Next Article in Journal
Marketing Challenges in Entrepreneurship: Perspectives from Business Students
Previous Article in Journal
A Construct Validity Study for the Humility at Work Scale: Item-Content Validity and Convergent-Discriminant Validity
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Merits
Volume 5
Issue 1
10.3390/merits5010006
merits-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

Relationship Between Mobbing and Organizational Performance: Workplace Well-Being and Individual Performance as Serial Mediation Mechanisms

by
Larissa Ronha
and
Rosa Isabel Rodrigues
*
Instituto Superior de Gestão, 1500-552 Lisbon, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Merits 2025, 5(1), 6; https://doi.org/10.3390/merits5010006
Submission received: 18 December 2024 / Revised: 18 February 2025 / Accepted: 17 March 2025 / Published: 19 March 2025
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Mobbing, also referred to as workplace bullying, has significant impacts on employee behavior within organizational contexts, negatively affecting organizational performance. Consequently, promoting workplace well-being and individual performance emerges as a critical factor in mitigating the adverse effects associated with this phenomenon. This study aims to fill a gap in the research because it integrates a sequential mediation model, which elucidates the underlying mechanisms through which mobbing influences organizational outcomes. The research involved 388 workers from the public and private sectors, aged between 21 and 59 years, selected through non-probabilistic convenience sampling. Despite its limitations, this method was chosen to ensure an adequate representation of employees experiencing workplace mobbing across different sectors. Data collection was carried out using the Luxembourg Workplace Mobbing Scale, the Job Performance Questionnaire, the Organizational Performance Questionnaire, and the Workplace Welfare Scale. The findings revealed that high levels of mobbing are significantly associated with a reduction in organizational performance. Furthermore, workplace well-being and individual performance were identified as serial mediators in this relationship, indicating that more harmonious work environments enhance individual efficacy, thereby contributing to improved organizational performance. These results highlight the importance of strategic interventions focused on promoting well-being in the workplace to promote healthier and more productive organizational cultures.

1. Introduction

The purpose of this study is to investigate the complex mechanisms linking mobbing to organizational performance, with a particular emphasis on workplace well-being and individual performance as mediating variables. Although previous research has established that mobbing negatively impacts workplace outcomes, gaps remain in understanding the sequential mediation processes through which this occurs. By integrating theoretical perspectives from organizational psychology and occupational health, this study aims to fill this research gap [1].
In addition to individual interactions, mobbing is also shaped by organizational dynamics and managerial choices [2]. The way an organization structures its communication, conflict resolution, and leadership practices significantly influences the prevalence and impact of mobbing in the workplace [3]. Organizational leadership plays a crucial role in either perpetuating or preventing mobbing by setting the tone for acceptable workplace behaviors and implementing strategies to mitigate hostility [4].
Mobbing, also referred to in the literature as psychological violence and terrorism, moral harassment, or emotional abuse, is defined as abusive behavior that undermines an individual’s integrity and compromises their work capacity [5]. It is characterized by repeated and prolonged acts of humiliation, manipulation, defamation, and disrespect targeted at one or more individuals within the organization, which also impacts the work environment [6]. Thus, it is important to highlight that the impact of mobbing extends beyond individual experiences, as it contributes to the deterioration of the organizational climate and interpersonal relationships [7].
One of the foundational works on workplace mobbing was conducted by Leymann [8], who was among the first researchers to systematically study the phenomenon. The author identified that mobbing unfolds in specific stages, from initial subtle conflicts to escalated psychological violence, leading to severe consequences for both individuals and organizations. His studies provided the groundwork for the modern understanding of how workplace aggression develops and how it can be mitigated through structured organizational interventions [9].
A study conducted by the International Labour Organization [10] revealed that, globally, one in five individuals have been a victim of moral harassment in the workplace. These data underscore the breadth and severity of the issue, suggesting that organizational culture and protective mechanisms for employees need to be globally reinforced [11]. Evidence increasingly indicates that no individual, organization, sector, or society can claim to be completely immune to mobbing, which underscores the significance of this research [12].
Workplace mobbing negatively impacts organizational performance because such abusive behavior fosters a toxic work environment, which reflects on productivity and the quality of work produced [13]. This scenario not only undermines employee morale but also compromises the long-term sustainability and competitiveness of the organization [3]. Furthermore, it can increase absenteeism rates, turnover intentions, and staff attrition, leading to additional costs for the organization [14]. In the long term, the organization’s image can also be affected, compromising its success and sustainability [15].
In this context, promoting workplace well-being is essential, as it acts as a mediating factor between mobbing and organizational performance [16]. When employees are victims of mobbing, their psychological health is compromised, negatively impacting their well-being and, consequently, their ability to maintain high levels of individual performance [17]. This decline in individual performance, caused by stress and demotivation, generally has a direct impact on the organization’s overall performance [18]. Consequently, Hayat and Afshari [3] argue that promoting a healthy work environment is crucial for mitigating the effects of mobbing, enhancing well-being levels, and, ultimately, improving both individual and organizational performance.

2. Literature Review and Hypotheses Formulation

Mobbing or workplace bullying is widely recognized as a significant factor contributing to increased occupational stress [4]. Although the specific terminology of the concept remains somewhat debated, there is a common understanding that mobbing involves hostile, repetitive, and prolonged behaviors aimed at emotionally and psychologically destabilizing the victim [17]. These behaviors, characterized by humiliation and exclusion, negatively impact both the personal and professional lives of those subjected to them [3].
Leymann’s model describes the phases of bullying, beginning with subtle psychological aggression, evolving into intense hostility, and culminating in severe emotional and professional consequences for the victim. His pioneering work not only helped to define bullying as a workplace phenomenon, but also provided diagnostic criteria that continue to be referenced in contemporary organizational studies [9]. According to the author, there are six unethical forms of communication that can contribute to moral harassment in the workplace: (a) restrictive communication, which refers to the practice of constantly criticizing an individual, whether for their professional performance or personality traits; (b) nonverbal communication expressed through body language, facial expressions, looks, and gestures that convey contempt or intimidation; (c) miscommunication, which involves deliberately ignoring someone or failing to acknowledge their presence or what has been said; (d) bureaucratic communication, which is characterized by the excessive use of rules, regulations, and transfers of responsibility, making problem solving and effective communication difficult; (e) denial of metacommunication that prevents improvement in the dialog process within the organization; and (f) isolation, which consists of a social sanction in which a group decides to stop communicating with one of its members or to exclude him socially [9]. Leymann highlights that mobbing should not be understood as a problem isolated to the individual, but as a situational phenomenon that needs to be analyzed within the organizational context. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the frequency and context of occurrences to correctly assess a harassment situation.
We will adopt the terms mobbing and bullying as equivalent, as both describe forms of moral harassment in the workplace [19]. However, some scholars differentiate between the two, suggesting that bullying typically refers to a milder form of workplace aggression, usually perpetrated by a single aggressor, whereas mobbing is characterized by more severe and systematic harassment carried out by a group or a larger part of the work environment [2,20]. In this study, we adopt the term mobbing to emphasize the collective and prolonged nature of the phenomenon, which aligns with our research focus on its organizational consequences. However, we acknowledge that in some contexts, workplace bullying may also encompass similar dynamics and effects [5].
Beyond the direct impact on victims, mobbing also affects bystanders and colleagues, leading to secondary stress responses often referred to as “vicarious anxiety” [21]. Employees who witness mobbing within their workplace frequently experience fear, uncertainty, and decreased morale, which can create a toxic organizational culture [22]. This ripple effect ultimately impacts team cohesion, productivity, and overall workplace satisfaction [23].
In the workplace context, mobbing can manifest in various ways, including the imposition of unrealistic deadlines, excessive workload, assignment of irrelevant tasks, or, conversely, task deprivation [4]. On an interpersonal level, bullying often involves insults, rumor-spreading, intimidation, and disproportionate criticism [24]. The consequences of constant exposure to such behaviors are multifaceted, encompassing physical effects (e.g., digestive disorders, headaches [25]), emotional impacts (e.g., distress, fear; [26]), and psychological outcomes (e.g., anxiety, burnout, depression [27]). Victims may also experience financial setbacks [6] due to increased healthcare expenses and decreased income resulting from frequent absences from work [28].
Mobbing can occur both horizontally, among colleagues holding equivalent hierarchical positions, and vertically, involving relationships between superiors and subordinates, with the latter being the most prevalent form [3,29]. However, the inverse phenomenon, where subordinates bully their superiors, can also occur through means such as rumor-spreading, task sabotage, or indirect threats [30]. Numerous studies [14,31,32] indicate that women, as well as religious, ethnic, and sexual minorities, are particularly targeted by workplace bullying.
Aggressive behaviors typically begin subtly and indirectly, making them difficult for victims to identify. As the aggression becomes more overt, victims often struggle to defend themselves and may even blame themselves for the incidents [25]. Victims are frequently hardworking individuals with strong social skills or newcomers to the workplace, seen as threats to organizational stability [24]. Perpetrators, on the other hand, tend to exhibit narcissistic, intolerant, and envious traits but often appear cooperative, allowing them to conceal their abusive behavior. Nevertheless, they are more likely to have low self-esteem and fear those with greater talent, making them vengeful, deceitful, and contentious [6].
Workplace bullying negatively influences individual performance, impacting productivity, work climate, and organizational efficiency [8]. When employees are subjected to abusive behaviors, they often exhibit high levels of demotivation and disengagement from their tasks, compromising both individual and collective performance [33]. This decline in performance is often linked to increased absenteeism and difficulties maintaining concentration during work hours [34].
The presence of an organizational culture that tolerates or ignores mobbing fosters an atmosphere of fear and mistrust among employees [35]. Hostility can lead to the deterioration of interpersonal relationships, causing divisions among colleagues and hindering collaborative work [32]. This situation increases turnover rates, necessitating the recruitment and training of new employees, which not only harms organizational performance, but also significantly raises operational costs [14]. Additionally, an organization’s reputation is negatively impacted, as toxic work environments tend to lose their competitive edge [9]. Employee demotivation and disengagement have a detrimental effect on both employee performance and organizational outcomes [36].
Given the above, the first research hypothesis was developed:
Hypothesis 1.
Mobbing negatively influences organizational performance.
Workplace well-being, besides enhancing individual performance, reduces turnover and increases employee loyalty [3]. Following this idea, Ciby et al. [37] state that a harmonious work environment fosters a culture of support and mutual trust, which positively impacts individual and organizational performance. Performance is closely linked to job satisfaction, which, in turn, depends on managerial support, leadership style, and organizational climate [38]. To fully realize these benefits, it is essential that the workplace does not allow negative behaviors that compromise established harmony and trust [39]. When issues arise in the workplace context, they lead to task execution failures and hinder the achievement of proposed goals [7].
A particularly detrimental behavior that negatively impacts the organizational climate is workplace harassment, as it triggers conflicts, reduces trust, and deteriorates the organizational culture [7,40]. Victims of mobbing often feel unable to trust the organization or colleagues for support, which negatively affects teamwork [41]. João et al. [15] further highlight that mobbing is associated with workplace accidents, absenteeism, a desire to leave the organization, and early retirement, all of which adversely affect the organization.
To mitigate the negative consequences on organizational performance, it is crucial to prevent mobbing and provide support to victims [42]. When workers perceive that the organization cares about their well-being, they feel respected, which reflects positively on their resilience and their approach to adversities [11]. Ilieva [43] adds that well-being acts as a buffer, reducing the harmful effects of workplace harassment on productivity and increasing engagement with the organization. A positive work environment helps ease the effects of harassment and fosters more consistent organizational performance [44]. In this context, Arifoğlu et al. [45] emphasize that organizational culture and anti-mobbing actions are critical in creating an environment where motivation and engagement thrive, even in challenging circumstances. Research conducted by Buka et al. [46] demonstrates that workplace well-being is a central element in the relationship between workplace harassment and organizational performance.
When well-being is neglected, the negative impact of harassment intensifies, affecting individual performance and, consequently, organizational outcomes [47]. Along similar lines, Wilczek-Rużyczka [48] notes that when the workplace is characterized by humiliating and degrading behaviors, psychological and emotional health is significantly compromised, leading to increased stress levels. Ardianto and Rosari [49] complement this perspective by showing that harassment exacerbates feelings of insecurity and dissatisfaction, resulting in reduced performance. Thus, workplace well-being plays a pivotal role in the relationship between workplace harassment and organizational performance, as it mediates how employees perceive and react to hostile environments [50]. Considering the aforementioned studies, the following hypothesis was formulated:
Hypothesis 2.
The relationship between mobbing and organizational performance is mediated by workplace well-being.
The performance of employees in the workplace is significantly influenced by environmental and organizational conditions [51]. Based on this premise, Arifoğlu et al. [45] highlight that dissatisfied employees tend to exhibit lower engagement with both their tasks and the organization itself, which inevitably compromises their performance. This situation is exacerbated in environments where workplace mobbing occurs. Victims of mobbing frequently develop negative behaviors [52], leading to substantial declines in productivity and the quality of work performed [53].
Exposure to mobbing is associated with elevated levels of burnout, low psychological well-being, and reduced job satisfaction [54]. Arifoğlu et al. [45] emphasize that persistent mobbing practices, such as excessive criticism, humiliation, and disproportionate control, undermine individuals’ self-confidence. Such a toxic environment limits creativity and innovation, thereby negatively affecting work performance [49]. Moreover, mobbing decreases employees’ motivation, concentration, and focus, as victims are often overwhelmed by the stress of managing episodes of harassment [55].
Given this evidence, it becomes clear that mobbing adversely impacts individual performance, which, in turn, acts as a critical mediating variable in the relationship between mobbing and organizational performance [40]. Abusive practices significantly impair employees’ ability to perform their functions effectively, thus jeopardizing the organization’s achievement of its strategic objectives as a whole [33]. Based on this evidence, the third hypothesis was formulated:
Hypothesis 3.
Individual performance mediates the relationship between mobbing and organizational performance.
Individual well-being and performance can serve as mediators in the relationship between mobbing and organizational performance, mitigating the negative impact of this phenomenon [35]. Understanding this dynamic is crucial for fostering healthier and more productive work environments, highlighting the strategic and human-centered importance of addressing this issue [7].
Minárová et al. [51] argue that organizational performance extends beyond the quality of the final product delivered to the market. An organization’s success is significantly influenced by the dynamics of its organizational culture, which should be grounded in coherent values, rules, and behavioral standards [56]. However, workplace mobbing undermines this structure, leading to diminished employee well-being and satisfaction [55]. Key repercussions of reduced well-being on individual performance include difficulties in concentration, low self-esteem, and heightened anxiety levels [51]. These consequences also affect bystanders, whose negative experiences further impact organizational performance as a whole [56].
A healthy organizational culture is built on values, behavioral norms, and attitudes that encourage employees to achieve high performance standards. Organizations that tolerate mobbing lose this positive atmosphere and inevitably suffer consequences at the level of overall performance [51]. Conversely, Hayat and Afshari [3] suggest that a harmonious work environment not only enhances employee well-being, but also tends to reduce the incidence of episodes of mobbing. Support from colleagues and supervisors is crucial in mitigating the effects of mobbing; when individuals feel supported and integrated, they exhibit lower levels of depression and anxiety [57]. The literature review provided information that contributed to the formulation of the fourth research hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4.
Workplace well-being and individual performance act as serial mediators between mobbing and organizational performance.
The research hypotheses are illustrated in the model presented in Figure 1.

3. Materials and Methods

This cross-sectional study employed a quantitative research design to investigate the associations between variables and empirically test the proposed hypotheses. The utilization of cross-sectional data are justified when theoretical or empirical evidence indicates that mediating effects occur instantaneously or within a short temporal window [58]. In the context of this study, the existing literature suggests that the effects of workplace mobbing on well-being—and, consequently, on both individual and organizational performance—can emerge rapidly, thereby supporting the appropriateness of a cross-sectional analytical approach. Prior research has demonstrated that workplace harassment can exert immediate or short-term influences on psychological and behavioral outcomes, further substantiating the suitability of this methodological framework [3,16,18].
A combination of convenience and snowball sampling techniques was employed to facilitate the recruitment of a diverse participant pool while acknowledging the inherent limitations of non-probability sampling methods. Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the relevant institutional review board, and informed consent was secured from all participants prior to data collection. Additionally, sex and age were included as control variables in the statistical analyses to mitigate the potential impact of common method bias. To ensure statistical rigor, the sample size was calculated using G*Power software (3.1.9.7).

3.1. Sample

This study involved 388 workers from the public (83.8%) and private (16.2%) sectors, of whom 65.5% were male. The ages ranged from 21 to 59 years (M = 35.82; SD = 9.02). Table 1 presents the sociodemographic characteristics of the respondents.

3.2. Measures

Mobbing. This was measured using five items adapted from the Luxembourg Workplace Mobbing Scale ([59]; e.g., I am criticized by my colleagues and/or my hierarchical superior).
Job Performance. Three items developed by Farh et al. [60] were used (e.g., I do my work efficiently).
Organizational Performance. This was evaluated using five items developed by Wu and Wu [61]; e.g., The organization has good production and service performance.
Workplace Well-being. Ten items formulated by Zheng et al. [62] were utilized (e.g., In general, I feel fairly satisfied with my present job).
All questionnaires were answered using a five-point Likert scale ranging from Never (1) to Always (5), depending on the frequency with which each statement occurred. All questionnaire items were mandatory and were presented in a randomized order to minimize potential response biases [63]. The score for each construct was calculated based on the mean of the sum of its respective items. Accordingly, higher values indicate a greater incidence of mobbing, improved well-being in the workplace, and higher levels of both individual and organizational performance.
Sociodemographic Questions. To characterize the sample, sociodemographic questions were also included (e.g., gender, age, job role).
Control Variables. Gender and age were used, as several studies indicate that women, particularly younger women, are the primary victims of workplace mobbing [4,63,64,65,66].

3.3. Procedures

The data were collected through online questionnaires. The link, which included the study’s objectives, was sent via email to the contacts within the researchers’ professional network. The participants were informed of the purpose of the research and their right to withdraw at any time without facing any consequences. All respondents took part in this study voluntarily and without any form of incentive. Data collection took place between September and November 2024. Prior to the data collection, a pilot test was conducted with 12 individuals to assess the clarity and adequacy of the items, as well as the instructions and the response scale used. This study was reviewed and approved by the ISG/CIGEST Ethics Committee, ensuring compliance with ethical guidelines for research involving human participants. This approval reinforces this study’s commitment to ethical standards, safeguarding participant confidentiality, informed consent, and voluntary participation. Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS (version 29.0) and AMOS (version 29.0) software. Incomplete questionnaires were excluded from the analysis.

3.4. Statistical Analysis

To analyze multivariate normality, Mardia’s coefficient [67] was utilized, accessible via the website https://webpower.psychstat.org/models/kurtosis/ (accessed on 30 November 2024). This tool calculates the skewness and kurtosis coefficients, as well as the p-value. The results obtained indicate that the data adhere to multivariate normality (Mardiaskewness = 2.36, p = 0.68; Mardiakurtosis = 7.78, p = 0.84), since Mardia’s standardized coefficient is above 5% (p > 0.05; [68]). It was also observed that the skewness and kurtosis coefficients of all variables fell within the [−2; 2] range recommended by Orcan [69].
Additionally, Harman’s single-factor test was conducted, demonstrating that the unrotated solution accounts for 31.8% of the total variance. Thus, it can be confirmed that the results were not influenced by common method bias, as the explained variance is below 50.0% [70].
It was also observed that the values of Average Variance Extracted (AVE) exceeded 0.50 and the values of Composite Reliability (CR) were greater than 0.70, thereby ensuring the constructs’ convergent validity [70]. The Maximum Shared Variance (MSV) was lower than the AVE, confirming discriminant validity [71]. Additionally, a significant correlation was found between all variables (Table 2). However, it was observed that gender and age did not present significant associations with the main variables, indicating that they are not influenced by these two sociodemographic variables.
To confirm whether the observed variables represented the latent factors [72,73], a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted. The results indicated that the model fits the sample data [χ2(112) = 3.13, p < 0.001, GFI = 0.90, CFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.07, LO90 = 0.06, HI90 = 0.08]. Subsequently, the formulated hypotheses, as outlined in the literature review, were tested.

4. Results

4.1. Verification of Research Hypotheses

The research hypotheses were tested through multiple linear regression analyses and the evaluation of the serial mediation model. Initially, the objective was to examine the influence of mobbing [independent variable (IV)] on organizational performance [dependent variable (DV)]. The results demonstrated that the higher the level of mobbing, the lower the organization’s performance tends to be (Hypothesis 1). It was found that the model is linear and significant [F(1, 386) = 42.169, p < 0.001], and that 9.6% of negative organizational outcomes may be attributed to the presence of mobbing (β = −0.314, t = −6.494, p < 0.001).
In light of these results, it was deemed relevant to evaluate whether workplace well-being mediates the relationship between mobbing and organizational performance (Hypothesis 2). The statistical analysis revealed that when well-being is incorporated into the model as a mediating variable (MV), the effect of workplace harassment on organizational performance becomes non-significant (β = −0.314, p < 0.001 → β = −0.030, p = 0.375). These values suggest that when there is tranquility in the workplace, mobbing does not trigger a negative impact, which is reflected in organizational performance. This situation indicates a case of full mediation.
It was found that individual performance mediates the relationship between workplace mobbing and organizational performance (Hypothesis 3). These results indicate that lower levels of mobbing are associated with better individual performance (β = −0.165, t = −3.296, p < 0.001), which, in turn, reflects on organizational performance. The mediation model revealed that when individual performance is included in the model as a mediating variable, the effect of mobbing on organizational performance tends to decrease, though it remains significant (β = −0.314, p < 0.001 → β = −0.279, p < 0.001). Thus, partial mediation by individual performance is observed, and there is a significant indirect effect of mobbing on organizational performance (Sobel Z = −2.623, p < 0.05; [74]).
It was determined that mobbing has a negative effect on well-being in the workplace (B = −0.270, SE = 0.038, IC 95% [−0.345, −0.195]) and on individual performance (B = −0.121, SE = 0.037, IC 95% [−0.193, −0.049]). Additionally, it was found that well-being positively influences individual performance (B = 0.454, SE = 0.244, IC 95% [0.026, 0.935]) and organizational performance (B = 0.231, SE = 0.044, IC 95% [0.144, 0.318]).
Additionally, the PROCESS macro (Model 6) by Hayes [75], implemented in SPSS, with 5000 bias-corrected bootstraps and 95% confidence intervals, was employed to assess the indirect effects of well-being and individual performance separately. The results indicated that well-being mediates the relationship between mobbing and organizational performance (B = 0.664, SE = 0.079, 95% IC [0.509, 0.819]), as well as individual performance (B = 0.204, SE = 0.047, IC 95% [0.111, 0.298]). The results also confirmed the serial mediation effect (B = −0.228, SE = 0.039, IC 95% [−0.307, −0.155]; Hypothesis 4). Paired comparisons among the three indirect effects were conducted to test whether they had equal impacts on the relationship between mobbing and organizational performance (Table 3).
The results indicated that the indirect effect of mobbing on organizational performance through well-being was significantly greater (B = −0.179, SE = 0.037, IC 95% [−0.255, −0.111]) than the indirect effect through individual performance (B = −0.031, SE = 0.014, IC 95% [−0.061, −0.007]), which in turn was also greater than the serial mediation effect (B = −0.018, SE = 0.008, IC 95% [−0.035, −0.005]).

4.2. Complementary Results

In light of the findings, it was deemed relevant to identify which predictor variable had the most significant impact on organizational performance. It was determined that workplace well-being is the primary predictor (β = 0.765, t = 22.215, p < 0.001). Furthermore, it was observed that 48.30% of organizational performance is explained by employees’ perceptions of workplace well-being (Table 4). These results suggest that when an organization addresses the needs and expectations of its employees, they are more likely to reciprocate and exert greater effort to enhance organizational performance.
During the literature review, it was observed that several authors [4,65,66] report that workplace mobbing tends to be more prevalent when the direct supervisor is male. This was corroborated through data analysis. It was found that in organizations where supervisors are female (M = 1.88, SD = 0.86), the incidence of mobbing tends to be lower compared to organizations with male supervisors (M = 2.15, SD = 1.03). These differences are statistically significant (t(386) = −2.518, p < 0.05).

5. Discussion

The present study aimed to analyze how workplace mobbing affects organizational performance. Additionally, it sought to determine whether workplace well-being and individual performance serve as serial mediation mechanisms between these two constructs.
As recommended by Hayes [75], indirect effects should be estimated and interpreted without strictly categorizing them as full or partial mediations. In this context, we provide confidence intervals and effect size estimates to clarify the interpretation of mediation paths [76].
The findings revealed that workplace mobbing negatively impacts organizational performance, thereby validating the first hypothesis. These conclusions align with the studies of Petrescu and Manghiuc [8], which indicate that mobbing deteriorates organizational climate and reduces both productivity and efficiency.
The role of leadership in mitigating workplace mobbing is fundamental [77]. Research has shown that managers who actively monitor team dynamics and enforce clear anti-harassment policies contribute to a healthier organizational culture. Effective leadership plays a critical role in setting expectations, establishing behavioral norms, and ensuring the consistent enforcement of organizational policies related to workplace harassment [78]. When leadership is weak or passive, mobbing behaviors are more likely to escalate and persist, creating a toxic work environment that affects both victims and bystanders [79].
The presence of hostile and repetitive behaviors in the workplace not only affects employees’ mental and emotional health, but also compromises the organization’s ability to achieve its strategic goals [7]. Nabawanuka and Ekmekcioglu [44] further highlight that workplace mobbing can have direct and harmful consequences for employees, negatively impacting psychological well-being and overall organizational productivity. The violation of psychological rights has been linked to lower work engagement and a significant increase in stress levels [80]. Chen et al. [36] further highlight that when stress levels are excessively high, there is an increase in demotivation and disengagement, which ultimately undermines both individual and collective performance.
A recent meta-analytic investigation by Zhong et al. [81] provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the theoretical mechanisms through which workplace aggression impacts employee performance. The authors argue that workplace aggression, encompassing behaviors such as incivility, ostracism, and bullying, disrupts the interpersonal and organizational fabric by eroding trust and fostering negative self-perception among employees. These disruptions negatively impact employees’ ability to fulfill their responsibilities and engage in organizational citizenship behaviors, which, in turn, affects the quality of workplace relationships and perceptions of justice. The study highlights that negative affect and state self-evaluation play particularly strong roles in mediating the effects of workplace aggression on task performance. Additionally, relationship quality is a crucial determinant in predicting declines in citizenship behavior, while negative affect is strongly associated with increases in deviant behavior. Workplace aggression, including mobbing, also contributes to high levels of stress and mental exhaustion, further impairing employees’ ability to concentrate and effectively perform job-related tasks. Furthermore, the impact of workplace aggression varies across cultural contexts, with individualism and masculinity influencing the salience of relationship quality and state self-evaluation as mediators. This perspective underscores the necessity of organizational interventions tailored to specific cultural settings to mitigate its adverse effects. The findings align with the present study’s focus on mobbing and its detrimental consequences for workplace well-being and organizational performance, reinforcing that those psychological and social factors play critical roles in mediating these impacts [80]. These findings reinforce the notion that mobbing not only harms employees, but also has direct repercussions on organizational performance [6].
The data analysis demonstrated that workplace well-being mediates the relationship between mobbing and organizational performance, thereby validating the second hypothesis. These results suggest that fostering a calm and supportive work environment can mitigate the negative effects of workplace harassment. Similar findings were reported by Hayat and Afshari [3], who observed that workplace well-being enhances individual performance, reduces turnover, and fosters employee loyalty. Likewise, Ciby et al. [37] emphasized that a harmonious work environment promotes a culture of support and mutual trust, which positively impacts organizational performance. Conversely, Durmuş [40] noted that workplace harassment triggers conflict, undermines trust, and damages organizational culture, which adversely affects organizational performance. Haydaraliyevich [11] further highlighted that workplace well-being acts as a buffer, alleviating the adverse effects of mobbing on productivity and increasing employees’ engagement with the organization. Supporting this perspective, Mehmood et al. [50] argued that by fostering a culture of support and trust and proactively addressing negative behaviors, organizations can create an environment conducive to improving both individual and organizational performance. These findings underscore the importance of investing in organizational practices that promote workplace well-being, as this is essential to optimizing organizational outcomes and minimizing the harmful effects of harassment [43].
The results also supported the third hypothesis, revealing that individual performance mediates the relationship between mobbing and organizational performance. This aligns with studies by Arifoğlu et al. [45] and Minárová et al. [51], which found that mobbing directly impacts individual performance by significantly reducing employee productivity in toxic work environments. Tașkan et al. [54] added that the loss of motivation and increased stress levels caused by workplace harassment impair employees’ focus and creativity, thereby compromising their performance. In this vein, Yilmaz [7] argued that the mediating role of individual performance in the relationship between mobbing and organizational performance is emphasized by employees’ negative experiences, which, in turn, reflect on the organization as a whole. Durmuş [40] further highlighted that individual performance serves as a critical mechanism that translates the effects of mobbing into the organization’s ability (or inability) to achieve strategic objectives. When individual performance is compromised, the collective capacity to reach organizational goals diminishes, reinforcing the importance of this mediation in the analyzed relationship [55]. Evidence indicates that, beyond being influenced by mobbing, individual performance also functions as a mediating link between the negative experiences of workplace harassment and organizational performance [6]. Consequently, interventions aimed at mitigating the effects of mobbing and promoting healthy organizational environments are essential to preserving individual performance and, by extension, organizational success [49].
The fourth hypothesis was also confirmed, as it was determined that workplace well-being and individual performance act as mediating variables in the relationship between mobbing and organizational performance, mitigating the negative effects of this phenomenon. This finding aligns with the work of Hsu et al. [35], who highlighted the importance of understanding the dynamics of mobbing and its influence on mediating variables to promote healthier and more productive work environments. The strategic role of well-being and individual performance is fundamental to transforming organizational culture and minimizing the detrimental impacts of harassment [7].
The substantial sharing of variance among mobbing, well-being, individual performance, and organizational performance highlights the complexity of this relationship. Paired comparisons among the three indirect effects reinforce the relative importance of each mediation, demonstrating that well-being has the most significant impact on the link between mobbing and organizational performance. These conclusions are consistent with findings by Minárová et al. [51], who noted that employee well-being is intrinsically linked to organizational culture and the achievement of organizational objectives. Purandare and Darekar [55] added that mobbing directly compromises well-being, negatively affecting workers’ satisfaction, self-esteem, and ability to concentrate.
The greater impact of well-being compared to individual performance can be explained by its broader scope, as it influences both employees’ emotional states and their perceptions of the organizational environment. Maran et al. [56] highlighted that reduced well-being due to mobbing affects not only direct victims, but also bystanders, thereby amplifying organizational harm. The relevance of the serial mediation effect underscores the necessity of integrating well-being and individual performance to understand the overall impacts of mobbing on organizational performance. This interaction aligns with observations by Ibrahim et al. [57], who emphasized that peer and leadership support help minimize the negative effects of harassment and promotes a more stable emotional environment. This balance positively impacts individual performance and, consequently, the organization’s overall performance.
The results underscore the importance of organizations promoting healthy organizational cultures grounded in solid values and behavioral practices that support both employee well-being and performance. This approach is supported by studies by Minárová et al. [51] and Hayat and Afshari [3], which highlight the significance of a harmonious work environment for emotional health and productivity. Organizations that tolerate mobbing practices not only jeopardize the emotional health of their employees, but also face severe consequences for overall performance, putting their sustainability and competitiveness at risk.

5.1. Theoretical and Practical Contributions

From a theoretical perspective, the findings of this research underscore the importance of organizations implementing effective policies to prevent and combat mobbing, emphasizing the need for a healthy work environment grounded in mutual trust and respect. These elements are critical for mitigating the negative effects of workplace harassment and providing adequate support to victims.
This study extends existing research by providing empirical support for the sequential mediation model linking mobbing to organizational performance through workplace well-being and individual performance. Unlike prior research that treats these mediators independently, our findings suggest that their combined effects better explain the relationship between mobbing and organizational outcomes. Furthermore, we align with Hayes [75] in arguing that the distinction between full and partial mediation lacks substantive theoretical significance, emphasizing instead the magnitude and direction of indirect effects. This study also highlights that managerial intervention in mobbing situations can significantly reduce the occurrence of such behavior, thereby contributing to the improvement of organizational performance. Additionally, it advances the integration of underexplored variables into the literature, as despite the extensive research on the subject, few studies have examined the mediating role of workplace well-being and individual performance on organizational outcomes. Furthermore, it emphasizes the necessity of integrated approaches that consider the multiple factors involved in managing workplace environments, providing valuable insights for more effective and sustainable interventions.
This research identifies a set of practical measures that organizations can adopt to reduce the incidence of mobbing and foster a healthy work environment. These strategies include the following: (i) organizing training sessions and workshops focused on organizational violence to raise awareness about mobbing and empower leaders and employees to recognize and prevent abusive behaviors in the workplace; (ii) developing and disseminating a clear code of conduct that promotes organizational values and enforces penalties for cases of harassment; (iii) establishing internal mechanisms to resolve conflicts before they escalate into mobbing; (iv) providing psychological support for employees who report harassment; (v) conducting regular assessments of psychosocial risks within the organization; (v) establishing zero-tolerance policies towards mobbing practices; (vi) improving or creating reporting channels; and (vii) promoting an organizational culture that values justice and respect.
To mitigate the adverse effects of mobbing, organizations should implement structured well-being programs, strengthen anti-harassment policies, and promote leadership practices that foster supportive work environments. Future research should employ longitudinal designs to establish causal relationships and explore additional mediating variables, such as organizational support and leadership styles.
Additionally, fostering positive workplace relationships is essential, encouraging diversity, tolerance, team-building activities, and social gatherings both within and outside the workplace. These proposed measures not only reduce the risk of mobbing, but also contribute to improving the organizational climate, enhancing motivation, performance, and talent retention.

5.2. Limitations and Suggestions for Future Studies

Despite the robust results and the theoretical and practical contributions of this study, several limitations must be acknowledged. First, while the sample was suitable for the proposed analysis, it lacks representativeness in terms of organizational and cultural diversity. The predominance of male participants may bias the findings, as women typically report higher instances of mobbing. Additionally, the majority of participants were employed in the public sector, limiting the generalizability of the results to the private sector and other types of organizations.
Another significant limitation lies in the cross-sectional nature of this research, which precludes the identification of causal relationships or the detection of changes over time. As pointed out by Kline [82], cross-sectional mediation analysis does not confirm causality, but identifies patterns of covariance between variables. This is a point we recognize and emphasize in the limitations section of this study. Thus, our results should be interpreted as indicative of mediated relationships between the analyzed variables, but not as definitive evidence of a causal effect. Our study recognizes the limitation inherent in using cross-sectional data to test mediation hypotheses, but justifies this approach based on theoretical and empirical evidence that suggests that the analyzed effects can occur over short periods of time. Furthermore, we highlight that the findings reflect patterns of covariance and not definitive causal inferences, recommending future longitudinal studies to delve deeper into this issue.
The exclusive reliance on self-report questionnaires also poses risks of bias, such as social desirability or the under-reporting of negative experiences. An additional methodological concern raised in this study pertains to the use of mandatory survey questions, particularly when dealing with sensitive topics such as workplace mobbing. Sischka et al. [79] investigated the implications of forced answering in online surveys, demonstrating that such practices can lead to increased dropout rates, response bias, and even faking behavior among respondents. The study suggests that forcing respondents to answer all questions may inadvertently undermine the validity of survey data, as individuals may feel pressured to provide socially desirable or superficial responses.
Given that the present study involves sensitive topics related to workplace bullying and mobbing, it is crucial to acknowledge this limitation in the research design. While mandatory questions ensure data completeness, they may also introduce unintended biases that could affect the generalizability of the findings. Future research should explore alternative data collection methods, such as adaptive survey designs or optional open-ended responses, to balance the need for comprehensive data with respondent comfort and authenticity.
Finally, this study focused on two mediating variables—workplace well-being and individual performance—while leaving other potentially relevant factors unexplored, such as leadership styles, organizational culture, or management practices that might interact with the relationships under investigation.
Building on these identified limitations, future research should aim to include more heterogeneous samples, encompassing various sectors and geographic regions. Additionally, greater gender balance is recommended to ensure that the experiences of both men and women are equally represented. Longitudinal studies are also warranted to evaluate changes over time and to deepen the understanding of the dynamics between mobbing, well-being, and performance.
Moreover, integrating qualitative methodologies (e.g., interviews, focus groups) would complement the quantitative data and provide richer insights. To address biases associated with self-reports, the triangulation of methods, including observations, document analysis, and 360-degree feedback, is suggested. It is also relevant to incorporate other mediating variables, such as leadership styles, flourishing, and organizational culture. Including these dimensions would enable a broader and more integrated understanding of mobbing, as well as its causes and effects.
These proposals will pave the way for the development of a more comprehensive and multifaceted perspective on this complex phenomenon, significantly contributing to the design of effective organizational interventions and policies.

6. Conclusions

The present study contributes to understanding the impacts of mobbing on organizational performance, emphasizing the importance of mediating variables such as workplace well-being and individual performance. The findings confirm that workplace harassment negatively affects organizational performance, both directly and indirectly, due to its repercussions on employees’ psychological well-being and individual performance. These conclusions highlight the necessity of organizational approaches focused on preventing and mitigating this phenomenon.
Given these findings, it is imperative that management adopts a proactive stance in addressing workplace mobbing. Prevention strategies should not only focus on reactionary measures, but also emphasize early detection, intervention, and a shift in organizational culture to discourage hostile behaviors before they escalate. The responsibility of leadership in creating and maintaining a safe work environment cannot be overlooked. Policies must be consistently enforced, and leadership must be held accountable for ensuring a zero-tolerance stance against workplace harassment.
The results revealed that workplace well-being is a central mediating variable, exerting a more significant impact than individual performance in the relationship between mobbing and organizational performance. This suggests that fostering a work environment that prioritizes employees’ psychological and emotional health not only protects individuals, but also enhances organizational outcomes. Furthermore, a serial mediation effect was identified, where mobbing influences well-being, which in turn impacts individual performance and, ultimately, organizational performance. These conclusions demonstrate the complexity of the relationships involved and reinforce the importance of implementing integrated strategies.
Additionally, workplace mobbing does not solely affect direct victims—colleagues and teams are also negatively impacted, as a toxic work environment fosters stress, distrust, and decreased motivation across the organization. The indirect consequences of mobbing on organizational culture should be recognized and addressed through comprehensive mental health support, structured conflict resolution strategies, and leadership training aimed at fostering a more inclusive and supportive work environment.
From a practical perspective, the findings underscore the need for organizations to invest in clear policies against mobbing and practices that promote a healthy organizational climate. Initiatives such as training sessions, awareness programs, and mechanisms to address conflicts before they escalate can play a pivotal role in reducing the incidence of mobbing. Moreover, providing psychological support for victims and fostering activities that enhance cohesion and well-being among employees are crucial for alleviating the adverse effects of workplace harassment.
A shift in organizational values is crucial to reducing the prevalence of mobbing. Companies that actively cultivate a culture of respect, transparency, and mutual support tend to experience lower rates of mobbing and higher levels of employee engagement and satisfaction. Ensuring that ethical workplace behavior is embedded in all levels of the organization—starting from top leadership—is a fundamental step in preventing workplace harassment.
Finally, the study reinforces the importance of understanding organizational dynamics holistically, recognizing that organizational performance is closely linked to employees’ experiences. Investing in healthy and respectful work environments is not only an ethical imperative, but also a strategic approach to ensuring the sustainability and competitiveness of organizations. By implementing policies and practices that prioritize well-being and inclusion, organizations can mitigate the harmful effects of mobbing and create an environment conducive to development and innovation.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.I.R. and L.R.; methodology, R.I.R.; software, R.I.R.; validation, R.I.R. and L.R.; formal analysis, L.R.; investigation, L.R.; data curation, L.R.; writing—original draft preparation, R.I.R. and L.R.; writing—review and editing, R.I.R. and L.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and was approved by the Ethic Commission ISG/CIGEST (protocol code CIG_0010.4, 27 December 2024).

Informed Consent Statement

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

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article; further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Heggestad, E.; Scheaf, D.; Banks, G.; Hausfeld, M.; Tonidandel, S.; Williams, E. Scale adaptation in organizational science research: A review and best-practice recommendations. J. Manag. 2019, 45, 2596–2627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Sperry, L. Mobbing and bullying: The influence of individual, work group, and organizational dynamics on abusive workplace behavior. Consult. Psychol. J. Pract. Res. 2009, 61, 190–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Hayat, A.; Afshari, L. Supportive organizational climate: A moderated mediation model of workplace bullying and employee well-being. Pers. Rev. 2020, 50, 1685–1704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ahmad, S.; Sohal, A.; Cox, J. Leading well is not enough: A new insight from the ethical leadership, workplace bullying and employee well-being relationships. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2020, 32, 159–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Hewett, R.; Liefooghe, A.; Visockaite, G.; Roongrerngsuke, S. Bullying at work: Cognitive appraisal of negative acts, coping, wellbeing, and performance. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2018, 23, 71–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Ayhan, D.; Tatar, A. Psychosocial risk factors in employees as predictors of mobbing. J. Manag. Econ. Res. 2023, 21, 133–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Yilmaz, M. Evaluation of the perceptions of female employees on mobbing and on the effect of mobbing on work performance. Rev. Argent. De Clínica Psicológica 2021, 30, 631–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Leymann, H. Mobbing and Psychological Terror at Workplaces. Violence Vict. 1990, 5, 119–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Leymann, H. The Content and Development of Mobbing at Work. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 1996, 5, 165–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. International Labour Organization. Preventing and Addressing Violence and Harassment in the World of Work Through Occupational Safety and Health Measures; ILO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  11. Haydaraliyevich, A. Mobbing effect job satisfaction. Res. Focus 2024, 3, 56–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Donald, M.; Rivalani, M. Outcomes and Consequences of Workplace Bullying Incidents: An Indigenous South African Perspective. Int. J. Appl. Res. Bus. Manag. 2024, 5, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Erdirençelebi, M.; Şendoğdu, A. Effects of mobbing and organizational silence on employee’s performance. Macrotheme Rev. 2016, 5, 101–116. [Google Scholar]
  14. Krekel, C.; Ward, G.; De Neve, J. Employee well-being, productivity, and firm performance: Evidence and case studies. In Global Happiness and Wellbeing Policy Report 2019; Global Council for Happiness and Wellbeing: Washington, DC, USA, 2019; pp. 72–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. João, A.; Vicente, C.; Portelada, A. Impact and prevalence of workplace bullying in Portuguese nursing settings. J. Nurs. 2023, 6, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Zhou, X.; Rasool, S.; Ma, D. The relationship between workplace violence and innovative work behavior: The mediating roles of employee wellbeing. Healthcare 2020, 8, 332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Couto, T.; Paschoal, G. The practice of mobbing. The violation of human dignity and the intention of the aggressor. Rev. Juris UniToledo 2020, 5, 69–81. [Google Scholar]
  18. Altindag, O. Relationship between stress management and job performance in organizations. Int. J. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2020, 9, 43–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Einarsen, S.; Hoel, H.; Zapf, D.; Cooper, C. The concept of bullying harassment at work: The European tradition In Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace. Developments in Theory, Research, and Practice, 2nd ed.; Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., Cooper, C., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2011; pp. 3–39. [Google Scholar]
  20. Tepper, B.; Henle, C. A case for recognizing distinctions among constructs that capture interpersonal mistreatment in work organizations. J. Organ. Behav. 2011, 32, 487–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lutgen-Sandvik, P. Vicarious Secondary Victimization in Adult Bullying Mobbing: Coworkers Target-Partners Children Friends in Workplace Bullying and Mobbing in the United States; Yamada, D., Duffy, M., Eds.; Bloomsbury Publishing: London, UK, 2018; pp. 171–200. [Google Scholar]
  22. Ng, K.; Niven, K.; Hoel, H. ‘I could help, but…’: A dynamic sensemaking model of workplace bullying bystanders. Hum. Relat. 2020, 73, 1718–1746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Tiwari, M.; Mathur, G.; Narula, S.; Verma, M. The Ripple Effects of Bullying: Impact on Employees and Their Performance. FIIB Bus. Rev. 2024; advance online publication. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Bulut, M. Mobbing in the workplace: Causes, consequences, and solutions. J. Behav. Sci. Psychol. 2019, 2, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  25. Farley, S.; Mokhtar, D.; Ng, K.; Niven, K. What influences the relationship between workplace bullying and employee well-being? A systematic review of moderators. Work Stress 2023, 37, 345–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hussain, S.; Sarki, I.; Nawaz, M.; Aslam, K. The impact of workplace bullying on organizational commitment: A structural equation modeling assessment. Pak. J. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2023, 11, 1324–1335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wu, M.; He, Q.; Imran, M.; Fu, J. Workplace bullying, anxiety, and job performance: Choosing between “passive resistance” or “swallowing the insult”? Front. Psychol. 2020, 10, 2953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Chiabrishvili, K.; Kropadze, T. Mobbing in the organization: Causes and likely consequences. New Econ. 2023, 18, 7–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Busby, L.; Patrick, L.; Gaudine, A. Upwards workplace bullying: A literature review. Sage Open 2022, 12, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Goh, H.; Hosier, S.; Zhang, H. Prevalence, antecedents, and consequences of workplace bullying among nurses: A summary of reviews. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 8256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Feijó, F.; Gräf, D.; Pearce, N.; Fassa, A. Risk factors for workplace bullying: A systematic review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Zahlquist, L.; Hetland, J.; Einarsen, S.; Bakker, A.; Hoprekstad, Ø.; Espevik, R.; Olsen, O. Daily interpersonal conflicts and daily exposure to bullying behaviors at work: The moderating roles of trait anger and trait anxiety. Appl. Psychol. 2023, 72, 893–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Tziner, A.; Bar-Mor, H.; Shwartz-Asher, D.; Shkoler, O.; Geva, L.; Levi, H. Insights into abusive workplace behavior. Front. Psychol. 2023, 14, 990501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Çetinkaya, A. Mobbing at Workplace Reactions Against. In Proceedings of the MTCON’21—Conference on Managing Tourism Across Continents, Virtual, 1–3 April 2021; Cobanoglu, C., Kucukaltan, E., Tuna, M., Basoda, A., Dogan, S., Eds.; University of South Florida: Tampa, FL, USA, 2021; pp. 87–88. [Google Scholar]
  35. Hsu, F.; Liu, Y.; Tsaur, S. The impact of workplace bullying on hotel employees’ well-being: Do organizational justice and friendship matter? Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 31, 1702–1719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Chen, B.; Wang, L.; Li, B.; Liu, W. Work stress, mental health, and employee performance. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 1006580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ciby, M.; Sahai, S.; Raya, R. Workplace bullying and turnover intention: Serial multiple mediation model of negative emotions and affective commitment. Int. J. Manag. Pract. 2021, 14, 736–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Rufeng, L.; Nan, Z.; Jianqiang, Z. Impact of Employee Well-Being on Organizational Performance in Workplace. Int. J. Manag. Hum. Sci. 2023, 7, 87–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Singh, R.; Ramdeo, S. Workplace Harassment. In Contemporary Perspectives in Human Resource Management and Organizational Behavior: Research Overviews and Gaps to Advance Interrelated Fields; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2023; pp. 99–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Durmuş, Y. The experiences and views of elementary school teachers regarding mobbing. J. Pedagog. Res. 2023, 7, 266–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Asik, H.; Yinal, Y. The effect of mobbing on employee performance in work life. Online J. New Horiz. Educ. 2023, 13, 326. [Google Scholar]
  42. Andriyani, A.; Wicaksono, B. Mitigation of workplace bullying by increasing awareness of the negative impact it causes on employee behavior. J. Bisnis Dan Manaj. 2023, 19, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ilieva, J.; Stoilkovska, A.; Todosovski, A. Enhancing workplace environment by addressing mobbing: Impacts on motivation and productivity. UTMS J. Econ. 2024, 15, 54–63. [Google Scholar]
  44. Nabawanuka, H.; Ekmekcioglu, E. Workplace bullying and team performance: The mediating role of team psychological contract breach. Team Perform. Manag. 2022, 28, 331–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Arifoğlu, M.; Olgan, H.; Yinal, A. Mobbing experiences of women employees in the workplace: A qualitative study on the perceptions of mobbing that women employees are exposed to in the trnc. Online J. New Horiz. Educ. 2023, 13, 228–236. [Google Scholar]
  46. Buka, M.; Sulstarova, A.; Kurtaj, E. Emotional intelligence, mobbing and resilience in police forces. Organ. Psychol. 2024, 14, 128–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Özveren, C. Emotional problems experienced by mobbing victims and a research model proposal in terms of cognitive behavioral model. Health Sci. Q. 2024, 4, 73–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Wilczek-Rużyczka, E. Job burnout among polish nurses–influence of mobbing and coping with stress. Acta Neuropsychol. 2024, 21, 457–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ardianto, H.; Rosari, R. Don’t let them get stressed! HPWS mechanisms in improving psychological well-being in the workplace. Int. J. Workplace Health Manag. 2024; ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Mehmood, S.; Bano, A.; Khan, M.; Erdey, L. Effect of workplace bullying and incivility on employee performance: Mediating role of psychological well-being. J. Infrastruct. Policy Dev. 2024, 8, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Minárová, M.; Benčiková, D.; Malá, D.; Smutný, F. Mobbing in a workplace and its negative influence on building quality culture. SHS Web Conf. 2020, 74, 05014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Adigüzel, Z.; Küçükoğlu, I. Examination of the Effects of Psychological Violence Perception on Service Workers. Doğuş Üniversitesi Derg. 2020, 21, 157–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Santos, C.; Pamplona Filho, R. Convention 190: Violence and harassment in the world of work. Direito UNIFACS 2020, 13, 7–31. [Google Scholar]
  54. Taşkan, B.; Güleryüzb, E.; Toker-Gültaş, Y. The moderating role of emotion management in the relationship between mobbing and burnout. J. Hum. Work 2022, 9, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Purandare, S.; Darekar, S. Workplace bullying and employee performance: A study of Indian employees. Vidyabharati Int. Interdiscip. Res. J. 2021, 12, 602–606. [Google Scholar]
  56. Maran, D.; Zedda, M.; Varetto, A. Male and female witnesses of mobbing: Gender difference in experiencing consequences. A cross-sectional study in an Italian sample. J. Workplace Behav. Health 2021, 36, 8–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ibrahim, R.; Zalam, W.; Foster, B.; Afrizal, T.; Johansyah, M.; Saputra, J.; Bakar, A.; Dagang, M.; Ali, S. Psychosocial Work Environment and Teachers’ Psychological Well-Being: The Moderating Role of Job Control and Social Support. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 7308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Jose, P. Mediation moderation. In The Reviewer’s Guide to Quantitative Methods in the Social Sciences; Hancock, G., Stapelton, L., Mueller, R., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2018; pp. 248–259. [Google Scholar]
  59. Steffgen, G.; Sischka, P.; Schmidt, A.; Kohl, D.; Happ, C. The Luxembourg Workplace Mobbing Scale: Psychometric properties of a new instrument. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 2016, 35, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Farh, J.; Dobbins, G.; Cheng, B. Cultural relativity in action: A comparison of self-ratings made by Chinese and US workers. Pers. Psychol. 1991, 44, 129–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Wu, S.; Wu, Y. The influence of enterprisers’ green management awareness on green management strategy and organizational performance. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 2014, 31, 455–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Zheng, X.; Zhu, W.; Zhao, H.; Zhang, C. Employee well-being in organizations: Theoretical model, scale development, and cross-cultural validation. J. Organ. Behav. 2015, 36, 621–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Turk, T.; Elhady, M.; Rashed, S.; Abdelkhalek, M.; Nasef, S.; Khallaf, A.; Mohammed, A.; Attia, A.; Adhikaru, P.; Amin, M.; et al. Quality of reporting web-based and non-web-based survey studies: What authors, reviewers and consumers should consider. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0194239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Lampman, C.; Crew, E.; Lowery, S.; Tompkins, K. Women Faculty Distressed: Descriptions and Consequences of Academic Contrapower Harassment. J. About Women High. Educ. 2016, 9, 169–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Prevost, C.; Hunt, E. Bullying and mobbing in academe: A literature review. Eur. Sci. J. 2018, 14, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Santoro, P.; Borrelli, I.; Gualano, M.; Amantea, C.; Tumminello, A.; Daniele, A.; Rossi, M.; Moscato, U. Occupational hazards and gender differences: A narrative review. J. Sex-Gend.-Specif. Med. 2022, 8, 154–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Mardia, K. 9 Tests of unvariate and multivariate normality. Handb. Stat. 1980, 1, 279–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Mardia, K.; Kent, J.; Taylor, C. Multivariate Analysis; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  69. Orcan, F. Parametric or non-parametric: Skewness to test normality for mean comparison. Int. J. Assess. Tools Educ. 2020, 7, 255–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Podsakoff, P.; Podsakoff, N.; Williams, L.; Huang, C.; Yang, J. Common method bias: It’s bad, it’s complex, it’s widespread, and it’s not easy to fix. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2024, 11, 17–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Almén, N.; Lundberg, H.; Sundin, Ö.; Jansson, B. The reliability and factorial validity of the Swedish version of the Recovery Experience Questionnaire. Nord. Psychol. 2018, 70, 324–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Yalin-Uçar, M.; Bağatarhan, T.; Yakit, G.; Ekici, M.; Asli, E.; Kizilaslan, H. Development of the Reasoning Ways Scale: Validity and Reliability Study. Kalem Eğitim Ve İnsan Bilim. Derg. 2024, 14, 129–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Alavi, M.; Visentin, D.; Thapa, D.; Hunt, G.; Watson, R.; Cleary, M. Chi-square for model fit in confirmatory factor analysis. J. Adv. Nurs. 2020, 76, 2209–2211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Preacher, K. Calculation for the Sobel Test: An Interactive Calculation Tool for Mediation Tests. 2024. Available online: https://quantpsy.org/sobel/sobel.htm (accessed on 20 November 2024).
  75. Hayes, A. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  76. MacKinnon, D.; Krull, J.; Lockwood, C. Equivalence of the mediation, confounding and suppression effect. Prev. Sci. 2000, 1, 173–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Einarsen, S.; Aasland, M.; Skogstad, A. Destructive leadership behaviour: A definition and conceptual model. Leadersh. Q. 2007, 18, 207–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Hoel, H.; Glasø, L.; Hetland, J.; Cooper, C.; Einarsen, S. Leadership styles as predictors of self-reported and observed workplace bullying. Br. J. Manag. 2010, 21, 453–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Kurtulmuş, B. Toxic Leadership and Workplace Bullying: The Role of Followers and Possible Coping Strategies; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  80. Sischka, P.; Schmidt, A.; Steffgen, G. Further Evidence for Criterion Validity and Measurement Invariance of the Luxembourg Workplace Mobbing Scale. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 2020, 36, 32–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Zhong, R.; Yao, J.; Wang, Y.; Lyubykh, Z.; Robinson, S. Workplace aggression and employee performance: A meta-analytic investigation of mediating mechanisms and cultural contingencies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2024; advance online publication. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Kline, R. The mediation myth. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2015, 37, 202–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Merits 05 00006 g001
Figure 1. Sequential mediation model. Source: the authors’ own work.
Figure 1. Sequential mediation model. Source: the authors’ own work.
Merits 05 00006 g001
Table 1. Characterization of participants.
Table 1. Characterization of participants.
Sociodemographic VariablesN = 388
Sex
Male254 (65.5%)
Female134 (34.5%)
Age group
29 years or younger126 (32.5%)
30 to 39 years133 (34.3%)
40 years or older129 (33.2%)
Educational level
Below bachelor’s degree154 (39.7%)
Bachelor’s degree120 (30.9%)
Above bachelor’s degree114 (29.4%)
Function performed
Operational/Administrative138 (35.6%)
Technical131 (33.8%)
Leadership119 (30.7%)
Sector where functions are performed
Public325 (83.8%)
Private63 (16.2%)
Last Performance Evaluation Rating
Not applicable89 (22.9%)
Inadequate12 (3.1%)
Adequate153 (39.4%)
Relevant134 (34.5%)
Source: Authors’ own work.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics.
VariableMSDCRAVEMSV1234
1. Mobbing1.95 19.140.900.710.54(0.86)
2. Well-Being3.69 10.720.910.810.65−0.365 **(0.89)
3. Ind. Perf.4.06 10.660.840.850.54−0.165 **0.257 **(0.71)
4. Org. Perf.3.40 11.170.880.850.59−0.181 **0.455 **0.252 **(0.80)
Sex 2-----−0.0310.057−0.058−0.040
Age35.829.02---−0.0640.1010.106−0.046
Note. N = 388; ** p < 0.001; Ind. Perf. = individual performance; Org. Perf. = organizational performance; M = mean; SD = standard-deviation; CR = Composite Reliability; AVE = Average Variance Extracted; MSV = Maximum Shared Variance. 1 Scale ranging from 1 to 5; 2 sex: 0 = female; 1 = male. Cronbach’s Alpha is in brackets. Source: the authors’ own work.
Table 3. Comparison of the indirect effects of mobbing through well-being and individual performance on organizational performance.
Table 3. Comparison of the indirect effects of mobbing through well-being and individual performance on organizational performance.
Effects Bootstrapping 95% CI
Total indirect effectB (Unstandardized)β (Standardized)SEtpLowerUpper
Model 1: Mobbing → Individual performance → Organizational performance−0.031−0.0240.014−4.298<0.001−0.061−0.007
Model 2: Mobbing → Well-being → Organizational performance−0.179−0.2350.037−3.1080.002−0.255−0.111
Model 3: Mobbing → Individual performance →
Well-being → Organizational performance		−0.018−0.0140.008−0.014<0.001−0.035−0.005
Contrasts
Model 1 vs. Model 20.1480.1190.041--0.0690.234
Model 1 vs. Model 3−0.013−0.0100.014--−0.0420.015
Model 2 vs. Model 3−0.161−0.1240.038--−0.238−0.090
Note. B = unstandardized beta; β = standardized beta; SE = standard error; t = t-test; p = p-value; CI = confidence intervals. Source: The authors’ own work.
Table 4. Influence of predictive variables on organizational performance.
Table 4. Influence of predictive variables on organizational performance.
Predictive VariablesOrganizational Performance (β)R2 Semi-Partial
Mobbing−0.0260.05%
Workplace well-being0.765 **48.30%
Individual performance0.0530.26%
R2 = 0.621
F(3,384) = 212.301 **
Note. ** p < 0.001. Source: the authors’ own work.
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

Ronha, L.; Rodrigues, R.I. Relationship Between Mobbing and Organizational Performance: Workplace Well-Being and Individual Performance as Serial Mediation Mechanisms. Merits 2025, 5, 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/merits5010006

AMA Style

Ronha L, Rodrigues RI. Relationship Between Mobbing and Organizational Performance: Workplace Well-Being and Individual Performance as Serial Mediation Mechanisms. Merits. 2025; 5(1):6. https://doi.org/10.3390/merits5010006

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ronha, Larissa, and Rosa Isabel Rodrigues. 2025. "Relationship Between Mobbing and Organizational Performance: Workplace Well-Being and Individual Performance as Serial Mediation Mechanisms" Merits 5, no. 1: 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/merits5010006

APA Style

Ronha, L., & Rodrigues, R. I. (2025). Relationship Between Mobbing and Organizational Performance: Workplace Well-Being and Individual Performance as Serial Mediation Mechanisms. Merits, 5(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/merits5010006

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop