Next Article in Journal
Transcriptome Analysis of Spirulina platensis sp. at Different Salinity and Nutrient Compositions for Sustainable Cultivation in Vietnam
Previous Article in Journal
Experimental Study on the Flexural Properties of FRP-Reinforced Super-Span Concrete T-Beam after Service
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 15
10.3390/su151511905
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Relationship between Environmental Bullying and Turnover Intention and the Mediating Effects of Secure Workplace Attachment and Environmental Satisfaction: Implications for Organizational Sustainability

by
Éva Moffat
1,
Liliane Rioux
2 and
Fabrizio Scrima
3,*
1
Department of Social and Economic Administration, Center for Studies and Research on Organizations and Strategy, Paris Nanterre University, 92000 Nanterre, France
2
Department of Psychology, Paris Nanterre University, 92000 Nanterre, France
3
Faculty of Medicine and Surgery, “Kore” University of Enna, 94100 Enna, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(15), 11905; https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511905
Submission received: 18 June 2023 / Revised: 29 July 2023 / Accepted: 1 August 2023 / Published: 2 August 2023
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Today, organizations must pay attention to countless aspects of work life to maintain high levels of organizational sustainability. One of the key aspects of organizational sustainability is maintaining low levels of turnover. In line with the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model and environmental psychology, the organizational environment must sustain employee well-being, motivation and performance. However, stressors such as environmental bullying, that is, bullying behaviors involving environmental elements (i.e., not giving colleagues the opportunity to adjust the temperature of the office or making noise near a colleague’s workspace), can have destructive effects on the employee and the organization. The present work aimed to test the impact of environmental bullying on employee turnover intention. In addition, to better understand the underlying psychosocial processes, we observed the mediating role played by secure workplace attachment and satisfaction toward the work environment. Using a cross-sectional design, we conducted a survey of 182 office employees and tested a serial mediation model. Hypotheses were tested using the PROCESS macro. The results show that employees who feel bullied through manipulation of their workspace or workplace have greater intention to leave, and secure workplace attachment and environmental satisfaction play a role in this relationship. The results confirm that while the environmental characteristics of the workplace can play a supportive role by meeting the employee’s needs, environmental bullying behaviors may have an adverse effects by promoting insecure attachment and an intention to leave. To reduce turnover intention, management should carefully consider the physical–spatial characteristics of workplaces as means of developing attachment to the place and environmental satisfaction in employees.

1. Introduction

Scholarly and professional communities agree that turnover intention is one of the key issues that hinders sustainable organizational development [1], which is defined as a dynamic process oriented toward short-term results without compromising long-term financial, social, and environmental performance [2]. For example, Lee and Ha-Brookshire [3] found that turnover intention negatively impacts organizational sustainability. According to the Human Capital Theory, investing in employee education is key to organizational well-being—that is, successfully increasing earnings and productivity, reducing consumption and producing numerous benefits in employees [4]. In fact, employees deciding to quit their jobs can have twofold disadvantages for organizations; on one hand, replacing staff will incur additional costs, and on the other hand, reinvesting in employee training and development will entail further economic loss [5]. One of the widely investigated antecedents of turnover intention is workplace bullying [6]. For example, a recent meta-analysis (N = 13,205) confirmed that exposure to bullying is unequivocally associated with higher turnover intention [7]. To remedy this problem, organizations must, therefore, implement strategies, such as managerial practices that develop employee commitment, designed to make employees feel part of the organization and prevent certain events from occurring that substantially increase their intention to leave.
The present work exists within the conceptual framework of the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model [8], which posits that the balance between personal, organizational and environmental demands and resources is the basis of employee well-being. Some studies have investigated specific environmental factors that constitute potential demands or resources [9] and impact the employee–organization bond. Furthermore, studies in applied environmental psychology have found significant relationships between organizational environmental satisfaction and turnover intention [10], as well as between workplace attachment and turnover intention [11]. However, to the best of our knowledge, no work has investigated the relationship between turnover intention and a specific component of workplace bullying, namely environmental bullying, which is best understood as the repeated behavior or action of one worker with the intent to harm another worker by manipulating the work environment to make it hostile or uncomfortable [12], or how this relationship can be explained based on organizational environmental satisfaction and secure workplace attachment.

2. Theoretical Background and Hypothesis Development

2.1. The Relationship between Environmental Bullying and Turnover Intention

Bullying is usually defined as a set of aggressive behaviors repeated over time to create an imbalance in the power dynamics between the victim and the perpetrator [13]. Workplace bullying involves threatening an employee’s professional status, insulting or intimidating them, isolating them from organizational life, increasing their workload to intolerable levels or destabilizing them [14]. Bullying in the workplace negatively impacts organizational sustainability [15]. The literature divides workplace bullying into five types: psychological [16], moral [17], sexual [18], organizational [19] and, more recently, environmental [12].
Our first hypothesis concerns the existence of a direct impact of environmental bullying at work, that is, a specific component of workplace bullying, on the victim’s intention to leave the organization. Positive links have been reported between the moral and psychological types of workplace bullying and turnover intention [20]. To the best of our knowledge, the relationship between environmental bullying at work and turnover intention has never been explored. However, a number of past studies indicate that employees who perceive their work environment [21] or climate [22] as unfavorable tend to have higher turnover intention. In line with these studies and others based on the JD-R model, the more employees feel exposed to environmental bullying, the more likely they are to want to leave the organization.
H1. 
Environmental bullying is positively related to turnover intention.

2.2. The Mediating Role Played by Secure Workplace Attachment

Place attachment can be defined as an affective bond between an individual and a specific place [23]. Individuals are thought to develop such ties with places of significance or, more generally, with places that are meaningful to them [24]. As shown by a large number of empirical reports, these places include their home [25], neighborhood [26], city [27] and workplace [28]. Over the years, various similarities between place attachment theory and Bowlby’s classic attachment theory [29] have been highlighted. For example, Scannell and Gifford [30] argued that a place can assume the role played by an attachment object when it meets the needs of an individual, who will then seek to maintain proximity with it, regarding it as a safe haven.
In the work domain, the integration of these research currents led to the identification of different workplace attachment styles [31]. In line with Bartholomew and Horowitz’s model of adult attachment [32], these styles emerged from the combination of the individual’s (1) positive/negative view of the self and (2) positive/negative representation of their workplace [31]. In the present study, we focus on secure workplace attachment, which has been identified as a personal resource using the JD-R model [33]. Secure workplace attachment stems from positive representations of both the self and the workplace [31]. Positive representations of the workplace are internalized through everyday interactions that reinforce its ability to meet employees’ needs thanks to its physical–spatial and relational characteristics. A recent study found a negative relationship between workplace bullying and secure workplace attachment [33], suggesting that aggressive behaviors may challenge this representation.
Should this positively internalized workplace become hostile through environmental bullying behavior (e.g., being the only person who cannot control the temperature of the office), the employee may no longer perceive it as a safe haven. Therefore, we hypothesized that:
H2. 
Environmental bullying is negatively related to secure workplace attachment.
Environmental satisfaction can be defined as the level of congruence between an individual’s expectations and their actual experience of the physical–spatial characteristics of a specific place [34]. Regarding the organizational context, the first published paper was the work of Carlopio [35]. The author showed that satisfaction toward the workspace is a component of more global job satisfaction, while environmental satisfaction predicts organizational commitment and turnover intention. To date, the scientific literature investigating the relationship between place attachment and indicators of satisfaction has yielded controversial results; while some studies indicate that place attachment impacts satisfaction [36], others have claimed the opposite [37]. For example, Wu et al. [38] observed that tourists’ place attachment impacts their satisfaction regarding the place visited. Likewise, Yuksel et al. [39] found that tourists’ satisfaction improved as their emotional attachment to their destination improved.
Conversely, Chen and Dwyer [40] argued that residents’ satisfaction with their city impacts their attachment to it. Similarly, Ramkissoon and Mavondo [41] found a positive relationship between satisfaction with a park and attachment to it. Regarding the workplace, Scrima et al. [42] argued that workplace attachment impacts employee satisfaction, and it does not work vice versa. According to Ajdukovic et al. [43], workplace satisfaction is a function of workspace attachment. Scrima et al. [44] observed that secure attachment to the workplace predicts satisfaction with the office’s design. However, to the best of our knowledge, no research has specifically investigated the relationship between secure workplace attachment and environmental satisfaction. Therefore, we hypothesized that:
H3. 
Secure workplace attachment is positively related to environmental satisfaction.
One of the main indicators of attachment to a person or place is seeking proximity [30]. Maintaining proximity can be either symbolic or physical [36]. Individuals adopt a variety of behaviors to maintain proximity to places that are the object of their attachment, such as keeping objects related to or photographs of a place where they have lived or visited [45], returning to the same place every year [46] or refusing to evacuate an environmentally risky area [47,48].
These behavioral patterns reflect the positive representation of the place that underlies a secure form of attachment. Regarding place attachment, Shen et al. [49] found that school principals with low place attachment showed high levels of turnover intention. Weng et al. [11] found similar results using a sample of 4629 Chinese employees from 102 cities. Therefore, we hypothesized that:
H4. 
Secure workplace attachment is negatively related to turnover intention.
H5. 
Secure workplace attachment mediates the relationship between environmental bullying and turnover intention.

2.3. The Mediating Role Played by Environmental Satisfaction

Following the work by Carlopio [35], research into workplace environmental satisfaction has proliferated [50,51,52,53], showing that office environments have an influence on various health outcomes in employees, social climate in the workplace and employee performance. However, to the best of our knowledge, there has not been research into the relationship between environmental satisfaction in the workplace and environmental bullying at work. According to the scientific literature, there is a negative link between workplace bullying and job satisfaction [54]. For example, Poilpot-Rocaboy et al. [55] found that exposure to psychological bullying had a direct negative effect on job satisfaction, and a longitudinal study by Rodríguez-Muñoz et al. [56] found that workplace bullying impacted worker satisfaction. Therefore, by bringing together the concepts of work psychology and environmental psychology, we advance the following hypothesis:
H6. 
Environmental bullying is negatively related to environmental satisfaction.
The relationship between job satisfaction and turnover intention has been extensively studied. In a recent meta-analysis, Rubenstein et al. [57] found that job satisfaction is an antecedent of turnover intention. Other scientific papers have also emphasized the relationship between environmental satisfaction and turnover intention [10,58]. As environmental satisfaction can be considered a component of the broader conceptualization of job satisfaction [35], individuals who find congruence between their expectations and actual environmental conditions should feel more satisfied overall, making them less likely to consider leaving the organization. Therefore, we hypothesized that:
H7. 
Environmental satisfaction is negatively related to turnover intention.
H8. 
Environmental satisfaction mediates the relationship between environmental bullying and turnover intention.
Figure 1 represents the hypothesized theoretical model.

3. Materials and Methods

The study was carried out in accordance with APA standards and the Declaration of Helsinki. To determine the minimum sample size, an a priori power analysis was performed using the following parameters: 6 predictors, medium effect size (f2 = 0.15), α   = 0.05 and β   = 0.95. The analysis suggested a minimum of 74 individuals. Our research was conducted using a convenience sample. The participants were contacted via online professional and social networks and asked to answer a short questionnaire about the quality of their life at work. They were not offered any form of recompense. They were asked to electronically sign an informed consent form, which specified that the questionnaire was totally anonymous and their data would be treated confidentially. A total of 182 employees participated in our study. Of these participants, 73% were females and 27% males, and they were aged between 20 and 62 years (M = 39.80, SD = 10.17) and had a length of service of between 1 year and 39 years (M = 8.28, SD = 7.46). Moreover, 39% of the participants worked in public offices, and the remaining 61% of the participants worked for private companies. Finally, 52% of the participants were office clerks, 13% of the participants were executives and the remaining 35% of the participants were managers. The questionnaire included a form used to collect sociodemographic details and a set of standardized instruments used to investigate the following variables.
Environmental bullying at work was investigated using the Environmental Harassment at Work Scale (EHWS) [59]. This instrument investigates four dimensions: manipulation of the workspace (4 items; e.g., “I find objects that do not belong to me on my desk”), manipulation of the acoustic environment (4 items; e.g., “I am forced to work in a place that is too noisy”), manipulation of personal space (4 items; e.g., “My personal space is being invaded at work”) and manipulation of the work environment (3 items; e.g., “I cannot adjust the temperature when I work even if I am too hot or too cold”). The participants responded using a 5-point Likert scale, which ranged from 1 “never” to 5 “always”. A confirmatory factor analysis was performed to test the construct validity of the scale. As suggested by Ein-Eli et al. [59], we tested a model with four first-order latent factors and one second-order latent factor. The results indicated satisfactory fit indices (χ2 = 142, df = 84, χ2/df = 1.69, CFI = 0.96, NNFI = 0.95, SRMR = 0.07, RMSEA = 0.06) and an adequate level of internal consistency (McDonald’s ω = 0.90).
Secure workplace attachment was measured using five items taken from the Workplace Attachment Style Questionnaire (WASQ) [31]. A sample item is “My workplace looks like me”. This scale has been used in different organizational contexts [32,33,34], showing adequate psychometric qualities. The participants responded using a 7-point Likert scale, which ranged from 1 “totally disagree” to 7 “totally agree”. In the present work, the CFA confirmed the scale’s one-factor structure (χ2 = 1.46, df = 4, χ2/df = 0.36, CFI = 0.99, NNFI = 0.99, SRMR = 0.01, RMSEA = 0.01), and satisfactory internal consistency was found (McDonald’s ω = 0.94).
Environmental satisfaction was measured using the short version of the Environmental Satisfaction at Work Scale (ESWS) [60]. Covering eight dimensions, this scale has 30 items and explores four work environments, namely the workstation (e.g., “My workstation suits me perfectly”), the office (e.g., “Working in this office is quite stressful”), the organization (e.g., “The premises of this company are in poor condition”), and the neighborhood in which the organization is located (e.g., “The architecture of the neighborhood is pleasant”). The participants responded using a 5-point Likert scale, which ranged from 1 “totally disagree” to 5 “totally agree”. The scale was tested using samples of employees working in different settings (banking, finance, health care, education, retail and agribusiness) [61]. We tested a model with eight first-order latent factors and one second-order latent factor. Our results indicated acceptable construct validity (χ2 = 425, df = 237, χ2/df = 1.80, CFI = 0.91, NNFI = 0.90, SRMR = 0.08, RMSEA = 0.06) and excellent internal consistency (McDonald’s ω = 0.91).
Turnover intention was measured using the scale of intention to leave the organization (Mobley et al.) [62], which was translated into French by Paillé in 2006 [63]. It has three items, which corresponded to the three stages that lead to the decision to leave an organization: (1) the thought of leaving (e.g., “I often think about leaving my current company”), (2) the search for alternatives (e.g., “I’m actively looking for a job to work elsewhere”) and (3) the intention to leave (e.g., “As soon as I can, I will leave my company for good”). The participants responded to each item using a 5-point Likert scale, which ranged from 1 “totally disagree” to 5 “totally agree”. In the present study, the CFA confirmed the one-factor scale structure (χ2 = 0.22, df = 1, χ2/df = 0.22, CFI = 0.99, NNFI = 0.99, SRMR = 0.01, RMSEA = 0.01), and satisfactory internal consistency was found (McDonald’s ω = 0.92).

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 shows the correlations between the variables studied. Sex was positively correlated with environmental satisfaction (p = 0.03) and secure workplace attachment (p < 0.001), suggesting that women are more satisfied and have a more secure attachment to their workplace than their male colleagues. Environmental bullying was negatively correlated with environmental satisfaction (p < 0.001) and secure workplace attachment (p < 0.001) and positively correlated with turnover intention (p < 0.001). Environmental satisfaction was positively correlated with secure workplace attachment (p < 0.001) and negatively correlated with turnover intention (p < 0.001). Finally, secure workplace attachment was negatively correlated with turnover intention (p < 0.001).

4.2. Hypothesis Testing

Hypotheses were tested using the PROCESS macro [64]. Specifically, we chose model 6 because it enabled us to test a serial mediation model using two mediators. To test the significance of the effects, we used a 95% Bootstrap confidence interval. Before testing the model, all variables were standardized. Table 2 shows the results of the mediation analysis. Environmental bullying was positively associated with turnover intention ( β   = 0.24, p < 0.001, LLCI = 0.09 ULCI = 0.39), confirming our first hypothesis. It was also negatively associated with secure workplace attachment ( β   = −0.42, p < 0.001, LLCI = −0.55 ULCI = −0.33) and environmental satisfaction ( β   = −0.35, p < 0.001, LLCI = −0.48 ULCI = −0.22), confirming the second and sixth hypotheses, respectively. Secure workplace attachment was positively associated with environmental satisfaction ( β   = 0.41, p < 0.001, LLCI = 0.27 ULCI = 0.55) and negatively associated with turnover intention ( β   = −0.32, p < 0.001, LLCI = −0.48 ULCI = −0.13), confirming hypotheses 3 and 4, respectively. Finally, as predicted by Hypothesis 7, environmental satisfaction was negatively associated with turnover intention ( β   = −0.17, p = 0.03, LLCI = −0.33 ULCI = −0.02).
Table 3, on the other hand, shows the total, direct and indirect effects of our serial mediation model. Secure workplace attachment (Effect = 0.14, LLCI = 0.07, ULCI = 0.21) and environmental satisfaction (Effect = 0.07, LLCI = 0.00, ULCI = 0.15) mediated the relationship between environmental bullying and turnover intention, confirming hypotheses 5 and 8, respectively. Finally, significant serial mediation effects of secure workplace attachment and environmental satisfaction were observed (Effect = 0.03, LLCI = 0.00, ULCI = 0.06).

5. Discussion

Previous studies of the antecedents of turnover intention and its impact on organizational sustainability have provided fruitful information for practitioners [1,3,65], while others have observed the role played by bullying in turnover intention [66,67,68]. However, no study has hitherto investigated the impact of environmental bullying on turnover intention and the mediating role played by secure workplace attachment and environmental satisfaction. The present study had two aims. The first aim, in accordance with the Job Demands-Resources model [69], was to determine whether deliberate manipulation of the work environment to make it hostile has an impact on turnover intention. While the work environment can be a resource for employees (depending on its physical–spatial characteristics), such events could turn it into a demand. The ensuing imbalance between job demands and resources would, in turn, impact turnover intention. The second aim was to understand the psychosocial processes underlying this effect. Specifically, we wanted to understand whether constant acts of bullying could change the way employees represent themselves and their workplace, as well as whether part of intention to leave an organization could be explained through employees’ secure attachment to their workplace and environmental satisfaction. A hostile place could be perceived as negative [70] and reduce secure attachment and environmental satisfaction.
Regarding our first hypothesis (H1), our results suggest that environmental bullying positively impacts turnover intention. This result is in line with a large body of the literature that indicates that various forms of workplace bullying cause employees to voluntarily leave their organizations [71]. Indeed, Djurkovic et al. [72] have shown that acts of bullying, even if they are not as intrinsically violent as sexual bullying or particularly violent acts, can increase victims’ intention to leave. Furthermore, according to Glambek et al. [73], it would only take 6 months of exposure to acts of bullying to significantly develop victims’ intention to leave. This finding indirectly confirms that the work environment is a job resource [74] that, if “damaged” by bullying behaviors of coworkers, loses its effectiveness by making employees contemplate leaving. The results also support our second hypothesis (H2) that environmental bullying would be negatively related to secure attachment to the workplace. Paraphrasing Bartholomew and Horovitz’s model [32], Scrima et al. [31] argued that secure workplace attachment stems from a positive view of self and place. Repeatedly being bullied could erode the positive view of both self and place, reducing secure attachment. Several studies have shown that frequent bullying can lead to lowered self-esteem [75,76], reduced self-concept [77] and negative self-perception [78]. Our results are also in line with studies that show that being a victim of crime in a specific place decreases attachment to that place [79]. We believe, therefore, that employees who are victims of environmental bullying internalize a negative view of the workplace because it is no longer experienced as a place capable of satisfying their needs. In addition, constant bullying by coworkers would weaken the positive view of the Self, thereby reducing secure attachment to the workplace.
Secure workplace attachment was positively associated with environmental satisfaction, confirming our third hypothesis (H3). If we consider place attachment as a positive affective bond between an individual and a place, this affective bond will influence the perception of the object of attachment and, thus, its evaluation. For example, attachment to the local community reduces the perceived pollution level of a place [80], and attachment to a place can reduce the perceived risk of extreme weather events [81]. Place attachment also affects residential satisfaction [82] and perceived safety [83].
Our fourth and fifth hypotheses postulated, respectively a negative relationship between secure attachment and turnover intention (H4), as well as the mediating effect of secure attachment in the relationship between environmental bullying and turnover intention (H5). The classic behavior pattern of secure and anxious attachment involves seeking or maintaining proximity to the attachment object [84]. Secure and anxious attachment share a positive view of the object of attachment [32]; they diverge regarding the ability of the secure object to alleviate separation frustration. In secure attachment, the person immediately experiences restorative feelings upon contact with the attachment object, whereas in anxious attachment, the attachment object is unable to alleviate separation distress [85]. In secure attachment, this function strengthens the bond between the individual and the object. Therefore, we can assume that as long as employees have a secure restorative relationship with their workplace, this place will relieve the frustrations caused by harmful events and strengthen the underlying bond. For example, Bonaiuto et al. [86] found that individuals with strong place attachment underestimated the effects of an impending environmental risk. In a recent paper, Levasseur et al. [87] observed that place attachment increases the likelihood of choosing to remain and live in highly polluted areas.
The model tested also confirms hypothesis 6, as we found a negative relationship between environmental bullying and environmental satisfaction (H6). Employees who are victims of environmental bullying tend to be less satisfied with the environmental resources provided by the workplace. This result is consistent with the results of other studies that showed that bullying behaviors can impact job satisfaction [88] and life satisfaction [89]. In fact, according to the JD-R model, the workplace, with its physical–spatial characteristics, can be regarded as a resource. Unwanted manipulation of the workspace will make the workplace seem less attractive and unable to meet the needs of employees, who will become increasingly dissatisfied as a result.
Finally, our results confirm the seventh and eighth hypotheses that environmental satisfaction is negatively associated with turnover intention (H7) and environmental satisfaction mediates the relationship between environmental bullying and turnover intention (H8). The results are also in line with the existing literature. According to Van Assche et al. [90], local residents who have low levels of satisfaction with their neighborhood have high intentions to leave it. The same relationship was found by Zenker and Rütter [91] regarding satisfaction with a city and the intention to move elsewhere. As far as the workplace is concerned, an unpleasant workplace heightens the desire to leave the organization [10]. Thus, acts typically associated with environmental bullying (e.g., leaving items on someone else’s desk) further contribute to turnover intention by fostering dissatisfaction with the workplace.
The above results should be treated with caution, as our study has several limitations. Firstly, it was performed using a convenience sample of employees from different organizations, and environmental satisfaction could vary widely from one organization to another. It would be desirable for future research to replicate this study using a sample of participants who work for the same organization. Our sample was also clearly imbalanced in terms of sex, as it was predominantly composed of women (73%), which is not surprising given the percentage of women who work in the white-collar sector in France. To address a potential bias in the results, we included sex as one of the covariates of our model. Another limitation is that we used a cross-sectional design. The aim of our study was not to establish cause-and-effect relationships between variables, but rather to establish relationships between variables and mediating effects. While cross-sectional designs are not ideal for testing mediation models [92], the existing literature provides consistent evidence to support most of the hypothesized relationships. However, we acknowledge the probability of error in determining the direction of the relationship between workplace attachment and job satisfaction, which is still a matter of debate in the literature [44]. Future research should be performed to confirm our results using a longitudinal design.
Despite these limitations, our results have several practical implications related to reducing turnover intention and, thus, increasing organizational sustainability. Firstly, management should consider long-term interventions to change the value system of the organizational culture in order to reduce the possibility of bullying [93], such as fostering an environment of cooperation and respect, sharing power and allowing employees to participate in some form of decision making or recognizing employee performance, thereby decreasing employees’ turnover intentions [94]. However, as it takes time to implement change in an organizational culture, interventions could be introduced in the short-term to strengthen employees’ secure workplace attachment. For example, recognizing employees’ skills could help to consolidate their positive view of the Self, while making offices more comfortable and adapting them to employees’ specific needs could help to foster more positive views of the workplace [95]. For example, to increase employee comfort, everyone should be given the opportunity to manage the temperature of their office, privilege natural light over artificial light or create restorative spaces in which they can rest. Generally, a place that meets employees’ specific needs will generate more environmental satisfaction, hence reducing turnover intention.

6. Conclusions

Based on the Job Demands-Resources model, attachment theory and a currently flourishing field of environmental psychology (i.e., the place attachment literature), this study examined the mediating role played by secure workplace attachment and environmental satisfaction in the relationship between environmental bullying and employee turnover intention. The overall aim was to identify, for the first time, one of the psychosocial processes that underlies the relationship between environmental bullying and turnover intention. Our results confirm a serial mediation model. Specifically, while acts of environmental bullying are positively correlated with turnover intention, this effect is mediated by secure workplace attachment and job satisfaction. These results suggest ways to address the problem of rising turnover intention among employees and, hence, improve organizational sustainability. For example, professionals and managers could implement interventions to strengthen the secure attachment of employees, both toward other employees (to develop a positive view of the self) and the work environment (to develop a positive view of the place). Furthermore, interventions that involve the design, performance and comfort of the workplace could increase employees’ environmental satisfaction and, consequently, reduce their intention to leave.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, É.M. and L.R.; methodology, É.M.; formal analysis, F.S.; data curation, L.R.; writing—original draft preparation, É.M., L.R. and F.S.; writing—review and editing, É.M., L.R. and F.S.; supervision, F.S.; project administration, É.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

In accordance with the Jardé Law on Biomedical Research (Article L.1121-1-1 and Article R.1121-1 of the French public health code), this type of research does not expressly require the consultation of an ethics committee. The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and in accordance with the American Psychological Association’s ethical principles and code of conduct for research that involves human participants (APA, 2017).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Uğural, M.N.; Giritli, H.; Urbański, M. Determinants of the turnover intention of construction professionals: A mediation analysis. Sustainability 2020, 12, 954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Eccles, R.G.; Ioannou, I.; Serafeim, G. The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance. Manag. Sci. 2014, 60, 2835–2857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Lee, S.H.; Ha-Brookshire, J. Ethical climate and job attitude in fashion retail employees’ turnover intention, and perceived organizational sustainability performance: A cross-sectional study. Sustainability 2017, 9, 465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Strober, M.H. Human capital theory: Implications for HR managers. Ind. Relat. A J. Econ. Soc. 1990, 29, 214–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Leana, C.R.; Van Buren, H.J. Organizational social capital and employment practices. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1999, 24, 538–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Salin, D.; Notelaers, G. The effect of exposure to bullying on turnover intentions: The role of perceived psychological contract violation and benevolent behaviour. Work Stress 2017, 31, 355–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Nielsen, M.B.; Einarsen, S. Outcomes of exposure to workplace bullying: A meta-analytic review. Work Stress 2012, 26, 309–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E. The job demands-resources model: State of the art. J. Manag. Psychol. 2007, 22, 309–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Hakanen, J.J.; Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E. How dentists cope with their job demands and stay engaged: The moderating role of job resources. Eur. J. Oral Sci. 2005, 113, 479–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Moffat, É. Environmental satisfaction at work, satisfaction at work and turnover intention. Study on a sample of French office workers. Bull. Transilv. Univ. Braşov Ser. VII Soc. Sci. Law 2017, 10, 53–60. [Google Scholar]
  11. Weng, Q.; Wu, S.; McElroy, J.C.; Chen, L. Place attachment, intent to relocate and intent to quit: The moderating role of occupational commitment. J. Vocat. Behav. 2018, 108, 78–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ein-Eli, E.; Rioux, L. Le rôle modérateur du harcèlement environnemental au travail dans la relation entre l’attachement au lieu de travail et le soutien organisationnel perçu. Étude auprès d’un échantillon féminin. Psychol. Trav. Organ. 2022, 28, 99–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Olweus, D.; Limber, S.; Mihalic, S.F. Blueprints for Violence Prevention, Book Nine: Bullying Prevention Program; Delbert S. Elliott, Ed.; Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence: Washington, DC, USA, 1999; pp. 256–273. [Google Scholar]
  14. Rayner, C.; Hoel, H. A summary review of literature relating to workplace bullying. J. Community Appl. Soc. 1997, 7, 181–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Muazzam, A.; Anjum, A.; Visvizi, A. Problem-Focused Coping Strategies, Workplace Bullying, and Sustainability of HEIs. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Carroll, T.; Foucher, R.; Gosselin, E. La prévention du harcèlement psychologique au travail: De l’individu à l’organisation. Gestion 2000 2012, 29, 115–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hirigoyen, M. Healing the Wounded Soul. In Workplace Bullying: Symptoms and Solutions; Tehrani, N., Ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2012; pp. 166–178. [Google Scholar]
  18. Courcy, F.; Morin, A.J.; Madore, I. The effects of exposure to psychological violence in the workplace on commitment and turnover intentions: The moderating role of social support and role stressors. J. Interpers. Violence 2019, 34, 4162–4190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Duarte, A.; Dejours, C. Le harcèlement au travail et ses conséquences psychopathologiques: Une clinique qui se transforme. Evol. Psychiatr. 2019, 84, 337–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Sheehan, M.; McCabe, T.J.; Garavan, T.N. Workplace bullying and employee outcomes: A moderated mediated model. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Man. 2020, 31, 1379–1416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Alsufyani, A.M.; Almalki, K.E.; Alsufyani, Y.M.; Aljuaid, S.M.; Almutairi, A.M.; Alsufyani, B.O.; Alshahrani, A.S.; Baker, O.G.; Aboshaiqah, A. Impact of work environment perceptions and communication satisfaction on the intention to quit: An empirical analysis of nurses in Saudi Arabia. PeerJ 2021, 9, e10949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ching, S.L.; Kee, D.M.H.; Tan, C.L. The impact of ethical work climate on the intention to quit of employees in private higher educational institutions. J. South Asian Res. 2016, 2016, 283881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Low, S.M.; Altman, I. Place Attachment: A Conceptual Inquiry. In Place Attachment; Altman, I., Low, S.M., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1992; pp. 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  24. Jorgensen, B.S.; Stedman, R.C. Sense of place as an attitude: Lakeshore owners’ attitudes toward their properties. J. Environ. Psychol. 2001, 21, 233–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Giuliani, M.V. Towards an analysis of mental representations of attachment to the home. J. Archit Plan. Res. 1991, 8, 133–146. [Google Scholar]
  26. Comstock, N.; Dickinson, L.M.; Marshall, J.A.; Soobader, M.-J.; Turbin, M.S.; Buchenau, M.; Litt, J.S. Neighborhood attachment and its correlates: Exploring neighborhood conditions, collective efficacy, and gardening. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 435–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Lewicka, M. What makes neighborhood different from home and city? Effects of place scale on place attachment. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 35–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Mrázková, K.; Lisá, E. The Workplace Attachment Styles Questionnaire in Shortened 9-Item Version. In Psychology Applications & Developments; Science Press: Beijing, China, 2021; pp. 247–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Bowlby, J. Attachment and Loss. In Attachment; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 1969; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
  30. Scannell, L.; Gifford, R. Comparing the Theories of Interpersonal and Place Attachment. In Place Attachment: Advances in Theory Methods, and Applications; Manzo, L.C., Devine-Wright, P., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 23–36. [Google Scholar]
  31. Scrima, F. The psychometric properties of the workplace attachment style questionnaire. Curr. Psychol. 2020, 39, 2285–2292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Bartholomew, K.; Horowitz, L.M. Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1991, 61, 226–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hamel, J.-F.; Iodice, P.; Radic, K.; Scrima, F. The reverse buffering effect of workplace attachment style on the relationship between workplace bullying and work engagement. Front. Psychol. 2023, 14, 1112864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Pelletier, L.G.; Legault, L.R.; Tuson, K.M. The environmental satisfaction scale. Environ. Behav. 1996, 28, 5–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Carlopio, J.R. Construct validity of a physical work environment satisfaction questionnaire. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 1996, 1, 330–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Scannell, L.; Gifford, R. The experienced psychological benefits of place attachment. J. Environ. Psychol. 2017, 51, 256–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Chen, N.; Hall, C.M.; Yu, K.; Qian, C. Environmental satisfaction, residential satisfaction, and place attachment: The cases of long-term residents in rural and urban areas in China. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Wu, D.; Shen, C.; Wang, E.; Hou, Y.; Yang, J. Impact of the perceived authenticity of heritage sites on subjective well-being: A study of the mediating role of place attachment and satisfaction. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Yuksel, A.; Yuksel, F.; Billim, Y. Destination attachment: Effects on customer satisfaction and cognitive, affective and conative loyalty. Tour. Manag. 2010, 31, 274–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Chen, N.C.; Dwyer, L. Residents’ place satisfaction and place attachment on destination brand-building behaviors: Conceptual and empirical differentiation. J. Travel Res. 2018, 57, 1026–1041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ramkissoon, H.; Mavondo, F.T. The satisfaction-place attachment relationship: Potential mediators and moderators. J. Bus. Res. 2015, 68, 2593–2602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Scrima, F.; Rioux, L.; Guarnaccia, C. The relationship between workplace attachment and satisfaction. TPM 2019, 26, 209–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ajdukovic, I.; Gilibert, D.; Labbouz, D. Confort au travail: Le rôle de l’attachement et de la personnalisation dans la perception de la qualité de l’espace de travail. Psychol. Trav. Organ. 2014, 20, 311–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Scrima, F.; Mura, A.L.; Nonnis, M.; Fornara, F. The relation between workplace attachment style, design satisfaction, privacy and exhaustion in office employees: A moderated mediation model. J. Environ. Psychol. 2021, 78, 101693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ryan, M.M.; Ogilvie, M. Examining the effects of environmental interchangeability with overseas students: A cross cultural comparison. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Log. 2001, 13, 63–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kelly, G.; Hosking, K. Nonpermanent residents, place attachment, and “sea change” communities. Environ. Behav. 2008, 40, 575–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Donovan, K.; Suryanto, A.; Utami, P. Mapping cultural vulnerability in volcanic regions: The practical application of social volcanology at Mt Merapi, Indonesia. Environ. Hazards 2012, 11, 303–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Fried, M. Continuities and discontinuities of place. J. Environ. Psychol. 2000, 20, 193–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Shen, Y.; Li, X.; Dong, S.; Fu, J. Work stress and turnover intention among Chinese rural school principals: A mediated moderation study. PsyCh J. 2021, 10, 926–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Fehr, R.; Yam, K.C.; He, W.; Chiang, J.T.J.; Wei, W. Polluted Work: A Self-Control Perspective on Air Pollution Appraisals, Organizational Citizenship, and Counterproductive Work Behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2017, 143, 98–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Huang, L.; Zhu, Y.; Ouyang, Q.; Cao, B. A study on the effects of thermal, luminous, and acoustic environments on indoor environmental comfort in offices. Build. Environ. 2012, 49, 304–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Bodin Danielsson, C.; Theorell, T. Office Employees’ Perception of Workspace Contribution: A Gender and Office Design Perspective. Environ. Behav. 2019, 51, 995–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Chungkham, H.S.; Wulff, C.; Westerlund, H. Office design’s impact on sick leave rates. Ergonomics 2014, 57, 139–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Zientara, P.; Adamska-Mieruszewska, J.; Bąk, M. Unpicking the mechanism underlying hospitality workers’ intention to join a union and intention to quit a job. Evidence from the UK. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2023, 108, 103355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Poilpot-Rocaboy, G.; Notelaers, G.; Hauge, L.J. Exposition au harcèlement psychologique au travail: Impact sur la satisfaction au travail, l’implication organisationnelle et l’intention de départ. Psychol. Trav. Organ. 2015, 21, 358–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Rodriguez-Muñoz, A.; Baillien, E.; De Witte, H.; Moreno-Jiménez, B.; Pastor, J.C. Cross-lagged relationships between workplace bullying, job satisfaction and engagement: Two longitudinal studies. Work Stress 2009, 23, 225–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Rubenstein, A.L.; Eberly, M.B.; Lee, T.W.; Mitchell, T.R. Surveying the forest: A meta-analysis, moderator investigation, and future-oriented discussion of the antecedents of voluntary employee turnover. Pers. Psychol. 2017, 71, 23–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Moffat, É. La Satisfaction Environnementale au Travail des Employés de Bureaux. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Paris Nanterre, Nanterre, France, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  59. Ein-Eli, E.; Scrima, F.; Rioux, L. Construction and first validation of a French scale of environmental harassment at work (EHWS). Bull. Transilv. Univ. Brasov. Ser. VII Soc. Sci. Law 2022, 15, 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Moffat, E.; Mogenet, J.-L.; Rioux, L. Développement et première validation d’une Échelle de Satisfaction Environnementale au Travail (ESET). Psychol. Française 2016, 61, 191–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Nabli-Bouzid, D.; Moffat, E.; Rioux, L. Âge Subjectif, Âge Subjectif au Travail et Satisfaction Environnementale au Travail. Etude sur un échantillon d’employés tunisiens. In Les Pays du Sud Face Aux Défis du Travail; René Mokounkolo, R.N., Courcy, F., Sima, M.N., Achi, N., Eds.; L’Harmattan: Paris, France, 2019; pp. 247–258. [Google Scholar]
  62. Mobley, W.H.; Griffeth, R.W.; Hand, H.H.; Meglino, B.M. Review and conceptual analysis of the employee turnover process. Psychol. Bull. 1979, 86, 493–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Paillé, P. Les relations entre l’implication au travail, les comportements de citoyenneté organisationnelle et l’intention de retrait. Eur. Rev. App. Psychol. 2006, 56, 139–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Hayes, A.F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regession Approach; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  65. Alola, U.V.; Avci, T.; Ozturen, A. Organization Sustainability through Human Resource Capital: The Impacts of Supervisor Incivility and Self-Efficacy. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Coetzee, M.; Van Dyk, J. Workplace bullying and turnover intention: Exploring work engagement as a potential mediator. Psychol. Rep. 2017, 121, 375–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Hoel, H.; Sheehan, M.J.; Cooper, C.L.; Einarsen, S. Organisational Effects of Workplace Bullying. In Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace: Developments in Theory, Research, and Practice; Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., Cooper, C.L., Eds.; Taylor & Francis: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2013; pp. 129–149. [Google Scholar]
  68. Laschinger, H.K.S.; Fida, R. A time-lagged analysis of the e ect of authentic leadership on workplace bullying, burnout, and occupational turnover intentions. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 2014, 23, 739–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E.; De Boer, E.; Schaufeli, W.B. Job demands and job resources as predictors of absence duration and frequency. J. Vocat. Behav. 2003, 62, 341–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Manzo, L.C. For better or worse: Exploring multiple dimensions of place meaning. J. Environ. Psychol. 2005, 25, 67–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Roskams, M.; Haynes, B. Environmental demands and resources: A framework for understanding the physical environment for work. Facilities 2021, 39, 652–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Djurkovic, N.; McCormack, D.; Casimir, G. Workplace bullying and intention to leave: The moderating effect of perceived organisational support. Hum. Resour. Manag. J. 2008, 18, 405–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Glambek, M.; Matthiesen, S.B.; Hetland, J.; Einarsen, S. Workplace bullying as an antecedent to job insecurity and intention to leave: A 6-month prospective study. Hum. Resour. Manag. J. 2014, 24, 255–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Gendron, B.P.; Williams, K.R.; Guerra, N.G. An analysis of bullying among students within schools: Estimating the effects of individual normative beliefs, self-esteem, and school climate. J. Sch. Violence 2011, 10, 150–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Hawker, D.S.J.; Boulton, M.J. Twenty years’ research on peer victimization and psychosocial maladjustment: A meta-analytic review of cross-sectional studies. J. Child Psychol. Psych. 2000, 41, 441–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. O’Moore, M.; Kirkham, C. Self-esteem and its relationship to bullying behaviour. Aggress. Behav. 2001, 27, 269–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Shemesh, D.O.; Heiman, T. Resilience and Self-Concept as Mediating Factors in the Relationship between Bullying Victimization and Sense of Well-Being among Adolescents. Int. J. Adolesc. Youth 2021, 26, 158–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Cole, D.A.; Maxwell, M.A.; Dukewich, T.L. Targeted peer victimization and the construction of positive and negative self-cognitions: Connections to depressive symptoms in children. J. Clin. Child Adolesc. Psychol. 2010, 39, 421–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Zahnow, R.; Tsai, A. Crime Victimization, Place Attachment, and the Moderating Role of Neighborhood Social Ties and Neighboring Behavior. Environ. Behav. 2021, 53, 40–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Bonaiuto, M.; Breakwell, G.M.; Cano, I. Identity processes and environmental threat: The effects of nationalism and local identity upon perception of beach pollution. J. Commun. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1996, 6, 157–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Bernardo, F. Impact of place attachment on risk perception: Exploring the multidimensionality of risk and its magnitude. Stud. Psychol. 2013, 34, 323–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Fleury-Bahi, G.; Félonneau, M.L.; Marchand, D. Processes of place identification and residential satisfaction. Environ. Behav. 2008, 40, 669–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Brown, B.; Perkins, D.D.; Brown, G. Place attachment in a revitalizing neighborhood: Individual and block levels of analysis. J. Environ. Psychol. 2003, 23, 259–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Ainsworth, M.D. Patterns of infant-mother attachments: Antecedents and effects on development. Bull. N. Y. Acad. Med. 1985, 61, 771–791. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  85. Ainsworth, M.S. Attachments beyond infancy. Am. Psychol. 1989, 44, 709–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Bonaiuto, M.; Alves, S.; De Dominicis, S.; Petruccelli, I. Place attachment and natural hazard risk: Research review and agenda. J. Environ. Psychol. 2016, 48, 33–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Levasseur, P.; Erdlenbruch, K.; Gramaglia, C. Why do people continue to live near polluted sites? Empirical evidence from Southwestern Europe. Environ. Mod. Assess. 2021, 26, 631–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Giorgi, G.; Leon-Perez, J.M.; Arenas, A. Are Bullying Behaviors Tolerated in Some Cultures? Evidence for a Curvilinear Relationship Between Workplace Bullying and Job Satisfaction Among Italian Workers. J. Bus. Ethics 2015, 131, 227–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Flouri, E.; Buchanan, A. Life satisfaction in teenage boys: The moderating role of father involvement and bullying. Aggress. Behav. 2002, 28, 126–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Van Assche, J.; Haesevoets, T.; Roets, A. Local norms and moving intentions: The mediating role of neighborhood satisfaction. J. Environ. Psychol. 2019, 63, 19–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Zenker, S.; Rutter, N. Is satisfaction the key? The role of citizen satisfaction, place attachment and place brand attitude on positive citizenship behavior. Cities 2014, 38, 11–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Maxwell, S.E.; Cole, D.A. Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation. Psychol. Methods 2007, 12, 23–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  93. Tambur, M.; Vadi, M. Workplace bullying and organizational culture in a post-transitional country. Int. J. Manpow. 2012, 33, 754–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Pheko, M.M.; Monteiro, N.M.; Segopolo, M.T. When work hurts: A conceptual framework explaining how organizational culture may perpetuate workplace bullying. J. Hum. Behav. Soc. Environ. 2017, 27, 571–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Nonnis, M.; Mura, A.L.; Scrima, F.; Cuccu, S.; Fornara, F. The Moderation of Perceived Comfort and Relations with Patients in the Relationship between Secure Workplace Attachment and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors in Elderly Facilities Staff. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 11905 g001
Figure 1. Theoretical model.
Figure 1. Theoretical model.
Sustainability 15 11905 g001
Table 1. Means, standard deviations and correlations.
Table 1. Means, standard deviations and correlations.
MeanSD123456
1Age39.8010.171
2Sex (1 = M, 2 = F)--0.21 **1
3Environmental bullying2.160.710.120.001
4Environmental satisfaction3.390.660.000.16 *−0.52 **1
5Secure workplace attachment3.861.510.080.41 **−0.42 **0.55 **1
6Turnover intention2.211.26−0.04−0.040.45 **−0.45 **−0.47 **1
Note: N = 182; * = p < 0.05; ** = p < 0.01.
Table 2. The serial mediation model.
Table 2. The serial mediation model.
Secure Workplace
Attachment (R2 = 0.35)		Environmental
Satisfaction (R2 = 0.41)		Turnover Intention
(R2 = 0.27)
BSELLCIULCIBSELLCIULCIBSELLCIULCI
Environmental bullying−0.420.06−0.55−0.30−0.350.06−0.48−0.220.240.080.090.39
Secure workplace attachment 0.410.070.270.55−0.320.08−0.48−0.16
Environmental satisfaction −0.170.08−0.33−0.02
Covariates
Sex0.400.060.280.52−0.010.06−0.140.120.130.07−0.000.27
Age0.050.06−0.070.170.010.06−0.100.13−0.070.06−0.200.05
Table 3. Total, direct and indirect effects of mediation model.
Table 3. Total, direct and indirect effects of mediation model.
EffectSEpLLCIULCI
Total effect (BUL→TUR)0.470.07<0.0010.330.60
Direct effect (BUL→TUR)0.230.07=0.0020.090.39
Indirect effectEffectBootSE BootLLCIBootULCI
BUL→ATT→TUR0.140.04 0.070.21
BUL→SAT→TUR0.070.03 0.000.15
BUL→ATT→SAT→TUR0.030.02 0.000.06
Note: BUL = environmental bullying, SAT = environmental satisfaction, ATT = secure workplace attachment, TUR = turnover intention.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Moffat, É.; Rioux, L.; Scrima, F. The Relationship between Environmental Bullying and Turnover Intention and the Mediating Effects of Secure Workplace Attachment and Environmental Satisfaction: Implications for Organizational Sustainability. Sustainability 2023, 15, 11905. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511905

AMA Style

Moffat É, Rioux L, Scrima F. The Relationship between Environmental Bullying and Turnover Intention and the Mediating Effects of Secure Workplace Attachment and Environmental Satisfaction: Implications for Organizational Sustainability. Sustainability. 2023; 15(15):11905. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511905

Chicago/Turabian Style

Moffat, Éva, Liliane Rioux, and Fabrizio Scrima. 2023. "The Relationship between Environmental Bullying and Turnover Intention and the Mediating Effects of Secure Workplace Attachment and Environmental Satisfaction: Implications for Organizational Sustainability" Sustainability 15, no. 15: 11905. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511905

APA Style

Moffat, É., Rioux, L., & Scrima, F. (2023). The Relationship between Environmental Bullying and Turnover Intention and the Mediating Effects of Secure Workplace Attachment and Environmental Satisfaction: Implications for Organizational Sustainability. Sustainability, 15(15), 11905. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511905

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop