Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Utilizing the framework of conservation of resources theory and social exchange theory, this study seeks to examine the influence of workplace bullying and employee silence on workplace deviance while exploring the role of stress in this phenomenon. Multi-wave data was received from 250 employees from the textile industry of Pakistan through a convenience sampling technique. It was analyzed using the partial least squares technique. In light of the results derived from the analysis, there exists a positive impact of workplace bullying and employee silence on workplace deviance. Moreover, there exists a partial mediation in the model through stress. Organizations have to pay huge tangible and intangible costs associated with workplace deviance. The study adds insight into the conservation of resources theory by highlighting the mediating role of stress in the said relationships in the organization. By highlighting the role of workplace bullying, silence, and stress in workplace deviance, this study offers practical insights for interventions. Organizations can address bullying, foster open communication, and implement stress management to reduce deviant behaviors and associated costs, ensuring a healthier work environment. Considering this type of study to be unique in the Pakistani context, this research holds a landmark of its own.

Keywords

workplace deviance workplace bullying employee silence stress

Introduction

Workplace deviance, defined as voluntary activities by employees that contravene organizational norms and detrimentally affect the organization, has emerged as a critical concern in modern workplace behavior research (Bennett & Robinson, 2000). Such behaviors show in diverse forms, including theft, sabotage, dishonesty, and absenteeism, all of which can yield significant repercussions for both individual employees and the firm collectively (Robinson & Bennett, 1995; Spector et al., 2005). These acts not only reduce productivity and morale but also incur significant direct and indirect costs, including diminished employee involvement, erosion of trust, and harm to the organization’s brand (Judge et al., 2006). Furthermore, workplace deviance can cultivate a detrimental work environment, impact employee well-being and significantly altering organizational dynamics (Dalal, 2005). The expenses related to deviation surpass mere financial losses, affecting staff retention and recruiting while diminishing the organization’s ability to innovate and collaborate effectively (Lim, 2002; Robinson & Greenberg, 1998).

Organizations are very concerned about such employee behaviors (Arshad et al., 2024, Sabeen & Arshad, 2019). Workplace deviance is one of the most concerning employee behaviors that result in several detrimental consequences for organizations (Tu et al., 2022). Deviant behavior is intentional harm to the organization or disruption to other employees (Spector et al., 2005). This research aims to discover why employees create backfires for the company in the form of deviance at the workplace. Much of the company’s budget goes to employing the proper person. If employees use workplace deviance, it may hurt the company and disturb other, more reliable, honest employees. Workplace deviance (WD) is any activity that harms the company. Psychologists and HR managers worldwide study detrimental workplace behaviors. A news report by CNBC confirms that corporations lose $50 billion every year owing to employees who cause workplace violence and deviance (Pofeldt, 2017). In Pakistan, where industries are grappling with complex socio-economic challenges, the issue becomes even more pronounced (Zahid & Nauman, 2024). The textile sector, a cornerstone of Pakistan’s economy, faces unique pressures such as intense competition, resource constraints, and rigid workplace hierarchies which can exacerbate behaviors like workplace deviance (Abbasi et al., 2024; Malik et al., 2021; Shahid et al., 2024).

Divergent behavior and their influencing factors are the focus of this study. Many studies have established that WD is exacerbated by anything stressful for employees (Kura et al., 2023; Tu et al., 2022). Workplace bullying and employee silence are found to raise stress levels in employees. Workplace bullying, a form of interpersonal mistreatment, occurs when employees experience repeated unpleasant behavior from supervisors (Einarsen, Hoel, et al., 2020). Over the past 25 years, research has linked workplace bullying to unfavorable attitudes and behaviors (Nielsen et al., 2010). The existing body of research on interpersonal mistreatment (Cole et al., 2016; Hershcovis, 2011; Tepper & Henle, 2011) examines three distinct ways in which employees react to mistreatment in the workplace: by refraining from engaging in discretionary behaviors (such as decreased workplace involvement, innovation, and willingness to contribute; Einarsen et al., 2016; Lee & Brotheridge, 2013; Park & Ono, 2016; Trépanier et al., 2015), and by exhibiting unfavorable behaviors. Workplace bullying has become a fundamental matter of discussion for educators and managers in the last 2 decades. The research has been performed in almost all geographical locations worldwide, and the findings have been shared. A study in the US showed that a staggering 47% of people had faced some workplace bullying in the first 2 years of their job (Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007). This implicates a case for research on this dreadful phenomenon to see its consequences. The most prominent factor is that this horrible act does hamper the working abilities and performance of the employees (Einarsen et al., 2003; Mehmood et al., 2024). Research has also strongly indicated that if the workers are not given fair and unbiased treatment, it can lead to destructive activities that can eventually harm the organization (Bennett & Robinson, 2000). Bullying and violence at work can also initiate high levels of stress, which can hamper work performance, hurt working abilities, and lead to harm to the company (Beehr, 1976). It can also harm a person’s physical and mental well-being and cause a greater employee turnover rate; again, the company is at a loss. A study has also given evidence that anywhere between 33% and 75% of the employees are a part of workplace deviance and only add up to the company’s cost by getting involved in immoral, unethical, and indecent acts (Bennett & Robinson, 2000). Some further studies have labeled workplace bullying as a direct factor in workplace deviance (Ayoko et al., 2003).

Limited scholars are studying employee silence and feedback avoidance (Kiewitz et al., 2016; Whitman et al., 2014; Xu et al., 2015) in relation to unfavorable behaviors. Employee silence is when they deliberately hide their thoughts, knowledge, worries, and opinions regarding their job and the organization (Brinsfield, 2014; Van Dyne et al., 2003). It is considered to be a highly significant issue. Negative implications for the company are established when employees are reluctant to speak out and become silenced (Farghaly Abdelaliem & Abou Zeid, 2023; Morrison, 2023). This hesitancy to say anything has to do with some factors, from the fear of talking to not being allowed to speak (Donaghey et al., 2011). Employee silence is harmful to the employees and has negative implications for the company because it resists the free flow of critical pieces of information and can lower everyone’s morale and confidence (Morrison & Milliken, 2000). Unfortunately, according to Lutgen-Sandvik et al. (2007) and Rai and Agarwal (2017), understanding of the connection of workplace bullying and employee silence with deviant behavior is currently limited. The presence of workplace deviance in Pakistan (Nasir & Bashir, 2012), and the fact that it is so detrimental, makes it necessary to perform a study on its antecedents in this context of Pakistan.

A critical omission in the existing research on bullying and silence is its narrow concentration on the fundamental and intermediate processes involved in the interaction between bullying and silence and their consequences (Park & Ono, 2016; Tuckey & Neall, 2014; Vakola & Bouradas, 2005). Researchers commonly acknowledge that individuals react emotionally to organizational events (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), like workplace bullying. Unpleasant incidents in the workplace are known to cause intense negative emotions, which in turn have a detrimental impact on attitudes and actions towards work. Existing research on bullying indicates that affective states play a crucial role in the link between bullying and its results (Glasø & Notelaers, 2012; Olaleye & Lekunze, 2024). Employee stress is a significant emotional state that mediates negative workplace situations and essential employee outcomes. Studies by Callea et al. (2016), Kernan et al. (2016), and Restubog et al. (2013) have all successfully established this relationship. Studies Rai and Agarwal (2017) and Salin and Notelaers (2017) point out that there has recently been a growing emphasis on the role of employee stress in the literature on both bullying and silence (Rai & Agarwal, 2018; Salin & Notelaers, 2017; Vakola & Bouradas, 2005). Vakola and Bouradas (2005) strongly suggested studying the occurrence of stress in employees due to silence. The role of stress in the association between the influence of bullying and silence on workplace deviance needs to be studied for a deeper understanding of these phenomena.

The primary objective of this study is to address the gap in research by investigating the association of workplace bullying and employee silence with workplace deviance. We also examine the mediating role of stress in these relationships. In accordance with Hobfoll’s (1989) theory of conservation of resources (COR), this study suggests that workplace bullying and employee silence start a chain reaction of resource depletion that puts employees stressed, forcing them to start deviance to protect and preserve their remaining resources. Workplace bullying is confirmed to create resource loss, including both personal and job resources such as energy, coworker support, and others (Tuckey & Neall, 2014). Similarly, employees who adopt silence instead of voice in organizations on various matters due to the fear of management may suffer stress (Pinder & Harlos, 2001). Employee silence results in a lack of feedback from others, reduced organizational commitment, and reduced job satisfaction (Morrison & Milliken, 2000; Vakola & Bouradas, 2005). These are valuable resources for the employee. The COR theory postulates that resource loss increases stress, and stressed employees adopt strategies to protect the remaining resources. As workplace bullying and employee silence result in resource loss and stress, employees may adopt workplace deviance as a strategy to protect their remaining resources.

This study makes significant contributions. Firstly, it contributes to expanding knowledge regarding the harmful effects of workplace bullying and employee silence. This initial study empirically investigates workplace deviance as a response to bullying and silence. Additionally, it is one of the limited efforts to explore employees’ passive coping strategies in the face of mistreatment in the workplace. Furthermore, this study aims to investigate the role of stress as a mediator in the interaction between workplace bullying, silence, and employees’ destructive behavior, that is, deviance. Analyzing these factors is crucial because employees may often hesitate to report negative workplace behaviors for various reasons, and they only start to deviate from the work as a response, either directly or through stress. This study contributes to the existing literature by expanding the Western-centric perspective to include the context of Pakistan (Asia) to help organizations design targeted solutions to this problem. It uniquely contributes to understanding workplace dynamics in Pakistan by examining how workplace bullying, employee silence, and stress contribute to workplace deviance within a culturally distinct context. In Pakistani organizations, hierarchical structures, collectivist tendencies, and indirect communication norms may amplify these issues, creating a need for tailored strategies (Gelfand & Erez, 2024). By exploring these variables, the study offers context-specific insights to help practitioners address the unique challenges of workplace deviance in Pakistan. By integrating theoretical insights with practical relevance, the research bridges the gap between academic inquiry and actionable organizational strategies.

Literature Review

Workplace Bullying

In the contemporary world, bullying is among the most prominent social problems (Einarsen et al., 2011). Researchers and educators are addressing this issue (Bergbom et al., 2015). Studies have shown that approximately 14.6% of employees face workplace bullying (Nielsen et al., 2010). Workplace bullying literature is nuanced and sometimes contradicting. Most studies show that bullying harms employee health and organizational performance (Farley et al., 2023), but some suggest that it may actually promote resilience or positive organizational changes (Anasori et al., 2023; Majeed & Naseer, 2021; Olaleye & Lekunze, 2024; Van Heugten, 2013). However, most studies confirmed is as a detrimental phenomenon (Nielsen et al., 2017). Workplace bullying can be elaborated as a form of interpersonal mistreatment that occurs when employees experience repeated unpleasant behavior from supervisors (Einarsen et al., 2011). Initially, this act of bullying was merely considered a form of mobbing (Einarsen et al., 2003; Peng et al., 2016). However, the standard and most widely accepted characteristic of this phenomenon is that it involves the adverse treatment of other people (Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007). It also includes behaviors that can result in mental and physical aggression, henceforth creating violence and public unease (Peng et al., 2016). In short, workplace bullying can be defined as the act of disturbing or harassing someone within an organization. The magnitude of bullying can be stated regarding its rate of reoccurrence, perseverance, power imbalance, and the hostility at which it is targeted (Einarsen et al., 2011). According to Social Exchange Theory (SET), workplace bullying violates the principles of fairness and reciprocity in workplace relationships, thus leading to a breakdown in the social contract and increasing the likelihood of negative outcomes such as workplace deviance. This theory suggests that when employees experience unfair treatment, their subsequent behavior, including deviance, is often a form of retaliation or withdrawal from these toxic social exchanges (Blau, 1964).

Employee Silence

Employee silence is conceptualized as a behavior when an employee ceases to discuss the ongoing issues in his organization (Morrison & Milliken, 2000). This is most commonly conceptualized in three types. Prosocial silence, defensive silence, and acquiescent silence (Van Dyne et al., 2003). This can happen due to a lack of interest in the job or restrictions exercised on that particular employee (Donaghey et al., 2011). While it is widely perceived that employee silence is detrimental, linked to diminished job satisfaction, low morale, and interruptions in information flow (Baloch et al., 2023; Morrison, 2023), recent studies have offered researchers a more nuanced understanding. Recent studies suggest that prosocial silence can serve as a protective mechanism in specific situations, facilitating the preservation of relationships or the avoidance of unnecessary workplace confrontation (Hao et al., 2022; Kızrak & Yeloğlu, 2024). Additionally, the propensity to remain silent may also stem from cultural norms. In these norms, voicing dissent is discouraged as it is perceived as a manifestation of disloyalty, perhaps leading to context-specific repercussions (McKearney et al., 2023; Van Dyne et al., 2003). Most researchers consider that employee silence is dangerous for the organization because it can cause a lack of job satisfaction and low morale (Morrison & Milliken, 2000). It also resists the flow of vital information throughout the organization (Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008). Sometimes, staying silent can be much more catastrophic than speaking up (Brinsfield, 2014).

Workplace Deviance

Workplace deviance refers to causing harm to the organization using violence or not following the code of norms and ethics (Robinson & Bennett, 1995). Different researchers have given different names to this anomalous behavior of the employees (Raza et al., 2023). As per Robinson and Bennett (1995), workplace deviance has two aspects, that is, trivial in comparison to severe and interpersonal in comparison to organizational deviance. Organizational deviance refers to the deliberate act of damaging an organization’s assets by not working responsibly or by giving out confidential information. Interpersonal deviance refers to disturbing the working environment of an organization by creating a sense of unease (Jahanzeb & Fatima, 2017). Divergent views exist regarding deviation causes. Job stress, insufficient autonomy, and position ambiguity may impact deviant behavior (Bashir et al., 2019). Traditional views attribute deviant behaviours to individual factors as poor self-control or moral disengagement (Abbasi et al., 2024). Deviance is often linked to negative organizational outcomes like increased turnover, low job commitment, and job dissatisfaction (Huiras et al., 2000), but some scholars argue that “constructive deviance,” can challenge harmful norms and promote positive change (Liu et al., 2024). Usually, when we talk about deviance, it is considered a negative word (Bowling & Eschleman, 2010). This comprehensive view emphasizes the complexity of workplace deviance.

Stress at Work

Within the realm of occupational stress, a great number of investigations have been carried out in order to further understand the topic. Additionally, a number of studies have found a variety of strategies to deal with stress brought on by one’s profession, one of which is the transactional approach. The transactional perspective illuminates the dynamic relationship that exists between individuals and the environment in which they are employed during the process of stress development (Lazarus, 1995). Another study explains that stress is when an individual experiences a dynamic situation when they encounter an opportunity, limitations, or a requirement that is connected to their aspirations. The outcome of this situation is seen as both unclear and significant (Robbins & Sanghi, 2005). Stressed employees cannot perform well (Bashir & Ramay, 2010). Conversely, Kawiana et al. (2023) found that stress in the workplace increases the performance of freight transfer and logistics employees. Work stress is complex and needs to be more deeply understood. Stress mediates the relationship between various types of workplace violence and the sustainable performance of employees (Rasool et al., 2020). We also expect that it will play a mediating role in the present study.

Theoretical Underpinnings

This study is grounded in two prominent theories: Social Exchange Theory (SET) and Conservation of Resources Theory (COR). SET provides a lens for understanding the dynamics of workplace relationships and behaviors, positing that individuals weigh the costs and benefits in their interactions and reciprocate accordingly (Blau, 2017; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). This theory helps explain why employees who experience bullying or silence might engage in deviant behaviors as a response to perceived unfairness. On the other hand, COR Theory (Hobfoll, 1989, 2001; Hobfoll et al., 2018) focuses on how individuals strive to acquire, retain, and protect their resources, such as psychological well-being and social support, in the face of workplace stressors. It highlights the role of stress as a mediator in the relationship between bullying, silence, and deviance, explaining how these stressors lead to resource depletion and, consequently, negative employee outcomes (Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999; Halbesleben et al., 2014). The relationships among these variables, as framed by the theories, are further explored below, where the specific connections between workplace bullying, employee silence, stress, and workplace deviance are discussed.

Workplace Bullying and Workplace Deviance

Those vulnerable to getting bullied hardly find the chance to cope with it or impede it from happening (Jahanzeb & Fatima, 2017; Olweus, 1993). As per the theory of social exchange, targeted employees will seek vengeance in one way or another (Nielsen et al., 2017). However, some feel that those who have been bullied lack revenge-seeking abilities (Nielsen & Knardahl, 2015). In this case, they adopt workplace deviance as a strategy (Peng et al., 2016). Also, as per the theory of justice, employees tend to assess whether they have been given fair and unbiased treatment (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). By their assessment, they can find themselves falling for unfair means to gain an advantage (Ambrose et al., 2002; Colquitt, 2008). Such actions can devastate the workplace and the organization (Bennett & Robinson, 2000). Previous studies have proved statistically significance for workplace bullying to be an indicator of deviant behavior at the workplace using various theories, including COR theory (Kim et al., 2023; Peng et al., 2016; Sabir et al., 2023; Sadia et al., 2020). This study proposes:

H1: There is a positive significant impact of bullying on deviance in the workplace.

Workplace Bullying and Stress

Some years ago, research was conducted based on a sample of 165 personnel, in which questions related to stress at work were asked (Vartia, 2001). The results concluded that 40% of the sample had been subjected to bullying, whereas 68% had observed such malicious activities occurring within their organization. 44% of the respondents, those who had claimed to be bullied, had reported having gone through some stress, too. Those who undergo stress are prone to being less productive during work and hence cause workplace deviance (Tehrani, 2004). Social Exchange Theory (SET) provides a more profound comprehension of the dynamics connecting workplace bullying, stress, and deviance. Social Exchange Theory asserts that workplace interactions are regulated by reciprocal exchanges, wherein employees equilibrate contributions and rewards (Ahmad & Omar, 2014; Homans, 1958). In the realm of bullying, this equilibrium is disturbed, resulting in perceptions of injustice and violation of psychological contracts. Employees who endure bullying may suffer a decline in trust and fairness, leading to stress and retaliatory deviant actions aimed at reestablishing perceived equilibrium or addressing unmet expectations.

Stress can mediate the link of bullying with workplace deviance (Aryan et al., 2011; Olafsen & Viemerö, 2000). Based on COR theory, workplace bullying results in the loss of valued mental and physical resources for employees. This will increase employee stress, and employees will adopt deviance as a strategy to protect the remaining resources. Robert (2018) found a statistically significant impact of bullying on stress in the workplace. Moreover, stress works as a medium between bullying and destructive behavior at work, and based on all these arguments, the study proposes the following statements:

H2: There is a positive significant impact of workplace bullying on stress.

H3: Stress significantly mediates the relationship between bullying and deviance at the workplace.

Workplace Deviation and Stress

Studies have shown that workplace deviance can entice victims to take on hazardous stress (Agnew, 1992). The victims of stress are more likely to fall prey to nervous disorders, and their cognitive abilities are seriously hampered (Golparver et al., 2015). Such people are also known to become less temperamental and can run into unwanted fights and clashes (Aseltine et al., 2000). Studies have shown strong evidence to prove the relationship between stress and workplace deviance (Golparvar et al., 2012). Based on COR theory, stressed employees may adopt deviance as a resource protection strategy. Such studies strongly indicate that stress levels can urge employees to engage in activities harmful to the organization’s integrity (Vardi & Weitz, 2004). Stress has many harmful effects on the human body, and it can lead to uncontrolled frustration and stubbornness. This leads to workplace deviance (Omar et al., 2011). Social Exchange Theory posits that when employees experience extended stress, they may feel a breach in the organization’s duty to offer a supportive work environment. This apparent disparity may motivate deviant behaviors as a means to rectify the imbalance and convey discontent (Narayanan & Murphy, 2017). Yadav and Rai (2020) also statistically tested and found significant impact of stress on workplace deviance. The higher the level of stress that is being confronted by the personnel, the more chances there are of him being a threat to the organization. Based on previously conducted research and our point of view, the following hypothesis can be stated:

H4: Stress has a significant direct positive impact on workplace deviance.

Workplace Deviance (WD) and Employee Silence (ES)

Employee silence (ES) is not a good thing to do in any workplace, leading to deviant behavior (Pacheco et al., 2015). As per the reports, organizations in which employee silence is a culture tend to make the wrong decisions more often (Rego, 2013). According to Social Exchange Theory, employee silence hinders business-employee reciprocity by making employees feel underpaid or ignored (Yao et al., 2022). This difference may irritate employees, causing deviant conduct to restore equity. In Pakistan’s hierarchical textile industry, cultural practices that discourage open communication with authority officials may increase employee silent (Shafi et al., 2024). This silence creates a workplace where deviation is used to communicate repressed feelings and unmet expectations. There are two types of deviant actions: productive and destructive (Pacheco et al., 2015). Destructive deviance is caused by all the negative actions of the employees, such as stealing, mishandling responsibilities, harassment, violence, and employee silence (Ahmad & Omar, 2014). Employee silence is associated with unethical work behaviors (Harlos, 2016). All such acts are catastrophic and disastrous for the organization and can be termed deviant deeds. Silent employees lose various resources to suppress their emotions and voice. This resource loss may result in deviance as a strategy to protect remaining resources under the premises of COR theory. This provides solid evidence of a relationship between workplace deviance and employee silence. By constructing a hypothesis, we can say:

H5: There is a positive significant impact of employee silence (ES) on workplace deviance (WD).

Employee Silence (ES) and Stress

If an employee is forced not to speak out about his issues, either due to fear of being bullied or the fear of losing his job, he is more likely to run into stress, and that can hamper his performance and cognition. It can also lead to discontentment, a lack of job satisfaction, and increased employee turnover (Perlow & Williams, 2003). This relationship between stress and job dissatisfaction has also been studied in other research (Mengenci, 2015). Another study has signaled that silence is caused by workers who are not satisfied with the company and want to share their ideas. However, they invariably fall into hesitation and remain silent (Dedahanov et al., 2016). This lack of speaking out also prevents the higher management from knowing some essential pieces of advice and information that could lead to the greater good of everyone within the company. If transferred, such vital pieces of information benefit the enterprise. Such an environment can be heartbreaking for any employee can lead to stress at work, which hampers performance and can lead to a poor image of the company (Dew et al., 2012).

This pivotal relationship has also been studied and brought to light in other studies (Dedahanov et al., 2016; Perlow & Williams, 2003). Employee silence is associated with unethical work behaviors (Harlos, 2016). Stress mediates the relationship between employee silence and deviant behavior (Dong & Chung, 2021). In the hierarchical structure of Pakistan’s textile industry, silence may be regarded as a standard for preserving harmony (Abbasi et al., 2024; Malik et al., 2021; Shahid et al., 2024). Nonetheless, it can inadvertently exacerbate employee stress by stifling essential communication. Social Exchange Theory posits that when employees perceive a violation of the reciprocal relationship with their company owing to unfulfilled communication demands, stress intensifies, leading to deviant behavior as a coping strategy or as retribution (Narayanan & Murphy, 2017). The COR theory suggests that resource loss leads to stress, and employees attempt to conserve the remaining resources. Silent employees that have lost various resources will have elevated stress levels, resulting in deviance as a strategy to take revenge and protect the remaining resources. Based on the above-provided evidence, the study proposed the followings (Figure 1):

H6: There is a positive and significant direct impact of employee silence on stress.

H7: Stress significantly mediates the relationship between employee silence (ES) and workplace deviance (WD).

Figure 1.

Conceptual framework.

Methodology

Sample and Procedure

This particular study is quantitative. Data has been collected using a structured questionnaire. Consent was gained from each and every participant in this study, and ethical approval was collected from the relevant authorities. Respondents were assured of the anonymity, confidentiality, and voluntary nature of their participation. Using the formula N:q (Jackson, 2003) and the statistical approximation ratio of 5:1, we calculated our requisite sample size to be 230 since our items were 46 and the sample had to be 5 times that.

To collect data without common method bias, almost 320 pen and paper questionnaires were distributed to the employees of 5 leading textile mills in Pakistan on a convenience basis. A pen-and-paper method was chosen intentionally to ensure inclusivity in an industrial context where digital literacy and access to devices may be inconsistent. This method allowed supervised administration, ensuring clarity, reducing item non-response, and supporting data integrity (Bryman, 2016; Dillman et al., 2014). It also avoided biases linked to online surveys, such as selection bias or automated responses, which are critical concerns in large, labor-intensive sectors like textiles (Evans & Mathur, 2005).

Pakistan’s textile industry, the country’s largest employer, presents a high-pressure, hierarchical environment prone to workplace bullying, silence, and stress (ILO, 2016). These conditions align with theoretical links between low autonomy, high control, and deviant behavior (Einarsen, Hoel, et al., 2010; Tepper, 2007). Studying this sector offers practical relevance and extends workplace behavior research into a non-Western, labor-intensive context—an area still underexplored (Budhwar & Debrah, 2013). The study is significantly important to address this issue in Textile industry of Pakistan which is the largest industry of the country and work as back bone of the economy of Pakistan. By addressing the deviant behavior issues, the productivity of the employees and economic productivity could be enhanced.

The data was collected though convenience sampling technique because the population was unknown, due to which sampling frame was not available in the context of Pakistan’s textile mills, where strict access controls and hierarchical structures required coordination with HR and limited access to only available and willing employees. In such settings, probability sampling was not feasible because of the population was not known, the sampling frame was not possible, unpredictable schedules and indeterminate population size (Etikan et al., 2016). Moreover, Convenience sampling method also widely accepted in exploratory organizational research aimed at understanding relational dynamics like bullying, silence, and deviance in real-world environments (Bryman, 2016). While it may limit generalizability, however, the study’s large sample and multi-wave design help reduce bias.

We approached the HR department for clearance and then gathered data from consenting employees who were available during the collection period. Questions related to demographic information and the independent variables were included at time 1. Three hundred responses were obtained. After 1 month, at time 2, these 300 people were sent a questionnaire with items related to the mediator stress. Two hundred seventy responses were received. These 270 individuals were sent a questionnaire with items related to the dependent variable after another month at time 3. Two Hundred fifty-four responses were obtained. Four incomplete ones were discarded. Among the 250 responses, a hefty number were from males–199 responses (79.6%), to be precise. The remaining 51 respondents (20.4%) were female. If we talk about age groups, 11 people (4.4%) fall in the 18 to 21 age bracket, 96 people (38.4%) fall in the 22 to 25 age group bracket, 90 people (36.0%) fall in the 26 to 29 age bracket, and 53 people (21.2%) fall in the age bracket above 30 years. Concerning educational demographics, 124 respondents (49.6%) were bachelors, 106 (42.4%) had done their masters, 18 respondents (7.9%) were MPhil scholars, and two respondents (0.8%) were PhD scholars. With regards to marital status, 125 (50%) people were single, and the rest were married.

Instrument

A structured questionnaire in English was used to perform data collection for this primary research. The management confirmed that employees are educated enough, and they fill out feedback questionnaires very frequently in their organization in English. Measures that are well established and frequently used in existing studies were adopted. Questions about demographics such as age, marital status, gender, and education were placed at the start. The study used the adapted questionnaire for each variable in the study. The workplace bullying was measured by using 09 items scale (Einarsen, Hoel, & Notelaers, 2009) having satisfactory Cronbach’s Alpha (α = .865). Employee silence was measured with 12 items with 03 (Van Dyne et al., 2003) dimensions with Cronbach’s Alpha for each dimension respectively (α = .81, α = .83, α = .7). The 06 items adopted scale was used to measure the stress of employees (Cohen et al., 1988) with Cronbach’s Alpha (α = .80). The 14-item scale of workplace deviance was adopted (Bennett & Robinson, 2000) to use in the study with Cronbach’s Alpha (α = .91). All the scales used in the study were well established and having satisfactory reliability and validity for the measurement (See Table 2). All measures used a five-point Likert response scale (see questionnaire). Age, Gender, Marital Status, and Education were used as control variable in the study.

Data Analysis and Results

To test the results, a statistical tool named structural equation modeling (SEM) is used. It is put to use because of its benefits and its likelihood of giving us the best results concerning the nature of our study. It has better analysis tools and enhanced visuals, and it is less prone to errors. It can handle complex data and offers requisite support to the researchers (Alavifar et al., 2012). The scales were not created. They were adopted from published studies that confirmed their reliability and validity, deeming SEM an acceptable confirmatory method over exploratory methods. The measurement model testing phase of SEM reaffirmed the reliability and validity. To test the relationships, the researcher has used the component-based SEM method, Partial Least Squares (PLS). PLS is used because of its advanced capabilities to test smaller sample sizes with accuracy, and it can also check the structural path for both normal and abnormal data. In SEM, a two-step approach is used for data analysis. In the first step, the measurement model is checked, and in the second step, the structural model is examined. Table 1 shows the mean, standard deviation, and correlation among variables.

Table 1.

Descriptive and Correlation.

Constructs	Mean	SD	Skewness	Kurtosis	WB	ES	Stress	WD
WB	1.65	.799	.102	−.111	1
ES	1.78	.794	.245	.268	.393**	1
Stress	2.18	.709	−.045	1.044	.150*	.286**	1
WD	1.37	.746	−.030	−.119	.287**	.342**	.144*	1

p < .05. *p < .10, (two tailed).

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics and Pearson correlation coefficients for all study variables. The means for workplace bullying (M = 1.65), employee silence (M = 1.78), stress (M = 2.18), and workplace deviance (M = 1.37) indicate average levels of these constructs, suggesting that these issues are definitely present. The skewness and kurtosis values for all variables fall within the acceptable range (±1), indicating that the data are approximately normally distributed (Kline, 2016).

The correlation results reveal several significant relationships. Workplace bullying is positively and significantly correlated with employee silence (r = .393, p < .01), stress (r = .150, p < .05), and workplace deviance (r = .287, p < .01), supporting the expected directional relationships. Employee silence also shows significant positive correlations with stress (r = .286, p < .01) and workplace deviance (r = .342, p < .01), indicating that silence may act as a pathway through which negative workplace experiences influence deviant behavior. Stress is positively correlated with workplace deviance (r = .144, p < .05), suggesting that elevated stress levels may contribute to counterproductive behaviors.

Measurement Model Analysis

While examining the measurement model, the reliability and validity of the data are inspected. The output of the analysis from PLS-SEM was carefully checked to see the loadings of items for each variable in the study. One item from WB (WB6), two items from ES (ES1 and ES10), one item from stress (S4), and three items from WD (WD1, WD2, and WD8) were dropped from the final analysis because their loading values were lower than .708 (Hair et al., 2009; Safi’i et al., 2021). Additionally, the reliability of data is checked through Cronbach’s α and composite reliability. The value of both should be .70 or more. As given in Table 2, all the values are above .70, so reliability is established for all constructs (Hair, et al., 2014), and the AVE values are within the range, that is, >.5 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Next, discriminant validity is measured; the resulting value of the AVE square root should be greater than its correlations with all the remaining constructs in the model (Hair et al., 2011). Table 3, presented below, shows that all the requirements for discriminant validity are fulfilled.

Table 2.

Measurement Model.

Constructs	Items	Loadings	Indicators reliability	AVE	Cronbach’s alpha	Composite reliability
Workplace bullying	WB1	.653	.426	.5149	.8658	.8944
	WB2	.717	.514
	WB3	.775	.600
	WB4	.696	.484
	WB5	.711	.505
	WB7	.705	.497
	WB8	.729	.531
	WB9	.748	.559
Acquiescent silence	ES2	.700	.490	.725	.810	.888
	ES3	.743	.552
	ES4	0.698	.487
Pro social silence	ES5	.761	.597	.673	.838	.838
	ES6	.731	.534
	ES7	.744	.553
	ES8	.781	.609
Defensive silence	ES9	.699	.488	.639	.717	.841
	ES11	.671	.450
	ES12	.637	.405
Stress	S1	.756	.571	.5669	.8088	.8674
	S2	.765	.585
	S3	.773	.597
	S5	.714	.509
	S6	.755	.570
Workplace deviance	WD3	.681	.463	.5391	.9138	.9275
	WD4	.659	.434
	WD5	.702	.492
	WD6	.717	.514
	WD7	.689	.474
	WD9	.726	.527
	WD10	.805	.648
	WD11	.802	.643
	WD12	.810	.656
	WD13	.740	.547
	WD14	.697	.485

Table 3.

Discriminant Validity (DV): Fornell–Larcker.

Constructs	Acquiescent silence	STRESS	WB	WD	Defensive silence	Pro social silence
Acquiescent silence	.8217
STRESS	.4999	.7529
WB	.4770	.5554	.7175
WD	.5621	.5187	.5515	.7293
Defensive silence	.6502	.5012	.4780	.4124	.8220
Pro social silence	.5112	.5988	.4770	.3758	.5871	.8797

Structural Model Analysis

In structural model analysis, researchers examine the established paths or relationships (Chin & Dibbern, 2010). R² or coefficient of determination, helps the researcher assess the variability in the endogenous constructs (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). In this study, the value of R² of the endogenous variable WD is .417, indicating that approximately 41.7% of the variance in WD is explained by the model. According to Chin (1998), this represents a moderate level of explanatory power. All hypotheses are statistically significant (see Table 4).

Table 4.

Structural Model Analysis.

Structural path	β	SD	T	p-Values	5.00%	95.00%	R ²	f ²	VIF	Remarks
WB → WD	.315***	.083	3.780	.000	.153	.478	.417	.112	1.521	Supported
WB → stress	.190***	.055	3.452	.001	.091	.305		.041	1.462	Supported
ES → WD	.223**	.088	2.535	.011	.046	.390		.046	1.874	Supported
ES → stress	.500***	.055	9.148	.000	.381	.596		.282	1.462	Supported
Stress → WD	.235***	.060	3.894	.000	.116	.351		.057	1.647	Supported

***

p < .01. **p < .05. (two tailed).

Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) values for all predictors in the structural model were below the common threshold of 5.0, ranging from 1.462 to 1.874. This indicates no multi-collinearity issues and confirms the robustness of the model’s estimates (Hair et al., 2011).

The Predictive Relevance and Effect Size

Researchers suggested the use of Q² along with R² to check the predictive relevance of the model. According to Hair et al. (2014), if the value of Q² of an endogenous or dependent variable is more than zero, we can conclude that the model has no issue with predictive relevance. In the present study, the value of Q² is .277, so we can conclude that predictive relevance is present in this model. Furthermore, f² or effect size, is calculated, which indicates how each exogenous variable conducts much variation in R². The value of f² greater than .02 represents small, .15 represents medium, and .35 depicts a large effect. As you can see in Table 4, all the exogenous variables have a small effect size on an endogenous variable.

Results

In relation to bullying and deviance (Figure 2), the t-value (t = 3.780) and p-value (.000) indicate a significant and robust association between these two variables, with a corresponding positive β coefficient of .315. Our statistical analysis has substantiated fact that hypothesis 1 is supported. Based on the t-value (t = 2.535), the p-value (.011), and the β coefficient (β = .223), we may confidently conclude that there is a substantial positive association between employee silence and workplace deviance. Hypothesis 5 is proved to be true. In terms of bullying and stress, there is a robust and meaningful positive relationship between both of these factors. The statistical analysis supports this fact, as indicated by the t-value of 3.452, the p-value less than .05, and the β-value of .190. Hypothesis 2 is accepted. The silence and stress hypothesis is also tested. The value of t is 9.148, the p-value is less than .001, and the value of β is .500. It can be inferred that there is a notable positive impact of employee quietness on stress. Hypothesis 6 is supported. Stress and deviance were also found to be significantly and positively associated. The t-value of 3.894, the p-value of .000, and the positive beta value of .235 are proof that hypothesis 4 is substantiated.

