Workplace bullying and employees’ turnover intention in hospitality industry: evidence of Nepal

Figures & data

Figure 1. Conceptual framework.

Table 1. Demographic profile of the respondents.

Demographic variables		Number of respondents	Percent
Age	18–24	84	26
	35–31	122	37.8
	32–38	66	20.4
	39–45	31	9.6
	45 & above	20	6.2
Gender	Male	177	54.8
	Female	142	44
	Others	4	1.2
Marital status	Married	160	49.5
	Unmarried	158	48.9
	Divorced	5	1.5
Years of service provided	6 Months-Less than a year	72	22.3
	1–3years	138	42.7
	3-6 years	59	18.3
	Above 6 years	54	19.72
Employment status	Part time	46	14.2
	Full time	244	75.5
	Contract	33	10.2

Table 2. Descriptive statistics related to workplace Bullying.

Responses		Frequency	Percent
	No, never	52	16.1
Employees	Yes, but rarely	153	47.4
witnessing workplace	Yes, now and then	68	21.1
bullying	Yes, often	50	15.5
	No	74	22.9
	Yes, but only rarely	147	45.5
Employees bullied in	Yes, now and then	76	23.5
workplace	Yes,severaltimes	19	5.9
	per week
	Yes, almost daily	7	2.2
Who has bullied	Manager	44	16.5
employee the most	Direct supervisor	95	35.7
	Co-worker	93	35
	Junior	17	6.4
	Others	17	6.4

Table 3. Descriptive statistics of variables under study.

Variables	Mean	SD	Skewness skewness	SE	Kurtosis kurtosis	SE	Range	Min	Max
Work related	4.18	1.30	−0.315	.136	−0.66	.271	6	1	7
Person related	3.92	1.40	−0.104	.136	−.534	.271	6	1	7
Physical Intimidation	3.39	1.49	0.374	.136	−.444	.271	6	1	7
Emotional Exhaustion	4.69	1.13	−0.487	.136	.046	.271	6	1	7
Employees’ Turnover Intention	4.83	1.22	−0.687	.136	.117	.271	6	1	7

Table 4. Reliability, convergent validity.

Variables	EE	ITL	PI	PR	WR	Cronbach’s alpha	Composite reliability	Average variance extracted (AVE)	VIF
EE1	0.781					0.901	0.919	0.559	2.172
EE2	0.764								2.286
EE3	0.750								2.01
EE4	0.765								2.131
EE5	0.719								1.888
EE6	0.770								2.014
EE7	0.736								1.86
EE8	0.726								1.894
EE9	0.712								1.771
ITL1		0.805				0.854	0.901	0.696	1.673
ITL2		0.864							2.229
ITL3		0.870							2.494
ITL4		0.793							1.886
PI1			0.867			0.845	0.905	0.762	2.073
PI2			0.941						3.229
PI3			0.805						2.07
PR1				0.797		0.950	0.956	0.644	2.76
PR10				0.806					2.547
PR11				0.806					2.648
PR12				0.771					2.744
PR2				0.813					3.007
PR3				0.764					2.488
PR4				0.807					2.753
PR5				0.844					3.425
PR6				0.824					2.859
PR7				0.813					2.869
PR8				0.815					3.134
PR9				0.768					2.348
WR1					0.760	0.883	0.909	0.588	2.092
WR2					0.855				2.69
WR3					0.796				2.089
WR4					0.802				2.092
WR5					0.724				1.822
WR6					0.645				1.614
WR7					0.770				2.018

Table 5. Fornell–Larcker criterion.

Variables	EE	ITL	PI	PR	WR
EE	0.747
ITL	0.585	0.834
PI	0.528	0.372	0.873
PR	0.538	0.352	0.704	0.803
WR	0.583	0.332	0.613	0.744	0.767

Table 6. Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio.

	EE	ITL	PI	PR	WR
EE
ITL	0.659
PI	0.590	0.420
PR	0.575	0.387	0.785
WR	0.639	0.367	0.718	0.815

Figure 2. PLS model of study.

Table 7. Reliability and convergent validity second-order model.

Variables	Cronbach’s alpha	Composite reliability	Average variance extracted (AVE)
EE	0.901	0.919	0.559
ITL	0.854	0.901	0.696
WPB	0.868	0.919	0.792

Table 8. Fornell and Larcker criterion – higher-order discriminant validity.

	EE	ITL	WPB
EE	0.747
ITL	0.585	0.834
WPB	0.619	0.395	0.890

Table 9. HTMT – higher-order discriminant validity.

	EE	ITL	WPB
EE
ITL	0.659
WPB	0.695	0.457

Table 10. SEM path analysis.

Path original sample (O)		t-value	p-value	2.50%	97.50%
WPB -> ITL	0.395	8.32	.000	0.300	0.490
WR -> ITL	0.130	1.690	.090	−0.020	0.260
PR -> ITL	0.110	1.420	.160	−0.040	0.250
PI -> ITL	0.230	3.290	.000	0.080	0.360
WPB -> EE	0.620	17.58	.000	0.540	0.680
EE -> ITL	0.551	15.06	.000	0.510	0.660
WPB -> EE –ITL	0.341	7.547	.000

Table 11. Summary of total, direct and indirect effect.

Effect	Original value	p-value	Result
Total effect	0.395	.000	Significant
Direct effect	0.055	.403	Not significant
Indirect effect	0.341	.000	Significant

Table 12. Hypothesis testing result.

Hypothesis	Path	p-Value	Result
Hypothesis 1	WPB -> ITL	.000	Supported
Hypothesis 1a.	WR -> ITL	.090	Not Supported
Hypothesis 1b.	PR -> ITL	.160	Not Supported
Hypothesis 1c.	PI -> ITL	.000	Supported
Hypothesis 2	WPB -> EE	.000	Supported
Hypothesis 3	EE -> ITL	.000	Supported
Hypothesis 4	WPB -> EE –ITL	.000	Supported

Table 13. Predictive capability of the model.

	R Square	R Square Adjusted
EE	0.383	0.381
ITL	0.344	0.339

Table 14. Effect size.

	EE	ITL	WPB
EE		0.285
ITL
WPB	0.621	0.003