The Effects of Psychological Capital and Workplace Bullying on Intention to Stay in the Lodging Industry

Abstract

Workplace bullying is a widespread yet rarely recognized stressor that impairs employee productivity and organizational harmony. It requires attention in the hospitality industry, where a high volume of interpersonal interactions occurs. It is essential to address employees’ overall outlook and attitudes toward hardships resulting from stressful work environments. This study examined workplace bullying by highlighting the role of psychological capital in employees’ responses to hostile work environments. The relationships among employee voice, perceived organizational support, organizational commitment, and intention to stay were further elaborated based on a conceptual model. An online survey was distributed to hotel employees, and the results were analyzed using structural equation modeling. The indirect effects of psychological capital on perceived organizational support and organizational commitment were stronger than those of workplace bullying. The results demonstrate that employees with higher psychological capital have more proactive response tendencies to workplace bullying.

1. Introduction

Workplace bullying is a well-recognized stressor that has detrimental effects on employee well-being (Conway et al., 2025; Leymann, 1990; Tepper, 2000; Munro & Phillips, 2023). This includes sleep deprivation (Hansen et al., 2014), depression (Nielsen et al., 2016), isolation and psychological distress (Ågotnes et al., 2024; Agervold & Mikkelsen, 2004), psychological detachment (Hu et al., 2022), low self-confidence (Conway et al., 2025), lower job satisfaction levels, absenteeism, and ultimately, intention to leave the job (Glambek et al., 2014). Likewise, workplace bullying also impacts businesses and organizations, causing a high turnover rate (Ram, 2018), a negative organizational climate (Bentley et al., 2012), an increase in customer complaints (Malik et al., 2019), and a compromised organizational reputation (Walsh et al., 2019).

According to the Workplace Bullying Institute, 74.8 million U.S. workers were affected by workplace bullying in 2024, with 55% by superiors, 29% by co-workers, and 14% by subordinates (Workplace Bullying Institute, 2024). It is defined as follows:

“Bullying at work means harassing, offending, socially excluding someone or negatively affecting someone’s work tasks. For label bullying (or mobbing) to be applied to a particular activity, interaction, or process, it has to occur repeatedly and regularly (e.g., weekly) and over a period of time” (e.g., about six months).

(Einarsen et al., 2003, p. 15)

Bullying in the workplace can cause a domino effect, and even bystander employees are prone to feel distraught because of the heightened stress levels (Bowling & Eschleman, 2010). In this regard, personality traits have been shown to shape individual norms and behaviors in the event of challenging encounters (Conway et al., 2025; Folkman et al., 1986). Additionally, the impact of psychological capital is an essential aspect of understanding workplace bullying. Previous studies have confirmed that psychological capital is a strong indicator of an employee’s tendency to develop a positive psychology for coping with occupational stress (Luthans et al., 2007; Mao et al., 2021). Psychological capital consists of four distinct elements: hope, resilience, optimism, and efficacy. It is a widely recognized asset that sets the standards for individual responses to critical life events (Bråthen et al., 2021; Huang & Liu, 2025; Luthans et al., 2007) and is deemed essential to explore within the context of workplace bullying.

One of the most common responses to unsettling events is the termination of relationships (Krishna et al., 2023). In a workplace, this may refer to drawing drastic conclusions that ultimately lead to resignation. To mitigate the drawbacks of a high turnover rate, organizations develop programs aimed at enhancing employee engagement and morale (Frye et al., 2020). In this respect, organizational support is appreciated as the precursor of organizational commitment and employee retention (Blomberg et al., 2024). Regarding bullying, it is essential to accentuate another antecedent of the organizational commitment: employee voice. This refers to employee creativity in pursuing effective communication within organizations and requires a risk–benefit assessment, particularly when countering a status quo before committing (Weiss & Morrison, 2019).

Workplace bullying is prevalent in various sectors; however, the hospitality industry is particularly susceptible due to the high volume of interpersonal interactions that occur within it. More specifically, the lodging industry encompasses large hierarchical structures that facilitate a high volume of employee interactions and offer a broader range of interpersonal dynamics. Ram (2018) identified the underlying reasons for workplace bullying and emphasized that structural issues, poor management skills, and shared beliefs regarding the service industry are the root causes of such hostility. Similarly, Coetzee and van Dyk (2018) categorized such disruptive behaviors into three distinct categories: work-related bullying, person-related bullying, and physical intimidation to emphasize their adverse effects on employee engagement and organizational effectiveness. Previous studies have shown the detrimental impact of workplace bullying on service quality in service industries (Hsu et al., 2019; Kitterlin et al., 2016). Also, the labor-intensive nature of the hospitality industry requires sound psychological ground, as bullied employees tend to experience emotional distress and lower productivity (Hansen et al., 2018; Sochos & Rossiter, 2024).

The lodging industry requires considerable emotional stability from individuals working in the accommodation industry sector, given the numerous direct customer-to-employee and employee-to-employee interactions that occur. In situations where interpersonal communication is intensified, regardless of one’s status, a proactive stance against conflicts and dire situations is essential for the betterment of employees’ well-being and the organization. Based on the paucity of research concerning workplace bullying and the lodging industry, the objectives of this study are to understand the following: (a) Does workplace bullying affect employee voice and perceived organizational support? (b) Does psychological capital affect employee voice and perceived organizational support? (c) To what extent do the indirect effects of workplace bullying and psychological capital differ in terms of organizational commitment? (d) What is the subsequent impact of organizational commitment on the intention to stay?

To explore the significance of psychological capital in workplaces, notably in the lodging sector, this study employs pathways to contrast the indirect effects of workplace bullying and psychological capital through employee voice, perceived organizational support, and organizational commitment. By doing so, this study aims to demonstrate the roles of psychological capital and workplace bullying in better detecting the underlying patterns and outcomes of interpersonal conflicts in the workplace. The findings are expected to contribute to the body of knowledge on workplace bullying, the role of psychological capital on interpersonal relationships, and organizational structure as it relates to employee voice, perceived organizational support, and employees’ intentions to quit.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Workplace Bullying and Employee Voice

A wide variety of terms have been used interchangeably to conceptualize mistreatments in the workplace. Some include “work abuse” (Bassman, 1992), “psychological terror” (Leymann, 1990), “employee abuse” (Einarsen et al., 2003), “harassment” (DellaRocco et al., 2025; Einarsen et al., 2009), “mobbing” (Leymann, 1990), and “workplace bullying” (Conway et al., 2025; Crawshaw, 2009). Among the various terms, workplace bullying is relatively more commonly used and defined as a widespread phenomenon in workplaces. Disruptive acts are considered workplace bullying when they occur repeatedly throughout a specific period (Leymann, 1990; Ram, 2018). Hence, one abrupt event does not necessarily mean the victim experiences workplace bullying; instead, one single event is referred to as harassment (Page et al., 2018).

Workplace bullying takes various shapes and norms (Einarsen, 1999; Munro & Phillips, 2023). Some of the most prominent indicators concerning exposure to workplace bullying are (a) strenuous tasks with unrealistic deadlines, (b) social exclusion and lack of communication (Moayed et al., 2006), (c) excessive mental and physical job demands (Karasek et al., 1998), (d) organizational constraints and interpersonal conflict (Bowling & Eschleman, 2010) (e) lack of recognition, freedom in working hours, and procedural justice (Oxenstierna et al., 2012), (f) verbal humiliation and threats, (g) monotonous and trivial tasks (Krishna et al., 2023), and (h) unreasonable job changes (Notelaers et al., 2010). Such stressors diminish the quality of life and cause employee disengagement. Hence, a deeper understanding of employee response mechanisms is necessary for organizations seeking to enhance employee engagement and organizational effectiveness (Hansen et al., 2018).

The theory of psychological stress and coping suggests that a coping strategy has two distinct dimensions: (a) problem-focused coping (i.e., confronting the problem to resolve it) or (b) emotion-focused coping (i.e., dealing with the emotions that the troubling issue triggers) (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). A coping strategy can be defined as one’s cognitive and behavioral efforts to combat work-related troubles. Koeske et al. (1993) found that while active coping strategies help individuals with mental illness diminish job stress, avoiding strategies facilitates more negative consequences in the long run. Subsequent studies have confirmed these findings, noting that direct actions in response to stressors result in higher levels of job satisfaction, whereas avoidant coping strategies heighten stress levels (Bartone & Bowles, 2020; Nielsen et al., 2024). Additionally, employees with greater problem-solving skills were more likely to positively impact the organizational structure (Dundon et al., 2004; Huang & Liu, 2025).

Employee voice refers to employees’ engagement with managers to raise work-related concerns and express ideas about organizational development (Wilkinson et al., 2019). Comparatively, employee silence refers to the reluctance to comment on work-related issues, as well as withholding information that could potentially benefit the organization (Pinder & Harlos, 2001). A compromised workplace atmosphere can lead to employee dissatisfaction and ultimately result in a high turnover rate (Blomberg et al., 2024). Therefore, it is essential to explore the root problems that create a hostile environment within organizations. Based on this, the following hypothesis is proposed.

H1: 

There is a positive relationship between workplace bullying and employee voice.

2.2. Psychological Capital and Employee Voice

Psychological capital is defined as an individualistic skillset and characteristic attributes framed in four distinct categories, as follows: (a) self-efficacy, (b) optimism, (c) hope, and (d) resilience (Luthans et al., 2010). It is used to measure one’s likelihood of achieving success across various life events under different circumstances. Essentially, higher psychological capital is associated with a greater likelihood of coping with challenging daily tasks and entrepreneurial ventures (Salavou et al., 2023). For example, Karatepe and Karadas (2014) found that higher psychological capital had a substantial positive effect on maintaining a well-functioning balance between work and family life. The role of psychological capital in mitigating work–family conflict is significant, particularly when difficulties and stressors are present at work, as it can interfere with productivity and lead to resignation (Nohe & Sonntag, 2014).

Psychological capital has been typically integrated as a moderator variable to understand work-related outcomes and to assess whether personality characteristics have a substantial influence on employee performance (Luthans & Youssef, 2004; Salavou et al., 2023). Min et al. (2015) identified that higher psychological capital mitigates negative relationships between job stressors and burnout. Conversely, employees with lower psychological capital show signs of decreased work engagement (Min et al., 2015). Guo et al. (2018) noted that psychological capital is an essential indicator of an employee’s fear and defensive silence against an authoritarian leadership style. Their study suggested that a low psychological capital predisposes someone to withdraw from actions during challenging events. Probst et al. (2017) further confirmed a significant relationship between job insecurity and employee performance, suggesting that psychological capital serves as a valuable psychosocial resource in organizations.

Employee voice is a constructive way to engage with superiors in the workplace. It often facilitates healthy communication that not only reduces work-related stressors but also enhances the organizational climate (Shanker et al., 2017). Employee voice refers to an individual’s practical self-expression within an organization to resolve grievances (Dyne et al., 2003; Zhou & Sun, 2025). In this regard, it is reasonable to state that when management overlooks a dysfunctional atmosphere caused by interpersonal conflicts, such as workplace bullying, employee voice behavior plays a critical role in addressing the tension. Since psychological capital is vital for such communication to occur, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H2: 

There is a positive relationship between psychological capital and employee voice.

2.3. Perceived Organizational Support, Organizational Commitment, and Intention to Stay

Organizational commitment refers to employee willingness to internalize the organization’s goals and participate in the workforce with a high level of passion (Meyer et al., 1993; Kromah et al., 2024). It stems from interpersonal trust (Guinot et al., 2014), job satisfaction (Nadiri & Tanova, 2010), salary (Tsui et al., 2013), justice (Nadiri & Tanova, 2010), promotion opportunities, and interpersonal skills (Jung & Yoon, 2016). As it is fundamental to avoid the detrimental effects of a high turnover rate, organizations attain considerable financial and operational effectiveness through lower employee turnover rates (DiPietro & Condly, 2007). Well-trained employees become essential components of organizations, easing the transition for new employees (Roehl & Swerdlow, 1999; Kromah et al., 2024).

Perceived organizational support is formed by trust between the employee and the employer. When employee performance is appreciated, and individuals are viewed as contributing to the organizational workforce, positive, mutually beneficial relationships can be easily built (Guinot et al., 2014). A hostile workplace, often triggered by bullying, can harm the relationship between the employee and employer. Bullying is affiliated with higher absenteeism and lower job satisfaction when there is a lack of organizational support (DellaRocco et al., 2025; Hobman et al., 2009). Employees tend to speak out and show attachment when the level of support is close to the desired level (Husain et al., 2024).

One of the reasons companies periodically encounter disrupted harmony in work environments is the fear of being retaliated when attention is drawn to organizational wrongdoings (Donaghey et al., 2011). Individuals tend to speak out when the level of support is close to what they anticipate receiving (Morrison & Milliken, 2000). Employees with differing stances and perspectives are often labeled as outliers and may suppress their opinions to avoid being perceived as alienating (Bowen & Blackmon, 2003). Therefore, leaders must pinpoint employee reluctance to speak up about operational problems such as workplace bullying. The following hypothesis is proposed:

H3: 

There is a negative relationship between workplace bullying and perceived organizational support.

The degree of commitment to confronting wrongdoings (i.e., bullying) varies depending on the circumstances and individual characteristics (i.e., psychological capital). Previous studies have highlighted the effect of psychological capital on various segments, including work engagement, turnover intention, leadership styles, and employee creativity (Kang & Busser, 2018). Additionally, the antecedents and outcomes of bullying have been extensively explored in the existing literature to gain a deeper understanding of the underlying reasons and psychological consequences of such disruptive events (Coetzee & van Dyk, 2018; Leymann, 1990; Ram, 2018). Additionally, based on our knowledge, there is a lack of research regarding bullying and comparing its impact with other factors to explore the magnitudes of their individual effects on organizational commitment and intention to stay. Accordingly, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H4: 

There is a positive relationship between psychological capital and perceived organizational support.

H5: 

There is a negative relationship between workplace bullying and organizational commitment.

H6: 

There is a positive relationship between psychological capital and organizational commitment.

Subsequently, to examine the direct relationship between employee voice and organizational commitment, as well as between perceived organizational support and organizational commitment, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H7: 

There is a positive relationship between employee voice and organizational commitment.

H8: 

There is a positive relationship between perceived organizational support and organizational commitment.

Finally, to explore the relationship between organizational commitment and intention to stay, the following hypothesis is proposed to finalize the proposed conceptual framework (Figure 1):

H9: 

There is a positive relationship between organizational commitment and intention to stay.

3. Methods

3.1. Measures

This study operationalized the constructs with a series of multiple items. Psychological capital was operationalized with four dimensions: self-efficacy, optimism, hope, and resilience (Luthans et al., 2007). Each had 5 items (20 items in aggregate). The workplace bullying construct was measured via the Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised Scale (NAQ-R) developed by Einarsen et al. (2009). This scale consists of 22 items and has been well established, with high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) ranging from 0.81 to 0.92 (Charilaos et al., 2015). The global definition of workplace bullying was disclosed to inform subjects about the importance of such behaviors, which must last at least 6 months intermittently. As such, the following statement was provided as a definition of workplace bullying: “Bullying at work means harassing, offending, socially excluding someone or negatively affecting someone’s work tasks. For label bullying (or mobbing) to be applied to a particular activity, interaction, or process, it has to occur repeatedly and regularly (e.g., weekly) and over time (e.g., about six months).”

The employee voice construct was derived from the original Advocacy Participation Scale (Dyne et al., 2003). The Perceived Organizational Support Scale was adapted from Eisenberger et al. (1986). The Organizational Commitment Scale included a modified 5-item scale (Karim & Noor, 2017). Three items were used to evaluate the subjects’ intentions to stay within the organization (Milliman et al., 2018). All constructs were measured using 7-point Likert-scale options, ranging from 1 (“Strongly Agree”) to 7 (“Strongly Disagree”) (see

Table 1. Operationalization of constructs and items.

Variables	Items
Psychological Capital 1 Self-efficacy	I feel confident analyzing a long-term problem to find a solution. I feel confident in presenting my work area in meetings with management.
	I feel confident helping to set targets/goals in my work area.
	I feel confident contacting people outside my hotel (e.g., customers) to discuss problems.
Optimism	I always look on the bright side of things regarding my job.
	I’m optimistic about what will happen to me in the future as it pertains to work.
	I approach my job as if every cloud has a silver lining.
Hope	If I find myself in a jam at work, I can think of many ways to get out of it.
	At the present time, I am energetically pursuing my goals.
	There are lots of ways around any problem that I am facing now.
	I can think of many ways to reach my current goals.
	At this time, I am meeting the work goals I have set for myself.
Resilience	I can be “on my own,” so to speak, at work if I have to.
	I usually take stressful things at work in my stride.
	I can get through difficult times at work because I’ve experienced difficulties before.
	I feel I can handle many things at a time at my job.
Workplace Bullying 2	Someone withholding information that affects your performance.
	Being humiliated or ridiculed in connection with your work.
	Being ordered to do work below your level of competence.
	Having key areas of responsibility removed or replaced with more trivial or unpleasant tasks.
	Spreading of gossip and rumors about you.
	Being shouted at or being the target of spontaneous anger (or rage).
	Hints or signals from others that you should quit your job.
	Repeated reminders of your errors and mistakes.
	Having your opinions and views ignored.
	Practical jokes carried out by people you don’t get on with.
	Having allegations made against you.
	Excessive monitoring of your work.
	Being the subject of excessive teasing and sarcasm.
	Being exposed to an unmanageable workload.
Employee Voice 3	I develop and make recommendations to my supervisor concerning issues that affect my work.
	I speak up and encourage others in my work unit to get involved in issues that affect our work.
	I communicate my opinions about work issues to others in my work unit, even if their views are different and they disagree with me.
	I get involved in issues that affect the quality of life in my work unit
	I speak up to my supervisor with ideas for new projects or changes in procedures at work.
Perceived Organizational Support 4	The organization values my contribution to its well-being. The organization strongly considers my goals and values.
	Help is available from the organization when I have a problem.
	The organization cares about my opinions.
	The organization takes pride in my accomplishments at work.
	The organization tries to make my job as interesting as possible.
Organizational Commitment 5	I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond what is normally expected in order to help this organization be successful.
	I praise my organization to my friends as a great place to work.
	My values and the organization’s values are very similar.
	I am proud to tell others I am part of this organization.
	I really care about the future of this organization.
Intention to Stay 6	I plan to work at my present job for as long as possible.
	I plan to stay in this job for at least two or three years.

(¹ Luthans et al., 2007; ² Einarsen et al., 2009; ³ Dyne et al., 2003; ⁴ Eisenberger et al., 1986; ⁵ Karim & Noor, 2017; ⁶ Milliman et al., 2018).

).

3.2. Participants and Data Collection

This study focused on employees working at hotels within the United States lodging industry. A convenience sampling method was used to obtain the dataset. As part of a cross-sectional procedure and non-probability method, the sample was collected at a single point in time through an online link that opened the questionnaire for the respondents The collection method was designed to achieve a high response rate (95%), and attention checks were incorporated to enhance the reliability of the data (Eyal et al., 2021). The study utilized Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) to collect data due to the flexible filtering options presented in the platform and the cross-sectional nature of this study (Hauser & Schwarz, 2016). MTurk is regarded as a reliable site and tool for obtaining data with higher response rates, especially in social science studies (Hauser & Schwarz, 2016). Any respondent who worked at a lodging property was allowed to take the survey after answering the screening question, regardless of their department or position. The screening question to filter participants was “Are you currently working at a hotel?” which was prompted at the beginning of the survey. Those who responded “No” were disqualified and did not receive the survey. Additionally, a random attention check question was included in the survey questionnaire to ensure the validity of the responses.

3.3. Data Analysis

A two-step approach was employed to analyze the data (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Hair et al., 2017). First, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to ensure the reliability and validity of the constructs. Next, the relationships among the variables were analyzed through structural equation modeling (SEM). As Mueller and Hancock (2018) suggested, structural equation modeling enables the exploration of relationships among variables through quantification and theory (Mueller & Hancock, 2018). The statistical software MPlus 8.10 was used to conduct the analyses.

4. Results

4.1. Profile of Respondents

A total of 392 valid responses were obtained. Seventy-two percent of the participants were below the age of 42. More than half of the respondents held a 4-year college degree. Approximately 84% of the participants were employed full-time, and 42.6% worked at a business hotel. Regarding the hotel type, business hotels constituted the most considerable portion, at 42.6%. Additionally, 63.3% of the respondents had been working between 1 and 5 years at their current organization (

Table 2. Demographic profile of the sample.

Characteristic	Category	n	%
Age	18–26	54	13.8
	27–35	144	36.7
	36–44	86	21.9
	45–53	71	18.1
	54 or older	37	9.4
Ethnicity	White	311	79.3
	Black or African American	47	12.0
	American Indian or Alaska Native	12	3.1
	Asian	17	4.3
	Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander	1	0.3
	Other	4	1.0
Education	Less than high school	3	0.8
	High school graduate	15	3.8
	2-year college	67	17.1
	4-year college	227	57.9
	Doctorate	79	20.1
Income	Less than USD 19,999	40	10.3
	USD 20,000–39,999	110	28.1
	USD 40,000–59,999	139	35.4
	USD 60,000–79,999	52	13.2
	More than USD 80,000	51	13.0
Type of work	Part-time	55	14.0
	Full-time	330	84.2
Department	Front office	73	18.6
	Accounting	85	21.7
	Housekeeping	32	8.2
	Food and beverage	96	24.5
	Human resources	32	8.2
	Sales and marketing	58	14.8
	Public relations	11	2.8
	Other	4	1.0
Marital status	Married	284	72.4
	Widowed	3	0.8
	Divorced	4	1.0
	Separated	13	3.3
	Never married	86	21.9
Length of time in organization	Less than 1 year	24	6.1
	1–5 years	248	63.3
	5–10 years	89	22.7
	11 and over	27	6.9
Employed in a type of hotel	Business hotel	167	42.6
	Airport hotel	27	6.9
	Suite hotel	48	12.2
	Extended stay hotel	33	8.4
	Service apartments	17	4.3
	Resort hotels	72	18.4
	Bed and breakfast homestays	9	2.3
	Timeshare/Vacation rentals	3	0.8
	Casino hotel	7	1.8
	Conference and convention center	8	2.0
	Other	1	0.3

).

4.2. Measurement Model

4.2.1. Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Reliability Scores

CFA was employed on all individual items to explore the validity of the scales. CFA measures the validity and reliability of constructs through standardized factor loadings with a suggested 0.60 threshold (Anderson & Gerbing, 1991). The composite reliability coefficients of each construct were at acceptable levels (greater than 0.70) (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Also, the calculated average variance extracted (AVE) for each corresponding variable surpassed the 0.50 threshold and ranged between 0.58 and 0.69 (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Overall, the factor loadings of the measurement items further confirmed the validity, as indicated by indices greater than the 0.70 threshold (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Since none of the AVEs were smaller than any of the shared variances, discriminant validity was confirmed. The measurement properties and details are displayed in

Table 3. Confirmatory factor analysis and reliability results.

Constructs	Scale Items	Standardized Loadings	τ-Value	ρ (CR)	AVE	Mean	Item SD
Self-Efficacy	SE1	0.79	37.13	0.91	0.67	2.79	1.33
	SE2	0.84	47.01			2.77	1.38
	SE3	0.85	51.37			2.90	1.46
	SE4	0.81	41.24			2.83	1.35
	SE5	0.80	38.58			3.00	1.55
Optimism	OP1	0.82	43.50	0.86	0.67	2.71	1.35
	OP2	0.83	43.51			2.81	1.39
	OP3	0.81	39.54			2.94	1.42
Hope	HO1	0.77	34.74	0.89	0.62	2.78	1.34
	HO2	0.78	36.73			2.53	1.33
	HO3	0.78	36.80			2.87	1.35
	HO4	0.80	40.48			2.77	1.38
	HO5	0.81	41.42			2.74	1.38
Resilience	RES1	0.67 *	21.80	0.82	0.62	2.69	1.30
	RES2	0.67 *	21.97			2.96	1.42
	RES3	0.75	30.08			2.80	1.35
	RES4	0.82	41.87			2.76	1.34
Workplace Bullying	WB1	0.70	25.95	0.96	0.58	2.99	1.18
	WB2	0.74	31.14			3.16	1.18
	WB3	0.64 *	20.62			2.90	1.16
	WB4	0.69 *	25.65			3.13	1.21
	WB5	0.75	32.74			3.12	1.24
	WB6	0.76	33.78			3.26	1.21
	WB7	0.79	39.91			3.16	1.23
	WB8	0.79	40.30			3.15	1.19
	WB9	0.78	36.81			3.23	1.20
	WB10	0.80	40.76			3.28	1.19
	WB11	0.74	31.49			3.24	1.21
	WB12	0.79	38.68			3.26	1.20
	WB13	0.80	40.60			3.11	1.23
	WB14	0.70	26.53			3.12	1.15
	WB15	0.73	30.08			3.23	1.18
	WB16	0.77	35.24			3.10	1.14
	WB17	0.80	42.47			3.36	1.20
	WB18	0.70	26.39			3.07	1.18
	WB19	0.74	30.59			3.11	1.23
	WB20	0.77	35.47			3.22	1.20
	WB21	0.75	31.98			3.11	1.14
	WB22	0.74	30.55			3.48	1.22
Employee Voice	EV1	0.79	37.50	0.90	0.65	3.00	1.30
	EV2	0.81	40.50			2.87	1.39
	EV3	0.69	24.02			3.07	1.46
	EV4	0.80	38.34			2.93	1.32
	EV5	0.80	39.31			3.03	1.42
	EV6	0.83	45.01			3.04	1.43
Perceived Organizational Support	POS1	0.81	43.49	0.95	0.69	2.97	1.35
	POS2	0.82	46.05			2.93	1.43
	POS3	0.83	49.06			2.96	1.46
	POS4	0.84	54.48			2.97	1.43
	POS5	0.83	50.29			3.10	1.45
	POS6	0.83	49.41			3.01	1.44
	POS7	0.86	59.61			2.91	1.50
	POS8	0.80	41.21			3.04	1.43
	POS9	0.85	56.52			3.05	1.52
Organizational Commitment	OC1	0.75	32.78	0.94	0.66	2.78	1.37
	OC2	0.80	41.28			2.87	1.40
	OC3	0.84	52.98			2.98	1.41
	OC4	0.81	43.46			2.02	1.37
	OC5	0.84	53.15			2.91	1.50
	OC6	0.82	46.99			2.97	1.43
	OC7	0.79	40.00			2.96	1.47
	OC8	0.85	54.94			3.06	1.47
Intention to Stay	IS1	0.81	35.99	0.78	0.63	2.84	1.35
	IS2	0.78	32.59			2.89	1.44

Note. Goodness-of-fit statistics: χ² = 3733.49, df = 1916, ρ = 0.000; χ²/df = 1.946, comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.91, Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) = 0.91, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.049, ρ = 0.712, standardized root mean square residual (SRMSR) = 0.041. * excluded items.

. Two items from optimism, and one item from resilience were excluded due to low factor loadings. Additionally, one item from the intention to stay was excluded due to its high correlation with another item in the construct.

4.2.2. Structural Equation Modeling

Structural equation modeling was employed following the validation of the measured model. The analysis revealed that data fit the structural model at an acceptable level. Although the chi-square test results of model fit indicate significance, the comparative fit index (CFI) at the 0.95 level and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMSR) at below the 0.08 threshold suggest that the model adequately fit the data (χ²₍₅₎ = 49.490, ρ < 0.001, χ²/df = 9.898), comparative fit index = 0.95, Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) = 0.87, root mean square error of approximation = 0.149 (90% CI: 0.112–0.189), standardized root mean square residual = 0.063). The indices are reliable indicators of the overall model fit. The results of the path analysis and hypothesis testing, along with the values, are displayed in Figure 2 and

Table 4. Results of hypotheses test.

Hypothesized Path	Standardized Path Coefficients	τ-Value	Result
H1: WB → EV	0.128	4.389 ***	Supported
H5: WB → OC	0.014	0.757	Not supported
H3: WB → POS	0.175	5.447 ***	Supported
H2: PSYCAP → EV	0.812	34.687 ***	Supported
H6: PSYCAP → OC	0.154	3.754 ***	Supported
H4: PSYCAP → POS	0.769	29.130 ***	Supported
H8: POS → OC	0.784	20.566 ***	Supported
H7: EV → OC	0.037	0.877	Not supported
H9: OC → INTS	0.614	15.522 ***	Supported

Note. WB = workplace bullying, EV = employee voice, OC = organizational commitment, POS = perceived organizational support, PSYCAP = psychological capital, INTS = intention to stay. *** ρ < 0.001.

.

According to the model, there were significant relationships among seven (out of nine) proposed hypotheses. Except for the paths between workplace bullying and organizational commitment (H2) and between employee voice and organizational commitment (H8), all hypotheses were supported (H1, H3, H4, H5, H6, H7, and H9). The relationship between workplace bullying and both employee voice (β = 0.128, ρ < 0.001) and perceived organizational support (β = 0.175, ρ < 0.001) were statistically significant. Essentially, employee voice and perceived organizational support were impacted by workplace bullying. Furthermore, the model revealed that psychological capital had a stronger relationship with employee voice (r = 0.812, p < 0.001) and perceived organizational support (r = 0.769, p < 0.001) than it did with organizational commitment (r = 0.154, p < 0.001). Regardless of the varying strength of the relationship, psychological capital had an impact on all variables. Additionally, the results reveal a significant positive relationship between perceived organizational support and organizational commitment (r = 0.784, p < 0.001). Lastly, a significant statistical relationship was established between organizational commitment and intention to stay (r = 0.614, p < 0.001).

Indirect Effects

The effect of workplace bullying on organizational commitment was assessed through employee voice and perceived organizational support. Although there was no indirect effect of employee voice between workplace bullying and organizational commitment, there was an indirect effect of perceived organizational support between workplace bullying and organizational commitment (β = 0.137, ρ < 0.001). Since there was no direct effect between workplace bullying and organizational commitment, it can be concluded that perceived organizational support played an important role in mitigating certain attitudes in the workplace. Additionally, while the results reveal a lack of indirect effect of employee voice on the relationship between psychological capital and organizational commitment, a significant indirect effect was found for perceived organizational support on the relationship between psychological capital and organizational commitment (β = 0.603, p < 0.001). This result demonstrates that psychological capital has a significant direct effect on organizational commitment (β = 0.154, p < 0.001), primarily through its influence on perceived organizational support.

Furthermore, the effect of workplace bullying on intention to stay was indirectly affected by the organizational commitment and perceived organizational support paths (β = 0.084, p < 0.001). Similarly, the effect of psychological capital on intention to stay was indirectly influenced through the organizational commitment and perceived organizational support paths, with a standardized coefficient of greater value (β = 0.370, p < 0.001). The organizational commitment and perceived organizational support path yielded stronger significance from psychological capital to intention to stay than from workplace bullying and intention to stay. Other significant indirect effects were identified between perceived organizational support and intention to stay, as well as between psychological capital and intention to stay through solely organizational commitment (β = 0.481, p < 0.001). Such results illustrate the substantial role of organizational commitment in bolstering the dynamics at workplaces.

5. Discussion

This study focused on workplace bullying and psychological capital to further explore their effects on intention to stay at organizations. More specifically, the indirect paths of employee voice, perceived organizational support, and organizational commitment, as well as their relationships with workplace bullying, psychological capital, and intention to stay, were examined. The findings show that psychological capital had a stronger indirect effect on both employee voice and organizational commitment, as well as on the relationship between perceived organizational support and organizational commitment. In addition, employees were more likely to voice out when they possessed higher psychological capital as opposed to their likelihood of exhibiting employee voice prompted by bullying exposure. This suggests that exposure to bullying can lead to employees becoming isolated and less effective in the work environment. Additionally, individuals with higher psychological capital were more willing to take the initiative and raise their voices to enhance the work environment and maintain a committed attitude. The findings also confirm Thompson et al.’s (2015) argument that it is wise for leaders to acknowledge psychological capital as a vital tool to assess organizational commitment to increase organizational commitment and diminish employee turnover. As such, the findings of this study suggest that human resource executives employ psychological capital appraisal programs as part of employee development training, especially since even short versions of training programs have been effective in increasing psychological capital (Luthans et al., 2010). Such training would enable individuals to become aware of their values and encourage them to evolve both personally and professionally.

This study employed Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) theory of psychological stress and coping as its theoretical framework. The findings align, as employees with higher psychological capital tend to exhibit problem-focused coping rather than emotion-focused coping. Therefore, the significance of psychological capital in addressing stressful life events, such as workplace bullying, was further validated.

The study’s findings contribute to the existing literature by demonstrating the significance of psychological capital for assertiveness (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998). Although previous studies have focused on factors such as leadership style (Inness et al., 2005), environmental and organizational factors (Moayed et al., 2006), cross-cultural differences (Ahmad, 2018), job characteristics (Notelaers et al., 2010), and antecedents of bullying (Notelaers et al., 2010), research on psychological capital and its role as compared with workplace bullying in shaping organizational commitment is somewhat limited, especially in the United States. The present study demonstrates that optimism, resilience, hope, and self-efficacy indeed play significant roles in taking proactive actions in the workplace. In contrast, exposure to workplace bullying results in weakened intentions to take positive steps to change the situation.

Managerial Implications

In the hospitality industry, where a high volume of interpersonal interactions occurs, it is essential to address employees’ overall outlook and attitude against hardships caused by a stressful work environment. The human resource department plays a significant role in assessing the quality of the work environment and resolving unexpected events, such as workplace bullying, to deter individuals from engaging in such disruptive behaviors. The current study confirms that employees are less likely to possess strong organizational commitment and intention to voice out when exposed to bullying. In comparison, employees with high psychological well-being are more willing to address work-related stressors and seize opportunities to improve the workplace environment. The results further encourage offering personality assessment tests to employees to gain a granular understanding of which employees are more likely to suffer from workplace bullying and to rapidly shut down instances as they occur.

According to the literature, most employees prefer to engage in communication with superiors when they feel a sense of openness and support (Blomberg et al., 2024; Dyne et al., 2003). Strong, inspiring leaders minimize the power distance and promote a healthy communication environment where individuals feel secure about expressing their opinions (Edmondson, 2003; Husain et al., 2024). The findings should encourage managers to have an open mind to maintain a robust organization. Proactive employees are vital assets for companies seeking to achieve consistent growth within their industry (Frese et al., 1999; Salavou et al., 2023). The findings reveal the differences between workplace bullying and psychological capital in terms of voice, perceived support, and commitment. Practitioners are encouraged to acknowledge this difference and address both employee psychological capital and workplace bullying when necessary to optimize effectiveness. The results validate that organizational commitment stands out as a crucial factor for employees to perform at their peak levels (Kusluvan et al., 2010). The study’s findings demonstrate a stronger indirect effect of psychological capital compared to the indirect effect of workplace bullying in establishing organizational commitment, which in turn impacts turnover intentions. Such relationships among workplace bullying, psychological capital, perceived organizational support, employee voice, employee commitment, and intention to stay can prevent organizations from high turnover rate that has negative consequences, including training expenses, loss of skillset, diminished brand image that weakens competitiveness (Duan et al., 2021; Roehl & Swerdlow, 1999).

6. Limitations and Directions for Future Research

This study has several limitations. First, since the study was cross-sectional, the data were obtained at a single point in time, and the results may not accurately reflect causal relationships. Future studies could employ either experimental designs or temporal separation (i.e., collecting data at different times with proper lag time). Second, since most variables used in this study apply to individualistic cultures, others could employ experimental designs across various cultures and norms, further exploring differences based on specific characteristics (e.g., race/ethnicity, education, marital status, and tenure in an organization). Future studies can also extend the sociological scope and analyze a more holistic demographic within the context of this study. Additional studies can help justify the role of psychological capital in coping with stressful situations across various streams. Lastly, research could also test the significance of workplace bullying by using the construct as a moderator variable between psychological capital and other variables.