Figure 2.

PLS based path diagrams with t-values.

Analyzing Mediation

The study used the bootstrapping method in Smart PLS 4.0 to check the mediation. The significant evidence of the direct relationships in Table 4 gives the primary support for the existence of mediation. To verify this, similar to the prior examination, we run bootstrapping test in Smart PLS 4.0 (Table 5). The role of stress as a mediator was tested between the silence of employees and their deviance. The t-value in this case was 3.760 and the p-value was .000 with the beta of .118 which give evidence of a positive and significant mediation relationship of stress between the two variables, employee silence and workplace deviance. This indicates that the link is highly valid and accurate. Hypothesis 7 is well established. Similarly, the role of stress as a mediator was tested between the bullying of employees and their deviant responses to their behavior. The obtained t-value in this case was 2.341. The p-value of .019 and the beta of .045 give evidence of a positive and significant mediation role of stress between the two variables, bullying of employees and WD. This indicates that the link is highly valid and accurate. Hypothesis 3 is well established. The both direct and indirect paths in the model were significant that shows there exists a partial mediation in the study for both paths.

Table 5.

Mediation Analysis.

Structural path	Indirect effect
Structural path	B	SD	t	p-Value	5.00%	95.00%
WB → stress → WD	.045	.019	2.341	.019	.015	.089	Supported (partial mediated)
ES → stress → WD	.118	.031	3.760	.000	.057	.179	Supported (partial mediated)

Discussion

The study examined the influence of workplace bullying (WB) and employee silence on deviant behaviors at workplaces. We also examined the role of stress as a mediator in the relationship of bullying and silence with deviance.

According to the results, workplace bullying has a positively significant effect on workplace deviance. It confirms that when individuals inside a particular firm are bullied, they will likely inflict damage on the organization. The findings align with the outcomes in the existing studies by Kim et al. (2023) and Sadia et al. (2020). Social exchange theory also supports the result that employees reciprocate the things happening to them. When workplace bullying is assessed based on derision, physical aggression, the dissemination of false rumors, and fostering a climate of discomfort, employees who experience bullying may feel a strong desire for revenge as a form of reciprocation towards the organization or its employees (Colquitt, 2008). Previous investigations based on COR theory also support that employees lose resources due to bullying (Tuckey & Neall, 2014) and use deviance as a response to resource loss (Tu et al., 2022). Our findings had considerable practical ramifications for organizational practices in Pakistan, where hierarchical and collectivist cultural norms frequently inhibit free communication and perpetuate power disparities. Organizations in Pakistan must implement rules and training initiatives to mitigate bullying, especially addressing cultural inclinations that may tacitly condone such conduct. Organizations could establish anonymous reporting methods and facilitate regular awareness sessions to mitigate bullying events and promote reporting.

We confirmed the positive and significant impact of employee silence on workplace deviance. Employee silence is a perilous component of organizational behavior that can lead to workplace deviance (Rego, 2013). Existing studies also found employee silence to be linked to unethical work activities (Harlos, 2016). So, our results are in harmony with the existing investigations on this issue. A recent meta-analysis by Hao et al. (2022) confirmed that silence by employees has various outcomes, including an increase in their deviance at work. Silent workers hide their emotions because of fear or to avoid resource loss. Supervisor feedback, coworker support, and career chances may be reduced by this behavior. As a response, employees act deviantly to compensate for their silent misery. They may also display deviant behavior towards coworkers and organizations to protect the remaining resources that they possess. Organizations in Pakistan must endeavor to dismantle cultural obstacles that inhibit employees from voicing their concerns. Human Resources departments can implement regular feedback sessions and employee engagement initiatives to promote open communication, therefore diminishing employee silence. Educating supervisors to be more accessible and compassionate may cultivate an environment in which employees feel secure voicing their concerns.

In our results relating to stress, we found that workplace bullying increases stress. Stress increases deviance by employees. These two results lead to the third confirmed association of stress acting as the mediating variable in the relationship of bullying with deviance. The results are consistent with the findings reported by Robert (2018). Manchester University has demonstrated that a substantial proportion of individuals who have experienced workplace bullying encounter notable stress-related issues (Harvey et al., 2009). Based on previous studies and evidence, there is a clear and substantial positive correlation between the variables of stress and deviance (Vardi & Weitz, 2004). Our statistical analysis has also confirmed this. The results are consistent with the findings of Yadav and Rai (2020). The mediating role of stress is also in line with the existing study by Tu et al. (2022). Their study also supports the idea that stress occurs as a mediator when employees are faced with resource-consuming situations at work. As a result, the sales employees in their study adopted deviance at work to protect the remaining resources. Our results also confirm that bullying increases stress due to resource loss. This increase in stress results in the adoption of deviance as a form of reciprocation and a resource conservation strategy. Organizations may mitigate these stress-related concerns by providing employee assistance programs, counselling services, and stress management training. Offering mindfulness seminars and emotional resilience programs customized to the cultural context of Pakistan can assist employees in efficiently managing workplace stress impacting deviance due to bullying.

We also validated the substantial influence of employee silence on stress, along with the mediating effect of stress in the correlation between silence and deviance. These findings correspond with research by Dewe et al. (2012), Mengenci (2015), and Dong and Chung (2021), which highlight the detrimental impact of quiet on employee well-being and organizational results. Organizations in Pakistan, characterized by entrenched hierarchical communication practices, should prioritize alleviating stress stemming from employee silence. Organizations might establish mentorship programs that allow junior employees to express problems in a more approachable setting. Furthermore, HR rules must guarantee protection against retaliation for employees who report workplace concerns, so promoting a more transparent and supportive organizational culture.

Contribution and Implications

Theoretically, the study contributes valuable insights to the COR theory by highlighting the role of resources in stress and diminishing the impact of bullying within the company. Utilizing the concept of resource conservation, the study investigates the impact of bullying and stress on harmful conduct in the workplace. The study made a theoretical contribution by expanding the existing literature on bullying, employee silence, and their influence on harmful work behaviors.

Practically, organizations incur significant tangible and intangible expenses as a result of workplace misbehavior. The findings, moreover, aid supervisors in comprehending the likely factors behind detrimental conduct (workplace deviance). This research is considered unique in the Pakistani context and marks a significant milestone. Deviant behavior can be likened to a catabolic reaction. It causes significant disruption to the organization by adversely affecting the current personnel and the company. This researcher quantitatively analyzes the consequences of WB and ES on workplace deviance. Our research provides compelling evidence that both factors can contribute to workplace deviance. Deviant behaviors should be identified and punished openly in the company to discourage the performers as well as the observing employees. This research is considered unique in the Pakistani market and holds a significant milestone.

HR experts may promote open communication and conflict resolution to reduce workplace stress and employee silence. Organizations can use mediation and discussion facilitation strategies to resolve disagreements constructively and reduce employee stress. Communication, empathy, and active listening training can help supervisors create a safe space for employees to voice concerns. Providing a safe space, anonymous surveys, and regular check-ins help reduce employee silence. These measures can help firms prevent workplace deviance and improve productivity. This would help the firm attain its objectives and targets with enhanced efficiency. Additionally, this might diminish the incidence of staff attrition and result in savings on recurring recruitment expenses for the firm.

This study’s findings considerably enhance HRM practices and organizational policy creation by highlighting the necessity for solutions to combat bullying, silence, and stress within Pakistan’s distinct cultural context. Through the implementation of focused interventions, firms can cultivate healthier work environments free from deviant behaviors. They can augment employee well-being, and eventually elevate corporate performance.

Limitations and Future Directions for Research

In the future, researchers may investigate the additional consequences of bullying, such as neglect (Berntson et al., 2010) and exit (Hirschman, 1974), both counterproductive work practices. Research can also be undertaken to identify the origins of bullying and methods to mitigate or suppress its impact. Additionally, more mediators could exist in the relationships in our study. By implementing more longitudinal approaches and more control variables, we could get more precision. Future research may examine the effects of cultural factors like collectivism, power distance, and authority and hierarchy norms in Pakistan and similar cultures. These factors may significantly influence the dynamics, origins, and impacts of deviance. Moreover, employing a qualitative approach and utilizing interviews or experiments to gather information could yield a more comprehensive understanding of the prevailing situation within Pakistan's corporate culture. Our study was conducted with a limited sample size. By increasing the sample size significantly, we can obtain a more prominent and representative dataset, resulting in more consistency and improved generalizability. Investigating moderating mechanisms that can perform as mitigators of the problem will be a useful insight. It is advisable to disseminate and expand this research to other organizations nationwide and worldwide to enhance future requirements and obtain more accurate and specific outcomes. Respondents may have exhibited biases when providing information. Efforts should ensure that only accurate and genuine information is presented in future studies.

Conclusion

Utilizing the framework of COR theory, this study examined the influence of WB and ES on workplace deviance while exploring the mediating role of stress in this phenomenon. Multi-wave data was received from 250 employees from the textile industry of Pakistan through a convenience sampling technique. It was analyzed using the partial least squares technique in Smart PLS. The results were in accordance with existing studies, and all hypotheses were supported. Our study is a significant theoretical and practical contribution in the fields of organizational behavior, human resource management, and the overall success of organizations.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank anonymous referees for their valuable comments and suggestions.

ORCID iDs

Muhammad Bilal Ahmad

Ahmed Muneeb Mehta

Nausheen Shakeel

Muhammad Naeem

Ethical Considerations

No human or animals were harmed/used in the study. All participants willingly participate in the study to fill the questionnaire and their confidentiality was maintained during and after the data collection.

Consent for Publication

All authors have provided their consent for the publication of this manuscript.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: Muhammad Bilal Ahmad. Data curation: Muhammad Bilal Ahmad, Ramia Shahid, and Nausheen Shakeel. Formal analysis: Muhammad Bilal Ahmad and Ramiz Shahid. Funding acquisition: Ahmed Muneeb Mehta, Muhammad Naeem, and Muhammad Bilal Ahmad. Investigation: Ahmed Muneeb Mehta and Muhammad Bilal Ahmad. Methodology: Muhammad Bilal Ahmad and Nausheen Shakeel. Project Administration: Nausheen Shakeel, Muhammad Bilal Ahmad. Resources: Muhammad Naeem and Ahmed Muneeb Mehta. Software: Muhammad Bilal Ahmad. Supervision: Muhammad Bilal Ahmad. Validation: Ahmed Muneeb Mehta and Muhammad Naeem. Visualization: Nausheen Shakeel. Writing – original draft: Ramia Shahid and Muhammad Bilal Ahmad. Writing – Review & Editing: Ahmed Muneeb Mehta, Nausheen Shakeel, and Muhammad Naeem.

Data Availability Statement

Data will be made available on request.

References

Abbasi

M. A.

Amran

Khan

Sahar

N. E.

(2024). Linking corporate social irresponsibility to workplace deviant behavior: A comparative analysis of generation Z and generation Y. Current Psychology, 43(2), 1118–1135.

Agnew

(1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30(1), 47–87.

Ahmad

Omar

(2014). Reducing deviant behavior through workplace spirituality and job satisfaction. Asian Social Science, 10(19), 107–112.

Alavifar

Karimimalayer

Anuar

M. K.

(2012). Structural equation modeling vs multiple regression The first and second generation of multivariate techniques. Engineering Science and Technology: An International Journal, 2, 2250–3498.

Ambrose

M. L.

Seabright

M. A.

(2002). Sabotage in the workplace: The roleof organizational injustice. Organizational Behaviorand Human Decision Processes, 89(1), 947–965.

Anasori

De Vita

Gürkan Küçükergin

(2023). Workplace bullying, psychological distress, job performance and employee creativity: The moderating effect of psychological resilience. The Service Industries Journal, 43(5–6), 336–357.

Arshad

Qasim

Reynaud

Farooq

(2024). Religiosity as a buffer against the impact of abusive supervision on employee unethical behavior: A moderated mediation model. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 45(8), 1588–1606.

Aryan

Seyede

S. S.

Mahdieh

Kozekanan

S. K.

(2011). Organizational bullying and women stress in workplace. International Journal of Business and Management, 6(6), 234.

Aseltine

R. H.

Jr. Gore

Gordon

(2000). Life stress, anger and anxiety, and delinquency:An empirical test of the general strain theory. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 41(3), 256–275.

10.

Ayoko

O. B.

Callan

V. J.

Härtel

C. E. J.

(2003). Workplace conflict, bullying, and counterproductive behaviors. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11(4), 283–301.

11.

Baloch

Q. B.

Shah

S. N.

Kiran

Mahar

(2023). Impact of abusive supervision on work engagement and job satisfaction in the tourism industry: The mediating role of employee silence. International Journal of Kashmir Studies, 5(1), 206–228.

12.

Bashir

Abrar

Yousaf

Saqib

Shabbir

(2019). Organizational politics and workplace deviance in unionized settings: Mediating role of job stress and moderating role of resilience. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 12, 943–959.

13.

Bashir

Ramay

M. I.

(2010). Impact of stress on employees’ job performance: A study on banking sector of Pakistan. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 2(1), 122–126.

14.

Beehr

T. A.

(1976). Perceived situational moderators of the relationship between subjective role ambiguity and role strain. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(1), 35–40.

15.

Bennett

R. J.

Robinson

S. L.

(2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 349–360.

16.

Bergbom

Vartia-Vaananen

Kinnunen

(2015). Immigrants and natives at work exposure to workplace bullying. Employee Relations, 37(2), 158–175.

17.

Berntson

Näswall

Sverke

(2010). The moderating role of employability in the association between job insecurity and exit, voice, loyalty and neglect. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 31(2), 215–230.

18.

Blau

(1964): Exchange and power in social life. In Hoffjann

Sandhu

(Eds.), Schlüsselwerke für die strategische kommunikationsforschung (pp. 489–501). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.

19.

Blau

P. M.

(2017). Exchange and power in social life (1st ed.). Routledge.

20.

Bowling

N. A.

Eschleman

K. J.

(2010). Employee personality as a moderator of the relationships between work stressors and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15(1), 91–103.

21.

Brinsfield

C. T.

(2014). Employee voice and silence in organizational behavior. In Wilkinson

Donaghey

Dundon

Freeman

R. B.

(Eds.), Handbook of research on employee voice (pp. 114–131). Edward Elgar Publishing.

22.

Bryman

(2016). Social research methods. Oxford University Press.

23.

Budhwar

P. S.

Debrah

Y. A.

(Eds.). (2013). Human resource management in developing countries. Routledge.

24.

Callea

Urbini

Ingusci

Chirumbolo

(2016). The relationship between contract type and job satisfaction in a mediated moderation model: The role of job insecurity and psychological contract violation. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 37(2), 399–420.

25.

Chin

W. W.

(1998). The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling. In Marcoulides

G. A.

(Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295–336). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

26.

Chin

Dibbern

(2010). A permutation based procedure for multi-group PLS analysis: Results of testes of differences on simulated data and a cross cultural analysis of the sourcing of information system services between Germany and the USA. In Esposito Vinzi

Chin

Henseler

Wang

(Eds), Handbook of partial least squares. Springer Handbooks of Computational Statistics.

27.

Cohen

Kamarck

Mermelstein

(1988). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24(4), 386–396.

28.

Cole

M. S.

Shipp

A. J.

Taylor

S. G.

(2016). Viewing the interpersonal mistreatment literature through a temporal lens. Organizational Psychology Review, 6(3), 273–302.

29.

Colquitt

J. A.

(2008). Two decades of organizational justice: Findings, controversies, and future directions. In Barling

Cooper

C. L.

(Eds.), Sage handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 73–88). Sage Publication.

30.

Cropanzano

Mitchell

M. S.

(2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900.

31.

Dalal

R. S.

(2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), Article 1241.

32.

Dedahanov

A. T.

Lee

D. H.

Rhee

(2016). Silence as a mediator between organizational factors and stress. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(8), 1251–1264.

33.

Dewe

P. J.

O’Driscoll

M. P.

Cooper

C. L.

(2012). Theories of psychological stress at work. In Gatchel

R. J.

Schultz

I. Z.

(Eds.), Handbook of occupational health and wellness (pp. 23–38). Springer Science + Business Media.

34.

Dillman

D. A.

Smyth

J. D.

Christian

L. M.

(2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. Wiley.

35.

Donaghey

Cullinane

Dundon

Wilkinson

(2011). Reconceptualising employee silence: Problems and prognosis. Work, Employment and Society, 25(1), 51–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017010389239

36.

Dong

X. T.

Chung

Y. W.

(2021). The mediating effect of perceived stress and moderating effect of trust for the relationship between employee silence and behavioral outcomes. Psychological Reports, 124(4), 1715–1737

37.

Einarsen

S. V.

Hoel

Zapf

Cooper

C. L.

(Eds.). (2020). Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Theory, research and practice. CRC Press.

38.

Einarsen

Aasland

M. S.

Skogstad

(2016). The nature and outcomes of destructive leadership behavior in organizations. In Einav

Finkelstein

Fisman

(Eds.), Risky business (pp. 323–349). Routledge.

39.

Einarsen

Hoel

Notelaers

(2009). Measuring exposure to bullying and harassment at work: Validity, factor structure and psychometric properties of the Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised. Work & Stress, 23(1), 24–44.

40.

Einarsen

Hoel

Zapf

Cooper

C. L.

(2003). Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace. International Perspectives in Research and Practice, 1, Article 439.

41.

Einarsen

Hoel

Zapf

Cooper

C. L.

(2011). The concept of bullying and harassment at work: The European tradition. In Einarsen

Hoel

Zapf

Cooper

C. L.

(Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice (pp. 3–40). CRC Press.

42.

Etikan

Musa

S. A.

Alkassim

R. S.

(2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1–4.

43.

Evans

J. R.

Mathur

(2005). The value of online surveys. Internet Research, 15(2), 195–219.

44.

Farghaly Abdelaliem

S. M.

Abou Zeid

M. A. G.

(2023). The relationship between toxic leadership and organizational performance: The mediating effect of nurses’ silence. BMC Nursing, 22(1), Article 4.

45.

Farley

Mokhtar

Niven

(2023). What influences the relationship between workplace bullying and employee well-being? A systematic review of moderators. Work & Stress, 37(3), 345–372.

46.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

47.

Gelfand

M. J.

Erez

(Eds.). (2024). The Oxford handbook of cross-cultural organizational behavior. Oxford University Press.

48.

Glasø

Notelaers

(2012). Workplace bullying, emotions, and outcomes. Violence and Victims, 27(3), 360–377.

49.

Golparvar

Kamkar

Javadian

(2012). Moderating effects of job stress in emotional exhaustion and feeling of energy relationships with positive and negative behaviors: job stress multiple functions approach. International Journal of Psychological Studies, 4(4), 99–112.

50.

Golparver

Taleb

Abdoli

Abedini

(2015). Stress coping styles moderating the relationship between job stress and deviant behaviors: Some gender discriminations. American Journal of Economics, Finance and Management, 1, 377–387.

51.

Grandey

A. A.

Cropanzano

(1999). The conservation of resources model applied to work–family conflict and strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54(2), 350–370.

52.

Hair

F. J.

Sarstedt

Hopkins

Kuppelwieser

V. G.

(2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An Emerging Tool in Business research. European Business Review, 26(2), 106–121.

53.

Hair

J. F.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

(2009). Multivariate data analysis. Prentice Hall.

54.

Hair

J. F.

Ringle

C. M.

Sarstedt

(2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–151.

55.

Halbesleben

J. R.

Neveu

J. P.

Paustian-Underdahl

S. C.

Westman

(2014). Getting to the “COR” understanding the role of resources in conservation of resources theory. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1334–1364.

56.

Hao

Zhu

Duan

Zhao

Meng

(2022). When is silence golden? A meta-analysis on antecedents and outcomes of employee silence. Journal of Business and Psychology, 37(5), 1039–1063.

57.

Harlos

(2016). Employee silence in the context of unethical behavior at work: A commentary. German Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(3–4), 345–355.

58.

Harvey

Treadway

Heames

J. T.

Duke

(2009). Bullying in the 21st century global organization: An ethical perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(1), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9746-8

59.

Hershcovis

M. S.

(2011). “Incivility, social undermining, bullying… oh my!”: A call to reconcile constructs within workplace aggression research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(3), 499–519.

60.

Hirschman

A. O.

(1974). “Exit, voice, and loyalty”: Further reflections and a survey of recent contributions. Social Science Information, 13(1), 7–26.

61.

Hobfoll

S. E.

(1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), Article 513.

62.

Hobfoll

S. E.

(2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology, 50(3), 337–421.

63.

Hobfoll

S. E.

Halbesleben

Neveu

J. P.

Westman

(2018). Conservation of resources in the organizational context: The reality of resources and their consequences. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5(1), 103–128.

64.

Homans

G. C.

(1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63(6), 597–606.

65.

Huiras

Uggen

McMorris

(2000). Career jobs, survival jobs, and employee deviance: A social investment model of workplace misconduct. The Sociological Quarterly, 41(2), 245–263.

66.

International Labour Organization (ILO). (2016, June). Violence and harassment in the world of work: A global survey. International Labour Organization.

67.

Jackson

D. L.

(2003). Revisiting sample size and number of parameter estimates: Some support for the N:q hypothesis. Structural Equation Modeling, 10(1), 128–141.

68.

Jahanzeb

Fatima

(2017). How workplace ostracism influences interpersonal deviance: The mediating role of defensive silence and emotional exhaustion. Journal of Business and Psychology, 33(6), 779–791.

69.

Judge

T. A.

Scott

B. A.

Ilies

(2006). Hostility, job attitudes, and workplace deviance: Test of a multilevel model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), Article 126.

70.

Kawiana

I. G. P.

Arifin

M. S.

Tulasi

Wibowo

T. S.

Setyawasih

(2023). The effect of work environment, work stress, and work motivation on employee performance in freight forwarding and logistics companies. JEMSI (Jurnal Ekonomi, Manajemen, dan Akuntansi), 9(4), 1317–1323.

71.

Kernan

M. C.

Racicot

B. M.

Fisher

A. M.

(2016). Effects of abusive supervision, psychological climate, and felt violation on work outcomes: A moderated mediated model. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 23(3), 309–321.

72.

Kiewitz

Restubog

S. L. D.

Shoss

M. K.

Garcia

P. R. J. M.

Tang

R. L.

(2016). Suffering in silence: Investigating the role of fear in the relationship between abusive supervision and defensive silence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(5), Article 731.

73.

Kim

Lee

Park

(2023). Workplace mistreatment and employee deviance: An investigation of the reciprocal relationship between hostile work environments and harmful work behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 44(5), 567–589.

74.

Kızrak

Yeloğlu

H. O.

(2024). How can prosocial silence be golden? The roles of commitment to learning and organizational support. The Learning Organization, 31(2), 250–267.

75.

Kline

R. B.

(2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed., p. 28). Guilford Press.

76.

Kura

K. M.

Mohiddin

Shamsudin

F. M.

Abubakar

R. A.

Salleh

N. M.

(2023). Workplace deviant behaviours: A critical review of the empirical literature. KnE Social Sciences, 8(20), 505–520.

77.

Lazarus

R. S.

(1995). Vexing research problems inherent in cognitive-mediational theories of emotion-and some solutions. Psychological Inquiry, 6(3), 183–196.

78.

Lee

R. T.

Brotheridge

C. M.

(2013). Workplace bullying: A review of the literature and agenda for future research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(3), 1–23.

79.

Lim

V. K.

(2002). The IT way of loafing on the job: Cyberloafing, neutralizing and organizational justice. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(5), 675–694.

80.

Liu

Meng

L. M.

Wang

Chen

(2024). Differential leadership and hospitality employees’ in-role performance: The role of constructive deviance and competitive climate. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 122, Article 103870.

81.

Lutgen-Sandvik

Tracy

S. J.

Alberts

J. K.

(2007). Burned by bullying in the American workplace: Prevalence, perception, degree, and impact. Journal of Management Studies, 44(6), 837–862.

82.

Majeed

Naseer

(2021). Is workplace bullying always perceived harmful? The cognitive appraisal theory of stress perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 59(4), 618–644.

83.

Malik

Sinha

Goel

(2021). A qualitative review of 18 years of research on workplace deviance: New vectors and future research directions. Human Performance, 34(4), 271–297.

84.

McKearney

Prouska

Tungtakanpoung

Opute

(2023). The influence of national culture on employee voice in small and medium enterprises: A cross-cultural perspective. Employee Relations: The International Journal, 45(2), 478–494.

85.

Mehmood

Rasool

Ahmed

Haddad

Al-Ramahi

N. M.

(2024). Role of workplace bullying and workplace incivility for employee performance: Mediated-moderated mechanism. PLoS One, 19(1), Article e0291877.

86.

Mengenci

(2015). Antecedents and consequences of organizational fear and sillence behavior: Evidence from service sector from Turkey. International Business Research, 8(5), Article 223.

87.

Morrison

E. W.

(2023). Employee voice and silence: Taking stock a decade later. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 10(1), 79–107.

88.

Morrison

E. W.

Milliken

F. J.

(2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 706–725.

89.

Narayanan

Murphy

S. E.

(2017). Conceptual framework on workplace deviance behaviour: A review. Journal of Human Values, 23(3), 218–233.

90.

Nasir

Bashir

(2012). Examining workplace deviance in public sector organizations of Pakistan. International Journal of Social Economics, 39(4), 240–253.

91.

Nielsen

M. B.

Knardahl

(2015). Is workplace bullying related to the personality traits of victims? A two year prospective study. Work Stress, 29(2), 128–149.

92.

Nielsen

M. B.

Birkeland

M. S.

Hansen

M. B.

Knardahl

Heir

(2017). Victimization from workplace bullying after a traumatic event: Time-lagged relationships with symptoms of posttraumatic stress. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 90(5), 411–421.

93.

Nielsen

M. B.

Matthiesen

S. B.

Einarsen

(2010). The impact of methodological moderators on prevalence rates of workplace bullying. A meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(4), 955–979.

94.

Olafsen

R. N.

Viemerö

(2000). Bully/victim problems and coping with stress in school among 10- to 12-year- old pupils in Åland, Finland. Aggressive Behavior, 26(1), 57–65.

95.

Olaleye

B. R.

Lekunze

J. N.

(2024). Emotional intelligence and psychological resilience on workplace bullying and employee performance: A moderated-mediation perspective. Journal of Law and Sustainable Development, 12(1), Article e2159.

96.

Olweus

(1993). Bullying at schools: What we know and what we can do. Blackwell, Oxford.

97.

Omar

Halim

F. W.

Zamani

Z. A.

Farhadi

Nasir

Khairudin

(2011). Stress and job satisfaction as antecedents of workplace deviant behavior. World Applied Sciences Journal, 12, 46–51.

98.

Pacheco

D. C.

de Serpa Arruda Moniz

A. I. D.

Caldeira

S. N.

(2015). Silence in organizations and psychological safety: A literature review. European Scientific Journal, 11(10), 293–308.

99.

Park

J. H.

Ono

(2016). Effects of workplace bullying on work engagement and health: The mediating role of job insecurity. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(22), 3202–3225.

100.

Peng

Y.-C.

Chen

L.-J.

Chang

C.-C.

Zhuang

W.-L.

(2016). Workplace bullying and workplace deviance: The mediating effect of emotional exhaustion and the moderating effect of core self-evaluations. Employee Relations, 38(5), 755–769. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-01-2016-0014

101.

Perlow

Williams

(2003). Is silence killing your company? Harvard Business Review, 31(4), 52–58.

102.

Pinder

C. C.

Harlos

K. P.

(2001). Employee silence: Quiescence and acquiescence as response to perceived injustice. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 20, 331–369.

103.

Pofeldt. (2017, February 28). Why women entrepreneurs will be economic force to reckon with in 2017. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/28/why-women-entrepreneurs-will-be-economic-force-to-reckon-with-in-2017.html

104.

Rai

Agarwal

U. A.

(2017). Linking workplace bullying and work engagement: The mediating role of psychological contract violation. South Asian Journal of Human Resources Management, 4(1), 42–71.

105.

Rai

Agarwal

U. A.

(2018). Workplace bullying and employee silence: A moderated mediation model of psychological contract violation and workplace friendship. Personnel Review, 47(1), 226–256.

106.

Rasool

S. F.

Wang

Zhang

Samma

(2020). Sustainable work performance: The roles of workplace violence and occupational stress. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(3), Article 912.

107.

Raza

St-Onge

Ahmed

(2023). A scoping review and qualitative investigations to develop a workplace deviance typology. Deviant Behavior, 44(6), 857–875.

108.

Rego

(2013). Comunicação pessoal e organizacional - teoria e prática (3rd ed.). Edições Sílabo.

109.

Restubog

S. L. D.

Zagenczyk

T. J.

Bordia

Tang

R. L.

(2013). When employees behave badly: The roles of contract importance and workplace familism in predicting negative reactions to psychological contract breach. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(3), 673–686.

110.

Robbins

S. P.

Sanghi

(2005). Organizational behavior (11th ed., p. 456). Pearson Education.

111.

Robert

(2018). Impact of workplace bullying on job performance and job stress. Journal of Management Info, 5(3), 12–15.

112.

Robinson

S. L.

Bennett

R. J.

(1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multi-dimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 555–572.

113.

Robinson

S. L.

Greenberg

(1998). Employees behaving badly: Dimensions, determinants and dilemmas in the study of workplace deviance. Journal of Organizational Behavior (1986-1998), 19(1), 1–30.

114.

Sabeen

Arshad

(2019). Social undermining in academia: Experiences and effects. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 11(4), 653–663.

115.

Sabir

Majid

M. B.

Aslam

M. Z.

(2023). Impact of workplace bullying on patient’s quality-of-care services: A healthcare sector perspective. Journal of Applied Research and Multidisciplinary Studies, 4(1), 102–117.

116.

Sadia

Fatima

De Clercq

(2020). When workplace bullying spreads workplace deviance through anger and neuroticism. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 28(6), 1297–1314.

117.

Safi’i

Muttaqin

Hamzah

Chotimah

Junaris

Rifa’i

M. K.

(2021). The effect of the adversity quotient on student performance, student learning autonomy and student achievement in the COVID-19 pandemic era: Evidence from Indonesia. Heliyon, 7(12), Article e08510.

118.

Salin

Notelaers

(2017). The effect of exposure to bullying on turnover intentions: The role of perceived psychological contract violation and benevolent behaviour. Work & Stress, 31(4), 355–374.

119.

Shafi

Devadason

E. S.

Govindaraju

V. C.

(2024). Exploring ‘employee voice’ of informal female workers of the textiles industry in Pakistan: A grounded theory approach. Institutions and Economies, 16(2), 83–106.

120.

Shahid

M. S.

Bashir

Fatima

(2024). Social media addiction and aggression in Pakistani young adults: Social connectedness as a moderator. Journal of Professional & Applied Psychology, 5(3), 424–433.

121.

Skarlicki

D. P.

Folger

(1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 434–443.

122.

Spector

P. E.

Fox

Penney

L. M.

Bruursema

Goh

Kessler

(2005). The dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created equal? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(3), 446–460.

123.

Tabachnick

Fidell

(2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.

124.

Tangirala

Ramanujam

(2008). Employee silence on critical work issues: The cross level effects of procedural justice climate. Personnel Psychology, 61(1), 37–68.

125.

Tehrani

(2004). Bullying: A source of chronic post traumatic stress? British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 32(3), 357–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069880410001727567

126.

Tepper

B. J.

(2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33(3), 261–289.

127.

Tepper

B. J.

Henle

C. A.

(2011). A case for recognizing distinctions among constructs that capture interpersonal mistreatment in work organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(3), 487–498.

128.

Trépanier

S. G.

Fernet

Austin

(2015). A longitudinal investigation of workplace bullying, basic need satisfaction, and employee functioning. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20(1), Article 105.

129.

Y. T.

Sulistiawan

Ekowati

Rizaldy

(2022). Work-family conflict and salespeople deviant behavior: The mediating role of job stress. Heliyon, 8(10), Article e10881.

130.

Tuckey

M. R.

Neall

A. M.

(2014). Workplace bullying erodes job and personal resources: Between- and within-person perspectives. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19(4), 413–424.

131.

Vakola

Bouradas

(2005). Antecedents and consequences of organisational silence: An empirical investigation. Employee Relations, 27(5), 441–458.

132.

Van Dyne

Ang

Botero

I. C.

(2003). Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice as multidimensional constructs. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1359–1392.

133.

Van Heugten

(2013). Resilience as an underexplored outcome of workplace bullying. Qualitative Health Research, 23(3), 291–301.

134.

Vardi

Weitz

(2004). Misbehavior in organizations: Theory, research ans management. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

135.

Vartia

M. A.

(2001). Consequences of workplace bullying with respect to the well-being of its targets and the observers of bullying. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 27(1), 63–69.

136.

Weiss

H. M.

Cropanzano

(1996). Affective events theory. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18(1), 1–74.

137.

Whitman

M. V.

Halbesleben

J. R.

Holmes IV

(2014). Abusive supervision and feedback avoidance: The mediating role of emotional exhaustion. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(1), 38–53.

138.

A. J.

Loi

Lam

L. W.

(2015). The bad boss takes it all: How abusive supervision and leader–member exchange interact to influence employee silence. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(5), 763–774.

139.

Yadav

Rai

(2020, January). The moderating role of emotional intelligence in the relation between organizational stress and workplace deviant behavior. In 2020 International Conference on Computation, Automation and Knowledge Management (ICCAKM) (pp. 499–504). IEEE

140.

Yao

Ayub

Ishaq

Arif

Fatima

Sohail

H. M.

(2022). Workplace ostracism and employee silence in service organizations: The moderating role of negative reciprocity beliefs. International Journal of Manpower, 43(6), 1378–1404.

141.

Zahid

Nauman

(2024). Does workplace incivility spur deviant behaviors: roles of interpersonal conflict and organizational climate. Personnel Review, 53(1), 247–265.

Unveiling Workplace Dynamics Through Two Wave Study: Examining the Impact of Workplace Bullying,Employee Silence,and Stress on Workplace Deviance

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Literature Review

Workplace Bullying

Employee Silence

Workplace Deviance

Stress at Work

Theoretical Underpinnings

Workplace Bullying and Workplace Deviance

Workplace Bullying and Stress

Workplace Deviation and Stress

Workplace Deviance (WD) and Employee Silence (ES)

Employee Silence (ES) and Stress

Methodology

Sample and Procedure

Instrument

Data Analysis and Results

Measurement Model Analysis

Structural Model Analysis

The Predictive Relevance and Effect Size

Results

Analyzing Mediation

Discussion

Contribution and Implications

Limitations and Future Directions for Research

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

ORCID iDs

Ethical Considerations

Consent for Publication

Author Contributions

Data Availability Statement

References