ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOUR

GROUP ASSIGNMENT
TERM – 1
Section – G
Group – 3

Members:
Shashank Singh (230103211)
Arani Mitra (230101039)
Apoorva Nautiyal (23010308)
Jashwanth Reddy (230103091)
Shivam Pandey (230101190)
Gauri Sharma (230101075)
Samik Saha (230102072) Date of Submission: 10.10.23
 Introduction

Employee engagement, which refers to an employee's commitment to their job and organization, is
a critical asset for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) operating in an uncertain environment.
However, a toxic workplace environment, characterized by cruel and violent treatment of employees,
can jeopardize employee safety and health, leading to reduced engagement.
Although many studies have investigated the psychological processes that promote employee
engagement, there is a lack of research on the organizational characteristics that contribute to
cognitive processes that support innovation and individual development. To address this gap, this
study aims to test the negative impact of a toxic workplace environment (e.g., harassment, bullying,
and ostracism) on employees through individual emotional processes, such as employee well-being
and organizational support.
Workplace toxicity means an unsafe and uncomfortable work environment that causes excess stress
to employees. Toxic workplaces can involve ethical and legal offences, such as sexual harassment,
discrimination, bullying, unreasonable workloads, and lack of recognition. Workplace toxicity can
have negative effects on employee well-being and can lead to high attrition, low productivity, and
poor performance.

The objective of this report is to understand the impact of workplace toxicity on employees who have
worked in various companies and have described their work environment as toxic. Organizational
behavior frameworks can be applied objectively to uncover and tackle the underlying issues of a
problem. The basis of the report consists of interviews conducted with both past and present
employees of these companies, revealing their personal experiences and perspectives on the
company's work culture and management practices. The report will use Herzberg's Two-Factor
theory, Equity theory, Organizational Citizenship Behavior model, and Maslow's Hierarchy of
Needs to analyze the interview results and to suggest possible solutions.

Literature Review

Toxic Workplace Environment-

A toxic workplace environment is characterized by negative behaviours such as harassment, bullying,
and ostracism. These behaviours can have a devastating impact on employee morale, productivity,
and retention.

Employee Engagement-

Employee engagement is a state of mind in which employees are committed to their job and
organization. Engaged employees are more likely to be productive, satisfied with their work, and loyal
to their employer.

Organisational Structure-

Organizational structure is the framework that defines the roles, responsibilities, and communication
channels within an organization. There are many distinct types of organizational structures, including
hierarchical, flat, and matrix structures.

The type of organizational structure can have a significant impact on employee engagement. For
example, a hierarchical structure can lead to a more rigid and bureaucratic work environment, which
can be demotivating for employees. On the other hand, a flatter structure can give employees more
autonomy and control over their work, which can lead to higher levels of engagement.

A study by Zhang et al. (2016) found that employees who work in organizations with a flatter
structure are more likely to be engaged in their work. The study found that flatter structures give
employees more opportunities to gain experience and grow, and that they also make employees feel
more valued and respected.

Hypothesis Development

Toxic Workplace Environment and Employee Engagement

Several studies have shown a strong link between a toxic workplace environment and employee
engagement. According to Bakker and Albrecht, an engaged employee is motivated, and self-
directed, and contributes to the organization's growth and development. Das and Mishra classify
employee engagement into two types: job engagement and organizational engagement. Job
engagement leads to employee commitment, which directly affects dedication and work
performance, which in turn contributes to organizational development. Organizational engagement
is linked to employee commitment and loyalty.

Prior research shows that a toxic workplace environment negatively impacts individual involvement,
job satisfaction, and enthusiastic characteristics for work, as well as employee and organizational
engagement. Conservation of resources (COR) theory also supports the negative relationship
between a toxic workplace environment and employee engagement.

Therefore, we hypothesize that:

H1. A toxic workplace environment is negatively related to employee engagement.

Mediating Effect of Organizational Support

A hostile work environment can harm employee well-being and engagement. However,
organizational support can mediate these negative effects.

In a study on the toxic work environment and its relationship with work stress, Wang and Zaman
found that organizational support has a positive impact on employee output, which improves
employees' commitment and performance at the workplace. Research has shown that when
employees receive organizational support, they develop a more positive view of their organization,
both intellectually and emotionally.

This suggests that elevated levels of organizational support can help employees to maintain elevated
levels of engagement, even in the presence of a toxic workplace environment. Conservation of
resources (COR) theory also supports the negative relationship between a toxic workplace
environment and organizational support.

Therefore, we hypothesize that:

Organizational support helps to buffer the negative impact of a toxic workplace environment on
employee engagement.
Research shows that organizational support has a positive impact on employee engagement.
Organizational support refers to an organization's overall expectations of its members and its
recognition of the personal value of each employee.

Social exchange theory and organizational support theory are often used to explain the relationship
between organizational support and employee engagement. Social exchange theory states that
relationships evolve over time into trusting, loyal, and mutual commitments as long as both parties
abide by the rules of the exchange. For example, when employees receive financial and other benefits
from their company, they feel a sense of loyalty and gratitude, which can lead to increased
engagement. Similarly, Organizational support theory suggests that when employees feel valued and
supported by their company, they are more likely to be motivated and engaged, and to work towards
achieving the company's goals. In other words, when employees feel that their organization is
concerned about them, they are more likely to become engaged.
Based on this literature, we hypothesize that:

H2b. Organizational support is positively related to employee engagement.

Organizational Support and Employee Engagement

Research shows that organizational support has a significant impact on employee productivity, job
commitment, and organizational performance. Organizational support in the form of leadership
support can also have a positive impact on workplace dynamics. Motivation from organizational
support can lead to increased employee productivity.
Research has shown that when employees feel valued and supported by their company, they are
more likely to be engaged in their work. For example, the demand-control-support (DCS) model
shows that mental health problems at work arise from excessive pressures, low control, and low
support. This model shows that a toxic workplace environment can lead to negative outcomes, but
that support from supervisors and peers can help to boost employee engagement.
Our study also proposes a theoretical framework based on organizational support theory and COR
theory. This theory suggests that organizational support can improve the workplace and buffer the
negative effects of a toxic workplace environment on employee engagement.

Therefore, we hypothesize that:

H2c. Organizational support mediates the relationship between a toxic workplace environment
and employee engagement.

Mediating Effect of Employee Well-Being

Research shows that a toxic workplace environment has a negative impact on employee well-being.
Employee well-being refers to an employee's physical, mental, and emotional health.

A toxic workplace environment can threaten employee well-being in a number of ways. For example,
workplace bullying, and ostracism have been linked to increased levels of stress, anxiety, and
depression.

Therefore, we hypothesize that:

H3a. A toxic workplace environment is negatively related to employee well-being.

Employee Well-Being and Employee Engagement

Research shows that elevated levels of employee physical and psychological well-being are important
for organizational outcomes such as employee engagement. Employee well-being is also associated
with sustainable levels of employee engagement, and employees who are more engaged are more
likely to have higher levels of well-being.

Therefore, we hypothesize that:

H3b. Employee well-being is positively related to employee engagement.

Employee Well-Being as a Mediator

Research shows that employee well-being motivates employees at all levels, and that organizations
that invest in employee well-being tend to have more engaged employees. Additionally, the quality
of work life is linked to employee engagement and citizenship behaviour. Employees who feel cared
for by their organizations are more likely to be engaged and perform well.

Based on this research, we hypothesize that:

H3c. Employee well-being mediates the relationship between a toxic workplace environment and
employee engagement.

Research Methods

As toxicity and feeling not valued in an organisation is a very relative feeling, so we shall proceed with
a qualitative approach wherein we shall ask the respondets the following questions and use OB
frameworks to understand the root cause and try to give recommendations.
Q1. How would you describe the work culture in your company?

Q2. How did the work culture affect your motivation, satisfaction, and performance?

Q3. How did you cope with the work culture? Did you try to change it or leave it?
Q4. What do you think are the causes of workplace toxicity and what can be done to
prevent or reduce it?

Interview Questions and Answers

The following are four questions that were asked to the interviewees, along with some answers from
four different respondents who are of the average age of 23 and had worked with the organization
for at least a year. By the choice of the respondent, their identities were decided to be kept
confidential.
We have also summarized what we majorly gathered from the responses of each interviewee.

Q1. How would you describe the work culture in your company?
P1: In terms of just work, the culture was very chaotic, disorganized, extremely competitive, and
stressful. We mostly had to work long hours to meet unrealistic targets. The managers were very
demanding to meet the targets and they would constantly monitor our performance and
productivity. They tend to be rude when we miss the targets even by the slightest margin. They
would often threaten to fire us if we did not perform well.

P2: The culture other than substantial work, there was also a lot of gossip and backstabbing among
the employees, and no one trusted each other. There was also a lack of communication and
collaboration among the teams, and we felt isolated and unsupported.

P3: The leadership and support at a bigger level, there was no clear vision or direction for the
company, and we had to deal with frequent changes and uncertainties. The managers were very
inconsistent and indecisive, and they would often contradict themselves or change their minds.

P4: The work environment was inherently challenging, involving cold-calling individuals who often
displayed disrespect during interactions. Given these circumstances, what I sought to sustain myself
in the job was a positive atmosphere characterized by recognition and encouragement.
Unfortunately, this was not the experience I encountered. Instead, when I expressed my concerns,
my manager, among a team of 70, responded with criticism. This only served to diminish my sense
of connection and commitment to both the job and the organization.

From these answers, we could gather that the workplace had a chaotic and stressful culture, with
long hours and unrealistic targets. Managers were demanding and often rude, even threatening
termination for slight underperformance. Additionally, there was widespread gossip, backstabbing,
and a lack of trust among employees. Teamwork, communication, and support were lacking. At a
higher level, the company lacked a clear vision, leading to frequent changes and inconsistency in
management decisions. Overall, the negative work environment, combined with harsh managerial
attitudes, eroded employees' commitment and morale.

Q2. How did the work culture affect your motivation, satisfaction, and performance?

P1: The work environment left me feeling demotivated, undervalued, and unhappy. I lacked
autonomy and creative freedom, which led to constant stress and a poor work-life balance. I felt
exploited and ignored, with no recognition for my efforts. Unfortunately, this took a toll on my
confidence and interest in my job, I grew more defiant and rebellious, ultimately affecting my
performance.

P2: The work culture was very toxic. There was also a lot of favoritism and nepotism, and some
employees were treated better than others.

P3: I had no clarity or stability, and I felt disconnected from the company's values and goals. This lack
of purpose and guidance, combined with constant uncertainty, led to distraction and disengagement.
This also severely hampered my health
P4: I was required to spend nearly 3 hours on calls every day. Even if I had reached out to a hundred
people and my call time hadn't been met, my manager's response wasn't to inquire about the reasons
or ask the right questions. Instead, they would immediately resort to threats of demotion or even
termination. This ingrained my feelings of resentment making me bitter and cynical. It made me
distrust and dislike my managers in turn making me avoid or confront them. It affected my
communication and collaboration. It also made me feel detached, disengaged, and indifferent
leading to a low level of loyalty and commitment. There was also a constant fear that was
exacerbated by the unfavorable external job market conditions, forcing me to endure a toxic work
environment.

To summarize, the work environment was demotivating and left me feeling undervalued and
unhappy. It lacked autonomy and creative freedom, resulting in stress and an unhealthy work-life
balance. The toxic work culture included favoritism and nepotism, causing disparities among
employees. There was no clarity or stability in the company's goals, leading to disconnection and
disengagement. Additionally, the excessive pressure to meet call time quotas, with the threat of
demotion or termination, created a constant atmosphere of fear and contributed to a toxic workplace.

Q3. How did you cope with the work culture? Did you try to change it or leave it?

P1: I tried adapting to the ongoing challenges and handling the work culture by seeking support from
friends and family outside of work. I also tried to collaborate with my managers and colleagues,
contributing to the company's progress.

To maintain a work-life balance, I established clear boundaries and discovered hobbies and activities
that brought me joy and relaxation after work.

I also made an effort to address and change toxic behaviours or situations whenever possible. This
included speaking up for myself and others affected by such issues and seeking feedback from
managers and colleagues to enhance my work and resolve conflicts. I embarked on learning new skills
and explored opportunities for professional growth.

Despite these coping strategies, I did not find happiness or fulfilment in the company. I chose to
remain there as it was my primary source of income and learning until I found a better opportunity
elsewhere, which is when I decided to move on.

P2: I tried to be flexible to the constant challenges and cope with the work culture by seeking support
from my friends and family outside of work. I also tried to cooperate with my managers, and co-
workers and contributed to the company's improvement.
By setting clear boundaries I sought to have a balance between my work and personal life. I found
some hobbies and activities that made me happy and relaxed after work. I started to find humour,
joy in the trivial things in life.
I tried to challenge or change the toxic behaviours/ situations as much as possible. I speak up for
myself or others who are affected by them. I seek feedback from my managers, co-workers to
improve my work and to resolve conflicts. Started to learn new skills and sought new opportunities
to grow professionally.

However, these coping strategies were not enough to make me happy or fulfilled in the company. I
decided to stay in the company as it was my only means of earning and learning and moved on as
soon as I found a better opportunity elsewhere.

P3: I tried to deal with the work culture by focusing on myself and my goals. I ignored the bad parts
of the job and worked on improving my skills to advance in my career. I also tried to connect with
other professionals and organizations that could offer more opportunities and resources.

But these strategies were not enough, and I decided to stay in the company only because I had no
other choice or alternative

P4: I tried to cope with the work culture by seeking support from my colleagues. They helped me
vent out my frustrations and emotions, and they gave me some advice, and encouragement.

I also tried to address and change toxic behaviors or situations whenever possible. I sought feedback
from managers and colleagues to enhance my work and resolve conflicts.

The above responses showcase that when the work culture is not at all inclusive and supportive then
even a vocal person find it difficult to get his/her voice heard.

Q4. What do you think are the causes of workplace toxicity and what can be done to
prevent or reduce it?

The responses for the above question were remarkably similar, so we shall be mention only the crux
of the responses received.

Causes:

Workplace toxicity is caused by poor leadership and management practices that create a culture of
fear, distrust, and competition among employees. It is also because of unclear or unrealistic
expectations and demands that create a culture of stress, pressure, and overload among employees.

Preventive measures:

The management can make the work culture better by providing a clear sense of direction for
employees. This means communicating and explaining the company's mission, vision, values, and
goals, and making sure these align with employee aspirations.
Consistency, flexibility, transparency, accountability, and respect should be promoted from the top
of the organization to the bottom. Employees should also receive more recognition, feedback, and
opportunities to take charge of their work. Providing additional resources, support, and training for
employees is essential.

Moreover, employees should be given more freedom and responsibility in their roles. Lastly, creating
a more diverse and inclusive work environment, where everyone feels respected and welcomed, is
crucial.

Application of Organizational Behavior Frameworks

The following are some organizational behaviour frameworks that can be used to analyze the
interview results and to suggest possible solutions:

Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory

Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory is a motivational theory that suggests that there are two sets of factors
that influence job satisfaction namely hygiene factors (Dissatisfiers) and motivator factors (satisfiers).
Hygiene factors are important as they prevent dissatisfaction but might not necessarily provide
satisfaction. Some examples of hygiene factors are pay, working conditions, security, policies,
supervision, and relationships. Motivator factors on the other hand are those that increase
satisfaction, which include achievement, recognition, responsibility, growth, and advancement.

Based on this theory, the outcomes of the interviews indicate that a majority of the workers
perceived a deficiency in both hygiene factors and motivators within their work environment. They
expressed discontentment with their pay, working conditions, job security, policies, supervision, and
interpersonal connections. Additionally, they conveyed a lack of accomplishment, acknowledgement,
accountability, progression, and promotion opportunities.
In order to improve the work culture, the management should address both the sets of factors. The
company can improve the hygiene factors by ensuring fair pay, safe working conditions, job security,
clear policies, respectful supervision, and positive relationships. Motivator factors can be enhanced
by providing opportunities for achievement, recognition, responsibility, growth, and advancement.
Equity Theory
Equity Theory is a motivational theory that suggests that people compare their inputs and
outcomes with others to evaluate fairness. If they perceive inequity, they may experience distress
and try to restore balance by changing their inputs, outcomes, or perceptions, or leaving the
situation. According to this theory, the interview results show that most of the employees
perceived inequity in their work culture. They felt that their inputs were not matched by their

outcomes compared to others. They felt that they were underpaid, overworked, underappreciated,
undervalued, or mistreated.
For the improvement of the work culture using this theory, the management must ensure equity in
both inputs and outcomes i.e., they should match pay with performance and reward effort with
recognition. They should also try to treat everyone equitably.

Organizational Citizenship Behavior Model

Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) is a concept that describes voluntary behaviours that go
beyond formal job requirements to help the organization function effectively. OCB can be classified
into five dimensions: altruism (helping others), conscientiousness (following rules), sportsmanship
(tolerating difficulties), courtesy (preventing problems), and civic virtue (participating in
organizational affairs).

According to this model, the interview results show that most of the employees exhibited low levels
of OCB in their work culture. They reported lack of helping attitude, compliance to ethical norms,
tolerance, and preventive behaviours.
To improve the work culture using this model, the management should foster OCB among
employees. They should encourage helping behaviour by creating a culture of cooperation and
teamwork. The comapany should promote compliance behaviours by setting clear expectations and
standards. They should support tolerance behaviors by providing feedback and support. They should
facilitate preventive behaviors by involving employees in decision making and problem solving. They
should stimulate participative behaviors by soliciting input and suggestions from employees.
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is a motivational theory that states that human needs are arranged in
a hierarchy from basic to complex. The hierarchy consists of five levels: 1) Physiological needs (such
as food) 2) Safety needs (such as security) 3) love and belonging needs (such as affection) 4) esteem
needs (such as respect), and 5) self-actualization needs (such as fulfillment). According to this

theory, people are motivated to satisfy their lower level needs first and only then they shall move
on to the higher-level needs.

The interview results reveal that a majority of the employees were deprived of their higher-level
needs in the prevalent work environment. The employees reported a lack of love and belonging
needs, as they felt isolated and unsupported by their managers and co-workers. They also reported
a lack of esteem needs, as they felt undervalued and disrespected by the company. They also
reported a lack of self-actualization needs, as they felt unfulfilled and meaningless in their work.

To improve the work culture using this theory, the management should address the employees’
higher-level needs. They should satisfy their love and belonging needs by creating a culture of trust
and care, where the employees feel connected and engaged with each other. They should also satisfy
the esteemed needs by creating a culture of recognition and respect, where the employees feel
valued and appreciated for their work. They should also satisfy the self-actualization needs by
creating a culture of growth and purpose, where the employees feel challenged and inspired by their
work.

Conclusion

This study examined the relationship between toxic workplace environments, organizational support,
employee well-being, and employee engagement. The findings of the study support the hypotheses
that:

• A hostile work environment can harm employee engagement.

• A hostile work environment can undermine employee trust and support for their
organization.
 • Organizational support has a positive impact on employee engagement.
• Organizational support can buffer the negative effects of a hostile work environment on
employee engagement.
• A hostile work environment can harm employee mental and physical health.
• Employee well-being has a positive impact on employee engagement.
• Employee well-being can help employees to stay engaged in their work despite the challenges
of a hostile work environment.

These findings are consistent with previous research and with organizational support theory.

Recommendations

• Leadership Training: Training programs for leaders should be provided to help them
develop effective communication and conflict resolution skills. Thereby promoting a positive
and respectful work environment.
• Clear Policies: Companies must establish and communicate clear policies outlining expected
employee behaviours and consequences for violations of the same.
• Open Communication Channels: Open-door policies and anonymous suggestion boxes
should be fostered to encourage employees to express concerns without fear of retaliation.
• Work-Life Balance: Work-life balance must be promoted by setting reasonable work hours,
encouraging breaks, and discouraging excessive overtime.
• Recognition and Rewards: Implementation of a robust recognition system acknowledging
employees' efforts and achievements shall help to boost morale and motivation of the
employees.
• Promote Inclusivity: Organisations should promote diversity and inclusivity by celebrating
differences, and fostering a culture where everyone feels valued and respected.
References-

• Allen, M. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1996). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the
organization: An examination of construct validity. Journal of vocational behaviour, 49(3),
259-276.
• Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art.
Journal of managerial psychology, 22(3), 309-328.
• Brown, T. A., & Mitchell, J. (1998). Organizational support theory: A review of some
conceptual and empirical Issues. Journal of management, 24(1), 83-119.
• Huseman, R. C., Hatfield, J. D., & Cote, S. (1987). Test of the causal sequence in the
expectancy theory of work motivation. Journal of applied psychology, 72(1), 61.
• Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational
stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. Wiley.
• Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of
occupational behaviour, 2(2), 99-118.
• Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1996). Transformational
leadership and follower trust: A test of mediational mechanisms. Academy of management
journal, 39(1), 956-975.
• 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 behaviour,
25(6), 493-519.
• Spreitzer, G. M., & Mishra, A. K. (1993). Social networks and learning in self-managing work
teams. Academy of management journal, 36(3), 553-573.
• Van Yperen, N. W., & Snijders, T. A. B. (two thousand). The impact of social relations on
employee well-being: A multilevel analysis of self-reported data. Academy of management
journal, 43(3), 367-385.

_________________________________________________________________________________