Are People More Horrible Than Ghosts? Workplace Haters and Employee Creativity

Abstract

Based on the cognitive-affective personality system theory and social network theory, this study examines how three common workplace haters influence employee well-being and creativity. It also explores the negative moderating effects of personal social capital and organizational pride. The study utilized 496 valid supervisor-employee dyads (comprising 286 direct supervisors and 496 employees) from 13 companies in Taiwan. The findings revealed that: (1) Workplace haters negatively affect employee well-being; (2) Employee well-being positively affects employee creativity; (3) Employee well-being mediates the relationship between workplace haters and employee creativity; (4) Personal social capital moderates the relationship between workplace haters and employee well-being; and (5) Organizational pride moderates the relationship between employee well-being and employee creativity. Implications for behavioral researchers and human resource managers are discussed.

Introduction

Owing to global competition and rapidly changing markets, the survival and success of organizations often depend on the creativity, progress, and growth of their employees (Ng & Lucianetti, 2016). Improving employees’ creativity and adaptability is crucial for maintaining organizational competitive advantage (Gagné et al., 2019; Oliveira et al., 2020; Ouakouak & Ouedraogo, 2019). However, the expression of creativity by employees is related to workplace interpersonal relationships (Yao et al., 2020). Some irritating coworker traits or behaviors, such as spreading negative gossip, being inconsistent between words and actions, or frequently being inattentive and lazy, can make most employees feel unhappy and stressed, and diminish their creative ideas and behaviors (Kuo et al., 2015; Zou et al., 2020).

Several scholars argue that three common workplace haters, including negative gossiper, two-faced behavior, and work loafing, are coworker dark traits. These behaviors not only undermine harmonious interpersonal relationships, effective organizational communication, and personal and organizational reputation, but also reduce employees’ mutual trust and creative performance (Ben-Hador, 2019; Chua & De la Cerna Uy, 2014; Wu et al., 2018). Recently, numerous researchers have investigated the effects of negative workplace gossip. For instance, Zou et al. (2020) found that negative workplace gossip is negatively related to KS; Ben-Hador (2019) found that employee gossip is negatively related to job performance. However, few studies have investigated the negative effects of two-faced or lazy employees. On the other hand, most research on workplace haters is conducted in Western countries, with less discussion in Eastern societies and cultures. Therefore, how employees respond to these workplace haters is an important and underexplored issue.

Negative gossip is defined as organizational employees spreading negative comments and opinions about a specific person, including negative work-related and non-work-related criticisms (Baumeister et al., 2004). This pathological complaining behavior may harm the workplace atmosphere and coworker relationships, causing distress, anxiety, and unhappiness, and even reducing creative behaviors (Castaneda et al., 2016; Zou et al., 2020). On the other hand, previous research on human resource management and organizational behavior has highlighted that two-faced coworkers exhibit duplicitous behavior in the workplace. They present a friendly facade while betraying others behind their backs, which significantly harms coworker relationships (Baumeister et al., 2004; Foster, 2004; Robinson & Bennett, 1995). This behavior also diminishes employees’ well-being and creativity (Tian et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2018), and negatively impacts job performance, productivity, and turnover behavior (Grosser et al., 2010; Zou et al., 2020). Finally, if there are lazy employees in an organization, they not only create inequity but also increase the extra workload for several employees, making them feel dissatisfied and unhappy. This, in turn, makes them reluctant to engage in innovative behaviors (Castaneda et al., 2015; Castaneda & Toulson, 2013; Storey & Barnett, 2000). Mischel and Shoda (1995) proposed the cognitive-affective personality system (CAPS) theory, emphasizing that when employees encounter interpersonal difficulties with coworkers or supervisors, these events affect their cognitive-affective units, leading to the generation of negative attitudes, emotions, and behaviors. When employees encounter workplace haters (such as negative gossipers, two-faced coworkers, or work loafers), they may feel uncomfortable and dissatisfied, leading to less time, emotion, and energy to engage in creative thoughts and activities.

Employee well-being is defined as the comprehensive assessment of employees’ work experience and capabilities (Warr, 1987). Based on the principle that happy employees are highly productive, employees with high well-being are more willing to participate in organizational and work-related activities. They actively engage in work, exert creative abilities, and demonstrate positive behaviors (Hsu, 2006; Wu, 2013). On the other hand, personal social capital (PSC) is defined as employees’ ability, influence, and power to mobilize social network resources and relationships (Coleman, 1988). Employees with high PSC obtain higher positions, power, and advantages, and benefit from interpersonal interactions, so they less suffers from special coworkers’ harm and attack (Ben-Hador, 2016a,2016b). Employees with PSC abilities gain more interpersonal trust, resources, information, and interpersonal reciprocity. They also have more strategies to solve interpersonal barriers and prevent interpersonal storms than regular employees (Ben-Hador, 2017; 2019). Therefore, this study infers that PSC mitigates the negative impact of workplace haters and employee well-being. In addition, organizational pride is defined as employees feeling proud and confident about their organization and organizational-related affairs. This means that employees have great confidence and satisfaction in their organization’s core assets and values (Meyer et al., 2002). Past research suggests that organizational pride is a positive motivational factor and brings numerous benefits to organizations, including enhancing employees’ job satisfaction, well-being (Jarvenpaa & Staples, 2001), job performance, and creativity (Sang et al., 2020). Thus, this study infers that organizational pride strengthens the positive link between employee well-being and employee creativity.

In real working environment, many haters break the normal workplace norms and law of interpersonal harmony. At this time, organizational employees’ coping abilities and problem-solving strategies are very important. The main purpose of this study is to understand the negative destructive power of common workplace haters and adopt some methods to effectively deal with or improve these unpleasant situations (such as, reinforcing employees’ PSC). This study expects to foster the development of workplace cooperative relationships, rather than adversarial coworker relationships. This study uses a non-Western country/region (that is, Taiwan) as the research object to explore the multiple influence relationships of workplace haters–employee creativity, and depicts these causal relationships in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Conceptual model.

Literature review

Workplace haters and employee well-being

Organizational gossipers often engage in verbal discussions about work or non-work events with specific individuals who are not present (Ellwardt, 2011), including both positive and negative gossip behaviors toward third parties (Zhu et al., 2022). Negative gossipers act on both truthful and untrue information to harm others for personal gain or to create favorable circumstances (Eckhaus & Ben-Hador, 2018). Such informal negative communications fill unknown gaps in a social environment and add meaningful depth to uncertain situations (Ben-Hador, 2019; Moin et al., 2022a). Several scholars argue that negative gossip may harm others’ reputations, interpersonal relationships, and organizational citizenship behavior (Ben-Hador, 2019; Chua & De la Cerna Uy, 2014; Wu et al., 2018). For instance, Turner et al. (2003) found that negative gossip reduces coworker friendships. According to the CAPS theory, negative gossip increases interpersonal distrust, job insecurity, and negative interpersonal relationships. It may also undermine employees’ cognitive-affective units and trigger unhappiness and negative emotions (Lee & Pee, 2015; Yao et al., 2020). In other words, when employees are affected by negative workplace gossip, the adverse events trigger their pessimistic feelings and thoughts, and the organizational/team climate is also influenced by dark forces, leading to reduced employee well-being and organizational citizenship behavior (Cooper, 2013; Qu et al., 2015; Shen et al., 2019; Sluss & Ashforth, 2007; Zhang et al., 2014).

On the other hand, when there are two-faced coworkers in organizations, they tend to say one thing and do another, or smile in front of others and then betray them. This situation causes many employees to experience work confusion and interpersonal trouble, and can even lead to depression, unhappiness, and disappointment (Ben-Hador, 2019). Khan et al. (2021) emphasized that coworkers’ two-faced attitudes and behaviors make employees feel at a loss and difficult to trust each other, thereby reducing their well-being and job satisfaction. Ali et al. (2019) argued that two-faced coworkers cause many employees to experience psychological contract violation, leading to reduced job satisfaction, well-being, and job performance. According to the CAPS theory, employees’ responses to coworkers who use two-faced tactics can lead to emotional confusion and depression, challenging their rational and affective cognition (Frieder et al., 2018; Moin, 2018). These complex emotions can trigger feelings of unhappiness, insecurity, anxiety, and disappointment among employees (Yao et al., 2020).

Finally, a work loafers are less engaged in their work, exhibiting frequent daydreaming, excessive internet surfing, slow movement, work procrastination, absenteeism, and frequent requests for leave (Moin et al., 2020). Zou et al. (2020) argued that the root cause of lazy employees is the challenge of cooperation and coordination. They often result in additional workload for many employees, leading to confusion about job content and allocation, which may reduce employee well-being and job satisfaction (Kim & Park, 2015; Rasheed et al., 2021). According to equity theory, individuals who shirk their work loafers often miss work and pass their tasks onto others. These irresponsible attitudes and behaviors cause many employees to feel unequal in effort and reward, leading to decreased employee well-being and job performance (Kidwell & Robie, 2003; Moin et al., 2022b). Based on CAPS theory, lazy coworkers avoid their work duties and are reluctant to trade their exertion for rewards. This often violates most employees’ work values and behavior patterns, and also undermines their work expectations and survival principles, thereby reducing their cognitive-affective basis, and then generating more unhappiness, job stress, and frustration (Pierce & Gardner, 2004; Qu et al., 2015; Shen et al., 2019; Sluss & Ashforth, 2007; Wu et al., 2018). For example, Qu et al. (2015) argued that work loafing destroys coworker friendships and fair norms. George (1992) emphasized that lazy employees cause disharmony in interpersonal relationships, leading to increased antagonism and unhappiness in the workplace. Hamermesh (1990) claimed that lazy employees reduce most coworkers’ well-being and organizational citizenship behavior, and may even promote counterproductive behavior. Thus, this study predicts that:

H1: Workplace haters (a. negative gossiper; b. two-faced person; c. work loafer) are negatively related to employee well-being.

Employee well-being and employee creativity

Employee creativity is defined as organizational employees generating new ideas, methods, processes, or products/services in their work (Janssen, 2000). According to the perspective of psychological safety (Carmeli & Gittell, 2009), employees who feel at ease and have a low fear of expressing creativity are more likely to exhibit creative behaviors (Carmeli et al., 2010; Kark & Carmeli, 2009). From the perspective of return and social exchange theory, when employees feel happy, it may stem from their confidence and satisfaction with their organizations, internal communication practices, interpersonal interactions, and work achievements. This, in turn, can promote higher job performance and employee creativity (Al-Alawi et al., 2007; Lee & Ahn, 2007; Moin et al., 2022c). Therefore, employee well-being is a key factor in promoting employee creativity. Employees with high well-being are more likely to generate innovative ideas and exhibit proactive behaviors to solve their work problems and accomplish both personal and organizational goals (Berraies et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2019).

Employee well-being is defined as employees’ self-evaluation of their overall work experience, including their work sentimental state and work-related experience, such as happiness, pleasure, and satisfaction (Devonish, 2013; Van Horn et al., 2004). Happy employees are particularly motivated (Huang et al., 2016). When employees are happy, happy, and enjoy their work, they are more willing to participate in work/organization-related affairs, thus increasing their job performance and creativity (Joo et al., 2016). In other words, happy employees are satisfied with their current work life, which stimulates them to take the initiative to give and devote to work and organizations; thus, their brainstorming and innovative activities are higher (Cavaliere et al., 2015). As emphasized by Chumg et al. (2016) and Wasko & Faraj (2005), employees’ positive emotions and psychological traits enhance their performance and creativity. Thus, the second hypothesis is as follows:

H2: Employee well-being is positively related to employee creativity.

The mediating role of employee well-being

In modern society, interpersonal discord creates an unstable, untrustworthy, and insecure working environment, thus generating unhappy, anxious, and stressed employees (Castaneda et al., 2016). When employees are attacked by negative gossipers, they feel nervous, stressed, annoyed, and even unable to concentrate on their work, thereby reducing job performance and creative performance (Ben-Hador, 2019; Bordia et al., 2006; Leung et al., 2016). This is also in line with the conservation of resource theory (COR), that is, negative gossip damages most employees’ resources, energy, and attention, giving them less time and energy to work hard, thus reducing their work involvement and creative behaviors (Buchwald & Hobfoll, 2004; Grosser et al., 2010, 2012; Jin et al., 2018; Wu et al., 2018). For example, Zhou et al. (2019) found that negative gossip reduces employee creativity.

On the other hand, coworkers with two-faced traits easily cause others’ work confusion and emotional exhaustion, making it difficult for them to truly feel happy and reducing their creative thoughts and behaviors (Penney et al., 2011). In other words, two-faced coworkers tend to generate more employee unhappiness and dissatisfaction, and these victimized employees particularly refuse to express performance and creativity (Fong et al., 2018; Park et al., 2017; Wu et al., 2018). From the perspective of employee trust, the behaviors of two-faced coworkers always make unpredictable changes in policies, making it difficult for them to gain other employees’ trust and support, thus affecting several employees’ job performance and creative behaviors (Ding et al., 2007; Mon et al., 2021; Yang & Chen, 2007).

From work loafing, lazy coworkers are vested interests in organizations/teams/work units. They cause uneven distribution of social resources and make many employees feel dissatisfied and unhappy with their jobs, resulting in lower job performance and employee creativity (Zou et al., 2020). A work loafer is a special group that violates organizational norms; they are not liked by others and suffer from bad stereotypes and negative labels, thus generating more employees’ frustration, dissatisfaction, and unhappy, even reducing job performance and creativity (Hills, 2017; Turner et al., 2003). Based on equity theory, work loafers cause many employees to automatically reduce their contribution and dedication to their organization to reverse the unfair situation, including reducing job performance and employee creativity (Yanow, 2004; Zou et al., 2020). Therefore, on the basis of the above arguments, this study predicts that:

H3: Employee well-being mediates the relationship between workplace haters (a. negative gossiper; b. two-faced person; c. work loafer) and employee creativity.

The moderating role of PSC

PSC is defined as an organizational employee’s ability to mobilize resources from within and outside the organization and obtain more benefits, including better relationship structure, formal/informal centrality, and influence (Putnam, 2000). PSC is an intangible asset generated by people interaction (Khan et al., 2022), which is conducive to the realization of employees’ personal goals and self-growth (Lin, 1999). For example, Chang and Hsu (2016) found that PSC promotes employee well-being. The utmost interest of PSC is to maintain personal health and well-being, build a favorable social position/relationship, and avoid others’ attack and harm (Gao et al., 2014). Employees with high PSC have private communities or groups that trust and support each other. They can use human and resource exchanges to solve various work and personal problems, and thus are less maliciously slandered, injured, and attacked by others (Gao et al., 2014; Lee et al., 2016). According to social network theory, individuals establish a relatively stable system through the relationship and combination of social relationships and unite people and things in the system to produce better goal achievement and efficiency (Granovetter, 1973). In other words, employees with high PSC have more structural status and relational interests than ordinary employees. They act collectively, help each other, and share different abilities/information/resources in a small network world, so they have higher social competence, belonging, and well-being (Ben-Hador, 2019), and they are less likely to be harmed by annoying coworkers in the workplace.

The literature shows that the behavioral patterns of employees with high PSC can be divided into connection and bridge (Putnam, 2000). In the combination part, they connect like-minded employees as dear family members or close friends to build a private community to progress and grow together; and in the bridge part, they use collective strength to gain emotional and financial support to solve several difficult interpersonal and work problems, and they also have more well-being based on job security and stability (Ben-Hador, 2019). In other words, employees with high PSC are organizational/team representatives; they have sufficient relationships and power to avoid interpersonal troubles, thus generating higher well-being and job satisfaction (Clopton, 2011). Therefore, employees with high PSC have more powerful social network nodes. They connect some important nodes to gain more trust, care, support, and help, while placing less emphasis on weak nodes; thus, they are less attacked or harm by others (Carmeli et al., 2009; Yu & Junshu, 2013). From the perspective of resource gains and losses, PSC improves employees’ psychological safety and emotional support, and it is an acquisition of interpersonal resources and friendship, which can effectively cope with or resolve some interpersonal troubles (Yao et al., 2020). For example, when an organization has negative gossip coworkers, employees with high PSC can use their community power to solve problems or protect themselves from dangerous people and things, so their moods and emotions are less affected by some internal negative events (Kiss et al., 2014). When employees with high PSC encounter two-faced coworkers or work loafers, they may use resources and assistance from their community or group to avoid or solve these problems. However, in the past, less empirical research has examined the influence of PSC, and only fewer researchers have found that positive gossip drives high PSC (e.g., Ben-Hador, 2019; Kiss et al., 2014). Therefore, this study infers that PSC weakens the relationship between workplace haters and employee well-being. This study predicts the following:

H4: PSC moderates the relationship between workplace haters (a. negative gossiper; b. two-faced person; c. work loafer) and employee well-being, such that the relationship between workplace haters and employee well-being weakens as PSC increases.

The moderating role of organizational pride

Organizational pride is defined as employees’ self-confidence and complacency in their organization and related affairs (Appleberg, 2005; Kraemer & Gouthier, 2014). Organizational pride comes from past success, achievements, and performance, and these scores can bring many organizational benefits (Arnett et al., 2002; Lok & Crawford, 2001; Nilawati et al., 2019). Past literature distinguishes two types of organizational pride: Emotional organizational pride and attitudinal organizational pride, which represent employees’ emotional engagement in their work life (Katzenbach, 2003) or promote employees’ positive work attitudes in their organizations (Basch & Fisher, 2000). On the other hand, organizational pride is related to self-esteem and personal self-worth; thus, organizational pride is a valuable psychological resource/asset that motivates employees to believe that the present and future can continue to be better, resulting in higher employee well-being, job performance, and creativity (Appleberg, 2005; Arnett et al., 2002; Elfenbein, 2007). Some scholars have emphasized that organizational pride enhances organizational social reputation and social identification so that employees are willing to follow the footsteps of success and promote employee well-being, work commitment, and creativity (Blader & Tyler, 2009; Gouthier & Rhein, 2011; Katzenbach, 2003). From the perspective of social exchange theory, if employees have high organizational pride, they are more satisfied with their current salary, treatment, working conditions, and environment; thus, they reward more job performance and creativity in their organizations (Sang et al., 2020).

From the perspective of affective involvement, organizational pride represents the joint efforts of organizations and employees to create outstanding organizational performance, and this accumulated emotion and sense of responsibility motivates employees to improve positive work attitudes and behaviors (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Elfenbein, 2007; Seyedpour et al., 2020). According to investment theory, past success makes employees more willing to invest in the future, so organizational pride motivates employees to generate more and longer-term positive work attitudes and behaviors to create future success, such as enhancing employee well-being, job performance, and creativity (Ajzen, 2005; Arnett et al., 2002). From the perspective of expected benefits, organizational past success gives employees a lot of enjoyment and bountiful fruit, so they have high expectations and assurance in future success, so they are more excitedly and behaviorally engaged in their work/organization (Fairfield et al., 2004). Therefore, several studies support the idea that organizational pride increases employee well-being (Arnett et al., 2002; Lok & Crawford, 2001; Nilawati et al., 2019; Van Dick et al., 2004), job performance, and employee creativity (Kraemer & Gouthier, 2014). Thus, this study infers that organizational pride strengthens the relationship between employee well-being and creativity.

H5: Organizational pride moderates the relationship between employee well-being and employee creativity, such that the relationship between employee well-being and employee creativity strengthens as organizational pride increases.

Study

Participants and procedure

This study used convenience sampling to collect 496 employees and 286 direct supervisors from 13 companies in Taiwan. There are 6 technology companies, 5 service companies, and 2 design companies in the research. Each direct supervisor has two to three employees who participate in the sampling. The human resource manager of each company compiled an e-file/note with their departments, direct supervisors, and employees, and then the study issued this research questionnaire using this information. Participants are willing to cooperate and confirm that their answers are confidential. To avoid common method variance, this study conducted a three-stage and two-source survey.

At Time 1, the study distributed 600 employee questionnaires to evaluate workplace haters, PSC, coworker friendship, and employee demographic variables. Two months later, the study again distributed these 586 employees at Time 2 to assess employee well-being and organizational pride. A total of 515 questionnaires in Time 2 were collected. Two months after the completion of the Time 2 survey, the study distributed 320 direct supervisor questionnaires to 515 employees in Time 3 to assess employee creativity. A total of 296 direct supervisor questionnaires were collected during Time 3. Scholars have also claimed that temporal separation and different sources are the most effective strategies for reducing common method bias (MacKenzie et al., 2005; Podsakoff et al., 2003).

According to the final survey of employees and their direct supervisors, 515 employees and 296 direct supervisors in the target organizations participated in the study; therefore, the reply rates were 86% and 93%, respectively. In the questionnaire received, 19 employee questionnaires and 10 direct supervisor questionnaires were excluded because the answers to some items were blank. Therefore, the available number of questionnaires in this study is 496 employee questionnaires and 286 direct supervisor questionnaires.

Among the 496 employees who participated in the study, 51% were men and 49% were women. Regarding age, the majority (38%) of the survey employees were between 20 and 30 years old, with an average age of 25 years (sd= 3.9). The average job tenure of the survey employees was 3 years (sd = 2.8), and 31% of the employees were married. Approximately 37% of the survey employees have a bachelor’s degree, whereas 26% of survey employees have a master’s degree. Of the 286 direct supervisor samples, approximately 51% were male, and the average age was 43 years (sd = 7.8). 49% of direct supervisors were married. Approximately 45% of direct supervisors have a bachelor’s degree, whereas 26% have a master’s degree.

Measures

All the questionnaires in this study were translated from the relevant original research viewpoints or questionnaires and developed into Chinese questionnaires by some experts and preliminary test modifications. Every questionnaire was rated using a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 = ‘strongly disagree’ to 5 = ‘strongly agree’.

Workplace haters

First, in part of negative gossiper, this study refers to the relevant questionnaires of Nevo et al. (1994) and Chandra & Robinson (2010) to develop and create the negative gossiper scale. The main purpose of this study is to measure employees’ evaluation of how they perceive and hate that someone often spreads negative news about others in the organization. After the investigation of reliability and validity, there are 10 items in this dimension. For example, “I know and hate that my coworkers in the company talk about other employees’ negative hearsay.” (α = 0.91). Second, in part of two-faced person, this study refers to the relevant viewpoints of Zou et al. (2020) to develop and create the two-faced person scale. The main purpose of this study is to measure employees’ evaluation of how they perceive and hate someone who deliberately behaves inconsistently in the organization. After the investigation of reliability and validity, there are 5 items in this dimension. For example, “I know and hate that my coworkers say one thing and do another thing in the company.” (α = 0.90). Third, in part of the work loafer, this study refers to the relevant questionnaire of Kidwell & Robie (2003) to develop and create the work loafer scale. The main purpose of this study was to measure employees’ evaluation of how they perceive and hate that someone often works lazily in the organization. After the inspection of reliability and validity, there are 5 items in this dimension. For example, “I know and hate that my coworkers often delay work in the company.” (α = 0.90).

Employee well-being

This study refers to the relevant questionnaire of Warr (1990) to develop and create the employee well-being scale. The main purpose of this study was to measure employees’ evaluation of the extent of their overall quality evaluation of work experience and competency. After the inspection of reliability and validity, there are 15 items in this dimension. For example, “I feel my work life is beautiful.” (α = 0.91).

Employee creativity

This study refers to the relevant questionnaire of Zhou & George (2001) to develop and create an employee creativity scale. The main purpose of this study is to measure direct supervisors’ evaluation of the extent to which their employees generate novel and potentially valuable ideas, products, services, manufacturing methods, or job processes. After the examination of reliability and validity, there are 13 items in this dimension. For example, “My employee often has many useful ideas for developing new products.” (α = 0.91).

PSC

This study refers to the relevant questionnaires of Chen et al. (2009) and Wang et al. (2014) to develop and create the PSC scale. The main purpose of this study was to measure employees’ evaluation of whether they think that they can mobilize social networks, resources, and personnel to achieve personal goals. After the test of reliability and validity, there are 6 items in this dimension. For example, “I have some useful relational resources in the company.” (α = 0.90).

Organizational pride

This study refers to the relevant questionnaire of Gouthier & Rhein (2011) to develop and create the organizational pride scale. The main purpose of this study is to measure employees’ evaluation of their pride and honor in their organization, organizational values, and business philosophy. After the test of reliability and validity, there are 7 items in this dimension. For example, “I think my company’s values and philosophy are better than those of other companies.” (α = 0.91).

Control variables

The study controlled for employee demographic variables, including gender, age, job tenure (measured in years), marital status, and education level. Previous studies have demonstrated that these demographic variables might influence the relationship between workplace haters and employee attitudes/behaviors (e.g., Brimeyer et al., 2010; Siders et al., 2001; Zhou et al., 2019). The study also controlled for coworker friendships, as they can impact workplace haters and employee attitudes and behaviors (e.g., Kaisler et al., 2013; Kiran et al., 2018; Marsden, 2005).

Reliability and validity analysis

To ensure the reliability of the scale used in this research, a reliability analysis is conducted to assess the consistency of the research results. As indicated by the diagonal values, the Cronbach’s α value for each dimension is above 0.8, indicating strong reliability. In terms of validity analysis, the study initially invited human resources professors and HR supervisors to review and modify the questionnaire items, ensuring that the questionnaire items have expert validity. Then, the study conducted a preliminary test. During the test, 100 testers anonymously fill out the questionnaire, which is then formalized after necessary modifications. Finally, the study conducted exploratory factor analysis (EFA) on all samples. As shown in Table 1, the KMO of each dimension is greater than 0.8, indicating that the data is suitable for EFA. After employing the maximum orthogonal variation method, the factor loading of each item exceeds 0.5, and the overall interpretation of each dimension is also substantial. In addition, the composite reliability (CR) exceeds 0.7, and the average variance extracted (AVE) is above 0.5 but below 3.3. These values indicate strong convergent validity and discriminant validity between dimensions. Therefore, the overall validity of the study is high and meets the relevant standards.

Table 1. The results of validity test.

Dimension	Item	KMO	Factor Loading	Overall interpretation (%)	CR	AVE
Negative gossiper	1-10	0.87	(.746)(.743)(.625)(.651)(.745)(.732)(.718)(.812)(.714)(.735)	72.21	0.81	0.68
Two-faced person	1-5	0.86	(.742)(.748)(.812)(.814)(.735)	36.51	0.79	0.59
Work loafer	1-5	0.86	(.818)(.815)(.742)(.758)(.811)	39.44	0.81	0.65
Employee well-being	1-15	0.87	(.715)(.612)(.613)(.615) (.612)(.613)(.711)(.616) (.611)(.716) (.612)(.615) (.615)(.618) (.615)	95.09	0.83	0.63
Employee creativity	1-13	0.87	(.619)(.615)(.706)(.708) (.619)(.612)(.616)(.618) (.611)(.612) (.616)(.618)(.709)	82.79	0.81	0.62
PSC	1-6	0.86	(.729)(.821)(.738)(.738) (.745) (.825)	45.96	0.78	0.58
Organizational pride	1-7	0.87	(.736)(.819)(.748)(.753)(.745) (.748)(.825)	53.74	0.81	0.61
Coworker friendship	1-13	0.86	(.716)(.718)(.618)(.615) (.612)(.615)(.612)(.613) (.612)(.706) (.612)(.616) (.615)	82.80	0.79	0.61

Confirmatory factor analysis

The study data is reproducible because the same sample group was measured using different questionnaires at discrete time points. The study utilizes structural equation modeling (SEM) to identify changes in repetitive samples at various time points and across different research variables. First, the study conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess the discriminant validity of the eight variables used in this study, including negative gossiper, two-faced behavior, work loafer, employee well-being, employee creativity, PSC, organizational pride, and coworker friendship. According to the method proposed by Hall et al. (1999), this study combined the highest and lowest factor loadings in sequence, following which the process was repeated until a single dimension yielded eight indicators. This study utilized nested structure CFA analysis and found that the hypothetical model outperformed other alternative models, suggesting that the degree of fit between the data collected in this study and the theoretical model is acceptable. Given these supportive results, the study then proceeded to the main investigation.

Results

Descriptive statistics and correlations

Means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations for all measures are presented in Table 2. The correlation coefficient values between the dimensions did not exceed 0.8, indicating that the issue of collinearity was not significant (Maruyama, 1998). Second, as expected, there were positive correlations between employee well-being and employee creativity, PSC and employee well-being, PSC and employee creativity, organizational pride and employee well-being, organizational pride and employee creativity, and coworker friendship and employee well-being. However, there were negative correlations between negative gossiping and employee well-being, two-faced person and employee well-being, being a work loafer and employee well-being, negative gossiper and employee creativity, PSC and negative gossiper, PSC and two-faced person, and coworker friendship and negative gossiper evidenced negatively correlations.

Table 2. Correlation and descriptive statistics.

Variables	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Negative gossiper	3.26	0.58	(.91)
2. Two-faced person	3.48	0.66	.04	(.90)
3. Work loafer	4.11	1.08	.05	.04	(.90)
4. Employee well-being	4.12	1.06	−.41	−.39	−.43	(.91)
5. Employee creativity	4.08	1.02	−.38	−.06	−.12	.38	(.91)
6. PSC	3.25	0.54	−.36	−.34	−.15	.36	.35	(.90)
7. Organizational pride	3.42	0.62	−.05	−.06	−.14	.36	.36	.05	(.91)
8. Coworker friendship	4.12	1.12	−.25	−.11	−.12	.33	.14	.06	.05	(.90)

Note: N = 496 for employees, 286 for direct supervisors, and 13 for companies. Reliabilities are in parentheses.

Hypothesis testing

The study utilized AMOS to conduct Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) in Figure 2. Firstly, in relation to model fit data, the eight-factor measurement model adequately fits the data. Hypothesis 1 suggests that workplace haters negatively associated with employee well-being. The results indicate that individuals who engage in workplace haters (negative gossiper, two-faced person, and work loafer) negatively affect employee well-being. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 is supported. Hypothesis 2 suggests that there is a positive association between employee well-being and employee creativity. The results indicate that employee well-being has a positive effect on employee creativity. Therefore, Hypothesis 2 is supported. In the control variables, gender, age, job tenure, and coworker friendship are associated with negative gossiper. These results indicated that employees with female, young, less work experience or coworker friendship feel more negative gossipers in their organizations; and then, age and coworker friendship is related to two-faced person. These results indicate that employees who have fewer friendships with younger coworkers feel more hate two-faced persons in their organizations. Additionally, age and job tenure are related to work loafer. These results indicate that employees with more work experience or older employees feel more dislike work loafers in their organizations. On the other hand, Hypothesis 3 predicts that employee well-being mediates the relationship between workplace haters and employee creativity. Relevant statistical analysis indicates the presence of a mediating effect. Therefore, Hypothesis 3 is supported.

Figure 2. Structural model results. Standardized indirect effect: Negative gossiper → Employee well-being → Employee creativity Two-faced person → Employee well-being → Emplooyee creativity Work loafer → Employee well-being → Employee creativity

Hypothesis 4 states that PSC moderates the relationship between workplace haters and employee well-being, such that the association between workplace haters and employee well-being weakens when PSC is high. The study utilized hierarchical regression analysis to demonstrate that PSC moderates the relationship between workplace hater (negative gossiper, two-faced person, or work loafer) and employee well-being. In other words, employees with high PSC, workplace hater (negative gossiper, two-faced person, or work loafer) have less negative effects are increased. In other words, employees with high PSC are less negatively harmed and affected by workplace haters. In terms of negative gossiper, tests of the simple slopes show that the relationship between negative gossiper and employee well-being was negative when PSC was at a low level (simple slope = −0.28), but the relationship had less influence at a high PSC level (simple slope = −0.17). As shown in Figure 3a, the negative gossiper less important role for employees with high PSC. However, negative gossiper was an important factor in employee well-being of employees with low PSC. In the case of a two-faced person, tests of the simple slopes show that the relationship between being two-faced person and employee well-being was negative when PSC was at a low level (simple slope = −0.26), but the relationship had less influence at a high PSC level (simple slope = −0.15). As shown in Figure 3b, a two-faced person less important role for employees with high PSC. However, two-faced person was an important factor in employee well-being of employees with low PSC. In terms of work loafer, tests of the simple slopes show that the relationship between work loafer and employee well-being was negative when PSC was at a low level (simple slope = −0.25), but the relationship had less influence at a high PSC level (simple slope = −0.16). As shown in Figure 3c, work loafer less plays an important role for employees with high PSC. However, work loafer was an important factor in employee well-being of employees with low PSC. Therefore, Hypothesis 4 is supported. In terms of control variables, job tenure, education level, and coworker friendship are associated with employee well-being. The results indicate that employees with more work experience, a higher level of education, or friendships with coworkers experience greater happiness at work.

Figure 3. (a) Interaction of PSC. (b) Interaction of PSC. (c) Interaction of PSC.

Hypothesis 5 suggests that organizational pride moderates the relationship between employee well-being and employee creativity. Specifically, the relationship between employee well-being and employee creativity is expected to be stronger when organizational pride is high. The study utilized hierarchical regression analysis to demonstrate that organizational pride moderates the relationship between employee well-being and employee creativity. When employees have high organizational pride, the positive relationship between employee well-being and employee creativity is strengthened; otherwise, it is weakened. In other words, employees with a strong sense of organizational pride enhance the positive link between employee well-being and employee creativity. Tests of the simple slopes show that the relationship between employee well-being and employee creativity was positive when organizational pride was at a high level (simple slope = 0.28), but the relationship had less influence at a low organizational pride level (simple slope = 0.16). As shown in Figure 4, employee well-being plays a less important role for employees with low organizational pride. However, employee well-being was a significant factor in fostering employee creativity among those who had high organizational pride. Therefore, Hypothesis 5 is supported. In terms of control variables, age, job tenure, and coworker friendship are associated with employee creativity. These results indicate that employees with younger, less work experience and more coworker friendships tend to express more creativity.

Figure 4. Interaction of organizational pride.

Conclusion

In a professional work setting, certain ethnic groups or individuals from different cultural backgrounds may exhibit behaviors that can be disruptive, such as spreading negative rumors, being insincere in front of others and betraying them behind their backs, or being lazy at work. These behaviors can significantly impact the attitudes and actions of the majority of employees. However, employees with strong social networking skills may be able to solve or avoid these interpersonal problems and conflicts. The study’s findings also revealed that: (1) Workplace negativity has a detrimental impact on employee well-being; (2) Employee well-being has a positive influence on employee creativity; (3) Employee well-being mediates the relationship between workplace haters and employee creativity; (4) PSC moderates the relationship between workplace haters and employee well-being; and (5) Organizational pride moderates the relationship between employee well-being and employee creativity. These findings have several interesting theoretical and managerial implications.

Implication for theory and research

This study examines the negative outcomes of three common workplace haters, including negative gossiper, two-faced person, and work loafer (Yao et al., 2020; Zou et al., 2020). Past literature has extensively examined the impact of negative gossip, as evidenced by the work of several researchers. However, there is a lack of relevant empirical research on two-faced people (Bai et al., 2019; Dunbar, 2004). Similarly, the concept of work loafer has only been discussed by a few early researchers in terms of its definition and types (Hills, 2017). Therefore, this study helps fill the gaps in the relevant literature and makes important contributions to the issue of workplace haters and coworker relationships.

From the perspective of COR theory and resource acquisition/loss, workplace haters, such as spreading negative gossip and frequently arriving late or leaving early, may deplete employees’ psychological resources and energy. This can lead to increased stress, unhappiness, and dissatisfaction, ultimately reducing the time and energy available for generating creative ideas and behaviors (Carmeli et al., 2011; Gagné et al., 2019). According to the equity theory and social comparison theory, some coworkers who are lazy or two-faced make many employees feel unequal in terms of pay and rewards. Therefore, under conditions of work insecurity and anxiety, individuals find it difficult to feel happy or satisfied, which in turn reduces their work effort, performance, and creativity (Ouakouak & Ouedraogo, 2019; Park & Kim, 2018). From the perspective of negative social exchange theory, workplace haters undermine coworker trust and workplace harmony, leading to reduced interpersonal friendship and affective attachment, ultimately decreasing job creativity and performance (Lee & Pee, 2015; Yao et al., 2020; Zhao et al., 2016). Therefore, previous scholars have proposed theories to explain and substantiate the destructive impact of workplace haters, but there is still a lack of empirical research. This study also helps validate and support the arguments of previous scholars.

This study utilizes an emerging theory, the CAPS theory, to offer an alternative explanation. It suggests that disharmony among coworkers undermines employees’ cognitive-affective foundations, resulting in the development of negative attitudes and behaviors (Bowling & Beehr, 2006; Srivastava & Beer, 2005; Yao et al., 2020). This theory has rarely been applied in previous research. This study applies the CAPS theory to demonstrate the detrimental impact of workplace haters; it should have creative interpretations and values. Furthermore, according to social network theory, employees with high PSC possess adequate social competence to diffuse interpersonal storms or stay away from workplace disputes. For instance, when individuals engage in negative gossip and spread rumors, employees with high PSC possess adequate social connections and resources to publicly clarify misunderstandings or to leverage collective power to avoid problematic situations (Ben-Hador, 2019). Therefore, employees with high PSC have a higher social class status, a better social reputation, and the ability to solve interpersonal problems. As a result, their job satisfaction and well-being are higher. This study is the first to apply the concept of PSC to the topic of workplace haters, which makes a significant contribution and value to the literature on workplace haters, coworker interaction and social capital.

Finally, previous research has primarily focused on highlighting the positive impact of organizational pride on both organizations and employees, but there is a scarcity of empirical research on this topic (Kraemer et al., 2020; Lu & Roto, 2016). Organizational pride is a powerful motivational factor. When employees achieve better performance and take pride in themselves and their organization, they will continue to strive to maintain these excellent performances and habits. This includes increasing job satisfaction and well-being, actively participating in work, team, and organizational activities, and improving or maintaining job performance or creative performance. Therefore, this study also confirms that organizational pride enhances the positive correlation between employee well-being and employee creativity. The verification of a moderating effect has important contributions and implications for the areas of organizational pride, motivational effects, and the sources of employee creativity.

Practical implications

The findings of this study have some intriguing managerial implications. First, in terms of organization, organizations should establish a fair and equitable working environment and actively cultivate a harmonious and positive organizational culture to minimize workplace haters (Danziger, 1988). On the other hand, a more effective organizational management system can also prevent negative employee behaviors in the workplace. This can be achieved through strategies such as recruiting exceptional talents, establishing improved performance evaluation and reward systems, creating a formal complaint channel, and implementing ethical and transparent management practices (Yao et al., 2020). Organizations should also pay attention to organizational support policies and humane care work, such as showing concern for whether employees are experiencing unjustified negative gossip and feeling unhappy, frequent changes in coworkers’ or supervisors’ behaviors leading to employees feeling overwhelmed at work, or team/organizational work loafers affecting employee morale and team/organizational effectiveness. In addition, organizations can offer emotional support and resources to promptly address and resolve interpersonal problems, thereby preventing mutual suspicion and negative emotions among employees, which can in turn reduce job performance and creativity (Bibi & Ali, 2017; Buruck et al., 2016; Park & Kim, 2018). Organizations can also implement Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs) to help resolve interpersonal issues and distress among employees (Feinberg et al., 2012; Grosser et al., 2012; Zou et al., 2020).

Second, in terms of management, managers and team leaders must enhance their supervision and communication skills to understand and assist employees in reducing annoying behaviors among coworkers and promoting the development of healthy and harmonious relationships in the workplace (Yao et al., 2020). Sometimes, department supervisors or team leaders can utilize work rules, management techniques, administrative regulations, or performance evaluations to minimize the presence of workplace haters. Supervisors or leaders can also regularly engage with employees to understand and help resolve potential interpersonal misunderstandings (Qu et al., 2015; Shen et al., 2019; Sluss & Ashforth, 2007). Supervisors and leaders also embrace empowerment to provide employees with the necessary capabilities and resources to deal with insecurity in the workplace (Grosser et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2019; Zou et al., 2020). These methods also help employees develop PSC, enhance self-confidence, and improve problem-solving skills, which in turn promotes the development of positive attitudes and behaviors (Chae et al., 2019; De Bernardi et al., 2019).

Third, regarding employees, if they experience unreasonable or unfair treatment in the organization, such as being harmed or attacked by hostile coworkers, they should actively seek assistance and support from their supervisor/leader, or utilize organizational grievance procedures, seek advice from experts/counselors, or employ other problem-solving methods to address the issues (Kidwell & Robie, 2003). On the other hand, employees should participate in various formal and informal social activities to build personal network resources and capital, and to form higher or more PSC, thereby gaining strong organizational status and interest relationships (Gao et al., 2014). Because employees’ strengths, status, and resources in the organization can help protect them from harm and attacks by unfamiliar individuals, and facilitate the smooth resolution of work and interpersonal problems (Boccuzzo et al., 2016; Lazega et al., 2006).

Hypothesis 5 of this study posits that organizational pride enhances the connection between employee well-being and employee creativity. Therefore, fostering organizational pride is an effective motivational method for encouraging employees to cultivate more positive work attitudes and behaviors. Some scholars also argue that organizational pride is built on the historical accumulation of successful enterprises, key organizational capabilities, and certain economic performance indicators (e.g., market positioning, business growth rate, and organizational image/brand) (Scott & Lane, 2000). In addition, a positive organizational culture, ethical standards, correct values, and strong traditions are also important sources of organizational pride (Gino & Ariely, 2012). Therefore, in order for employees within an organization to actively proclaim, "I am proud of my company," both psychologically and behaviorally, everyone in the organization, particularly top managers, must consistently contribute and strive to achieve successful organizational operations, exceptional cultural values, and competitiveness. These efforts also foster greater employee satisfaction and encourage creative behaviors.

Finally, in terms of applied research, this study focuses on how employees utilize social capital to mitigate or prevent attacks or harm from workplace haters, including five strategies: 1. Create a community of friends or family members along with like-minded coworkers to support and defend each other against external attacks. 2. Prohibit inappropriate relationships between coworkers to safeguard employees’ values and resources; 3. To improve relationships with supervisors, bosses, customers, manufacturers, or partners, it is important to transcend the coworker relationship. This can be achieved by obtaining more resources to address interpersonal distress, using organizational grievance channels or seeking expert consultation to resolve disputes or troubles. Foster a harmonious and respectful workplace environment that embraces diversity and promotes tolerance.

Limitations and future research suggestions

While this study offers valuable insights, it is important to consider its limitations. First, this study explores three common workplace haters. However, there may be other types of troublesome coworker behaviors that receive less attention and examination, such as workplace bullying, uncleanliness, nosiness, negative emotions, frequent complaints, and so on. Therefore, if future researchers delve into these various types of workplace haters in depth, they should uncover interesting findings and gain new insights. In the future, researchers could also explore other theories, such as cognitive dissonance theory, equity theory, negative social exchange theory, or alternative theories to investigate the adverse effects of workplace haters.

Second, this study requires direct supervisors to evaluate employee creativity. The study argues that some supervisors may report higher scores to appear more "effective." Therefore, future research could take precautions by involving two or more individuals to assess employee creativity. Further research can also employ experimental design or control for certain endogenous factors (Antonakis et al., 2010) to investigate the hypothesized relationship in this study. Another limitation is that different cultures may influence the occurrence and outcome of workplace haters. Therefore, future research could explore the cultural differences of workplace haters. The detection of mediators and moderators in this study is limited. This study only investigated the mediating role of employee well-being and the moderating roles of PSC and organizational pride. Future research can incorporate additional contextual factors to explore the complex relationship between workplace haters and employee creativity, especially focusing on employee characteristics, attitudes, and organizational factors.

Finally, although the study indicated that PSC is an employee’s social networking asset, it is important to address annoying coworker behaviors and seek improvement or solutions. However, in some situations, employees with high PSC may develop detrimental behaviors that are harmful to organizations (Brass et al., 1998). Employees with high PSC may leverage collective power to harm coworkers, supervisors, or the organization based on personal interests and goals (Ibarra et al., 2005). This aspect is not explored in this study, which is a hidden problem. Therefore, future researchers can investigate the potential adverse consequences of PSC. On the other hand, this study examines the impact of a positive organizational motivational factor, organizational pride, on the relationship between employee well-being and employee creativity. Future researchers can utilize organizational negative factors, such as organizational cynicism and mistrust, to investigate their moderating effect (Gouthier & Rhein, 2011; Lewis, 2000). However, the sample for this study was not randomly drawn. To minimize bias in the analysis due to missing data, the study controlled for employee demographic variables and coworker friendships. However, the study still suggests that future researchers should use random sampling to validate these findings.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).