp. 206–233). Springer.
Wressell, J. A., Rasmussen, B., & Driscoll, A. (2018). Exploring
the workplace violence risk profile for remote area nurses
and the impact of organisational culture and risk management
strategy. Collegian, 25(6), 601–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
colegn.2018.10.005
Zhang, J., & Zheng, W. (2009). How does satisfaction translate into
performance? An examination of commitment and cultural val-
ues. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 20(3), 331–351.