Sustaining Organizational Culture Amid Workplace Bullying: A Review of Employee Responses Using EVLN Model

Brinda P Raycha
Research Scholar, Gujarat Technological University, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India; and is the corresponding author. E-mail: brindaraycha@gmail.com

Trupti S Almoula
Director, Narmada College of Bharuch, Gujarat and Dean, Faculty of Management, Gujarat Technological University, India. E-mail: s_almoula@yahoo.com

In pursuit of sustaining competitiveness, organizations are striving to maximize both productivity and profitability. This phenomenon has led to forming three clusters of employees: highly engaged, highly disengaged and indifferent. The classification of employees found in organizations kind of dictates the organizational culture. If not governed appropriately, workplace bullying or any negative action that takes place among the employees will hamper the organizational culture. The paper aims to review the literature to examine the culture of workplace bullying and employees' responses to it with respect to Exit, Voice, Loyalty and Neglect (EVLN) outcomes. Further, the paper aims to draw outcomes on how organizations have been affected in the process and what role organizational culture plays in the process. The study is based on secondary data gathered from online platforms, for instance, Google Scholar, EBSCO, Jstor, etc. Mismatch between national culture and organizational culture leads to negative workplace behavior like workplace bullying and eventually employee responses in terms of EVLN model. Most of the employees facing bullying resort to behaviors of exit and silence, so there is less loyalty and more neglect. Strategies for sustaining organizational culture are suggested.

Introduction

In pursuit of developing and sustaining competitiveness in the VUCA marketplace, it is crucial to focus on factors that sustain organizational culture, which is important for organizational sustainability. One of the factors contributing to organizational culture is "interpersonal skills", in which "workplace bullying" is a distracter that can hamper the culture. When an employee seeks to destroy another employee's reputation and self-esteem, the victim suffers. Bullying can take three forms: (a) verbal; (b) nonverbal; and (c) performance-related (Oade, 2009). Verbal bullying is defined as making unpleasant comments in public, such as spotting mistakes and discussing them in front of others. Talking in sign language in front of others or in private is referred to as nonverbal bullying. Superiors are the most common perpetrators of performance-related bullying, such as excessive work with a tight deadline. The reasons for bullying can be complicated and intertwined, and they may be related to both the targeted individual's and the perpetrator's qualities (Zapf, 1999; and Baillien et al., 2009). Nonetheless, the presence of underlying problematic work environment conditions that create a fertile ground for bullying is a prevalent explanation in most theoretical frameworks (Keashly and Harvey, 2005; and Bowling and Beehr, 2006). In this regard, when attempting to explain the incidence of workplace bullying, the work environment assumption, which claims that stressful and poorly managed working environments may give rise to situations resulting in bullying, has generally been the preferred causal explanation (Leymann, 1996; and Agervold and Mikkelsen, 2004). As per this view, workplace bullying is generally produced by issues connected to work design flaws and leadership behavior within businesses (Leymann, 1996). Unfavorable and difficult environmental conditions may produce increased tension and dissatisfaction in the workgroup, starting the bullying process, especially when combined with a management that avoids or neglects to intervene in and manage tense situations (Zapf and Gross, 2001).

Organizational Culture: Organizational culture is defined by many authors depending on the different types of assumptions and dimensions. Hofstede (1997) defined it as "shared perceptions of daily practices". According to Schein (1985), organizational culture is basic assumptions and patterns developed in a group that has worked well and proved valid and hence can be transformed to new members.

The employees in organizations comprise freshers and experienced ones coming from many other organizations who have seen different cultures of other companies. In this scenario, it is important that the individuals of the organizations have same interpretations of the formal rules, norms, informal codes of behaviors, etc., which will sustain the organizational culture (Martin, 1992). If the employee interprets the elements of culture differently, it may impact performance, wellbeing, and retention of best people. Hence, sustaining organizational cultures from various perspectives is important.

Many situations of crisis affect the organization and the culture, be it a global financial crisis or economic downfall or pandemic. For instance, Covid-19 has changed the way of physical working and initiated remote working systems. This has created a different space of working for employees of the same team, which has changed the work culture such as timing, nature of work, behavior with each other, etc. For instance, employees are available 24X7 since they are working from home.

Bullying is entirely determined by the culture of the individual as well as that of the organization. Bullying occurs as a result of an unanticipated work environment, workload, conflict, ambiguity, work control, role shift, morale, performance, leadership style, and work atmosphere, among other elements that influence organizational factors (Bowling and Beehr, 2006; Harvey et al., 2008; Agervold, 2009; and Matthiesen and Einarsen, 2010). Among the elements described above, organizational culture has a direct impact on employee bullying, which has a significant impact on their wellbeing. Bullying in the workplace is influenced by organizational culture (Salin, 2003). In the presence of negative actions of workplace bullying and fear of sharing concerns with each other, employees of the organization may find it difficult to share the same patterns of belief and values. This can lead to unspoken, taken-for-granted assumptions and behaviors (Schein, 1990; and Trevino et al., 1998), leading to the downfall of a well-developed organizational culture.

EVLN Model as Employee Response: EVLN model by Hirschman (1970) suggests that workers take decisions in the organization on how to react to certain dissatisfying situations and select options such as (a) exiting the organization, i.e., voluntary quitting from the work place assuming that things will never change (Hirshman, 1970) or seeks transfer from one department to another within a same organization in order to get relieved from a dissatisfying job (Todor, 1980); (b) voicing out concerns; (c) being loyal to the company; and (d) neglecting the situation.

The Exit, Voice, Loyalty, and Neglect (EVLN) response strategy typology remains the most common, with considerable theoretical and empirical support in a variety of relationship circumstances (Rusbult et al., 1982). The basic rule is that the more the intention to leave the organization, the less likely the voice will be engaged. Employee loyalty or private support for the company can, however, influence both exit and voice. Loyalty, on the other hand, is more of a passive reaction in which employees stay with a company while hoping for better conditions (Farrell and Rusbult, 1992).

The focus of this study is to identify and explain some of the most important issues in managing an organization's culture. Because organizational cultures emerge from broader cultural contexts such as national or ethnic groupings, the paper will begin by defining "culture" in a broader social context. This definition will then serve as the foundation for a discussion of organizational culture definitions, as well as the paradigms and views that underpin them. The study will then review how organizational culture may provide a base for mistreatment of employees, e.g., workplace bullying, and what mediators and interventions play a role in it. Finally, the paper discusses how culture has a two-way relationship with workplace bullying, which later has the four outcomes of EVLN model.

Literature Review
"Cultures are rooted in their historical origins and evolve gradually as communities adopt certain patterns of behaviour and belief that appear to be effective in understanding and engaging with their surrounding environment" (Willcoxson and Millett, 2000). Hofstede (2001) defined culture as "the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another". As per his concept, the heart of any culture lies in its values and values are "broad tendencies to prefer certain states of affairs over others" (Hofstede, 2007). The way people respond to a certain situation defines the country's culture. Literature suggests that countries like India with high power-distance and collectivist cultures and Italy with a masculine culture have evidence of a high tolerance for mistreatment from employers (Tyler et al., 2000; Escartin et al., 2011; and Power et al., 2013). Likewise, organizational culture does have an impact on workplace bullying and on its outcomes; the extent of its influence depends on the country culture. For instance, Loh et al. (2012) reported cultural differences of countries on workplace bullying relationship with job satisfaction, where Australians have a low acceptance for power distance due to which they are highly affected by workplace bullying as compared to Singaporeans. Studying these cultures with respect to interpersonal behavior has become a biggest challenge in this VUCA world, where it is inevitable to develop favorable organizational cultures. Challenges in developing strategies for favorable organizational cultures are increasing job satisfaction, decreasing stress, lessening hostile interpersonal behavioral issues, etc. Organizational culture plays a very crucial role in workplace bullying among employees. Some of the ways in which organizational culture affects workplace bullying are: leadership style, organizational policies and regulations, work environment, etc. (Rajalakshmi and Gomathi, 2016).

Culture and Mistreatment
Hofstede contends that national culture is the most basic and that it serves as the foundation for early childhood socialization (Hofstede et al., 2010), instilling values and beliefs in people. The relationship between national and other levels of culture is an implicit presumption shared by a majority of culture experts. As a result, the other constructs are placed in context by country culture in this study. As per Hofstede (1980), national culture consists of individualism, power distance, uncertainty, avoidance and masculinity. Tajeddini and Trueman (2012) discovered that in terms of performance, there is a strong correlation between organizational culture and national culture dimensions. Schein (2004) defined it as "a pattern of shared basic assumptions that a group has learned as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, thus, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems".

The mismatch between national and organizational culture in terms of employees' social belief and values, norms and belief in the organization leads to harmful employee outcomes such as job-related stress, bullying, etc. (Joiner, 2001). Table 1 demonstrates the mistreatment that employees experience as a result of the national or organizational culture.

Job-related stressors in organization have negative effects on employees. Organizational culture with high level of decentralization experiences stressors such as role ambiguity and work overload (Joiner, 2001), leading to more occupational stress (Suri and Arora, 2009). The employees who have chronic exposure to stress-related situations (work overloads) have a high chance of suffering in terms of health-related problems such as emotional exhaustion, depression, etc. (Michie and Williams, 2003). Possible causes of stressors can be from job itself or from the social concerns as well as from organizational factors. Job-related stressors include heavy workloads and low participation in decision-making, whereas the latter is more specifically related to workplace activities such as poor communication, interpersonal conflict, etc. (Cox and Cox, 1993), Negligence of management to intervene at this stage boosts the problematic conditions, e.g., frustration, which make people initiate the process of workplace bullying (Zapf and Gross, 2001).

Stressors, Workplace Bullying and Work Engagement
One of the most significant impacts of organizational culture is stress. Job stress is a chronic disease induced by work-related situations that have a negative impact on an individual's performance and overall health and wellbeing (Suri and Arora, 2009). The most prevalent type of job stressor is role stressor, which is primarily divided into two types: role ambiguity and role conflict. Role ambiguity is defined by Beehr (1995) as a lack of or ambiguous information regarding the expectations and requirements associated with a person's job role. Role ambiguity can be caused by obsolete job descriptions, difficult-to-define roles, and organizational changes (e.g., Jex, 1998). Role conflict, on the other hand, occurs when two or more workplace expectations are incompatible (Beehr, 1995). Both the types of stressors, i.e., role ambiguity and role conflict, have a strong relationship with workplace bullying (Einarsen et al., 1994; and Van den Broeck et al., 2011) and both the role stressors independently boost the exposure to workplace bullying (Reknes et al., 2014). Balducci et al. (2012) proved that a strong predictor of workplace bullying is role conflict. Einarsen et al. (2011) proved that the same can trigger the affected employees to react in ways that would risk them of being bullied by others (Neuman and Baron, 2011). Similarly, a few longitudinal studies found the inverse relationship, i.e., workplace bullying as a predictor variable to subsequent variable role stressors (e.g., Hauge et al., 2011b). Hence, it can be said that workplace bullying and stressors have a two-way relationship (Table 2). An increasing number of studies on workplace bullying and related issues have been of public interest due to hostile interpersonal behavior (e.g., Rai and Agarwal, 2017; 2018; Einarsen et al., 2018; and D'cruz and Noronha, 2010). Workplace bullying is a well-thought-out repetitive action and involves a systematic interpersonal action, a majority of which is on a vertical platform i.e., supervisors to employees (over-workload, insulting in front of colleagues, etc. (Einarsen et al., 2011).

Workplace Bullying and EVLN
Workplace bullying refers to being subjected to abuse and acts of hostility by others in one's workplace, including subordinates, superiors, and co-workers, over a period of time (Einarsen et al., 2009). The focus of this review is more on workplace bullying and related outcomes rather than other forms of mistreatment because the subset of behaviors that define bullying are more visible to others than other forms of harassment. Employees respond to adverse workplace situations (organizational politics, job dissatisfaction) in four ways, i.e., Exit, Voice, Loyalty and Neglect (Table 3). It is also known as EVLN model, which was first proposed by Hirchmann (1970), followed by many other authors, e.g., Farrell (1983) and Rusbult et al. (1988). Exit behaviors encompass internal (e.g., moving to another job role) and external (e.g., leaving the firm) organizational movements, as well as cognitive activity preceding these movements (e.g., considering transferring) (Farrell, 1983). Bullying, according to literature, causes tough working settings (e.g., low support from immediate supervisor, injustice, disrespect, self-esteem, etc.) that lead to people leaving their jobs (Houshmand et al., 2012). On the other hand, voice is defined as "constructive change-oriented communication aiming to enhance the situation" (LePine and Van Dyne, 2001). When they think speaking up will be beneficial, low-risk, and will add to the resources already available-and when their manager or boss otherwise seems supportive-employees use voice (Noelle-Neumann, 1991).

Loyalty is described as "waiting for situations to improve passively but optimistically by performing good citizenship" (Rusbult et al., 1988). Subordinates are loyal to managers or organizations that look out for their needs and wellness, who they can trust to support them and act morally, with whom they feel secure physically, mentally and safe at societal level and who they feel value and a sense of belonging, according to Wiedmer (2010). Neglect is defined as "passively allowing conditions to worsen through decreased interest or effort, recurrent lateness or absences, personal use of company time, or increased error rate" (Rusbult et al., 1988). Neglect is defined as a negative conduct that occurs in response to perceived workplace pressures (Spector and Jex, 1998).

Majorly, employees resort to the outcome of exit or neglect, which either increases the turnover intentions or decreases the expected behavior for the role respectively, whereas the outcome-voice and loyalty-decreases (Farrell, 1983; and Lee and Varon, 2020). Thus, workplace bullying has a positive relationship with exit and neglect, whereas it has a negative relationship with voice and loyalty (Rai and Agarwal, 2019). In contrast, employees (victims) do try to voice their concerns, but non-response or rather continuous procrastination from the side of HR to resolve the issue (D'cruz and Noronha, 2010) discourages employees from voicing, which later takes the phase of employees' silence via lack of psychological safety (Rai and Agarwal, 2019). Many a time, bullying gets worse to the level of receiving dismissal threats when asked for any kind of help (Rayner, 1998). Thus, employees resort to exiting the organization and get rid of the problem permanently (D'cruz and Noronha, 2010). However, there are studies which say voicing concerns to superiors has lessened the turnover intentions if those are addressed by providing support in reducing workplace bullying (Ciby and Raya, 2014). Alternatively, an intention to leave the organization increases with the decreased support from the organization to help employees resolve the problems coming from workplace bullying (Nadi and Shojaee, 2019). Similarly, Djurkovic et al. (2008) found that bullying has a positive association with employee's intention to leave, provided employees perceive low organizational support, and those who had low perceived organizational support were found to have low organizational commitment (Ciby and Raya, 2014). Workplace bullying gradually exhausts the employees emotionally, which later takes the form of exiting the organization (Srivastava and Agarwal, 2020).

Both workplace bullying and stress have detrimental effects on work engagement. Employees exposed to workplace bullying do not feel engaged towards their work (Rai and Agarwal, 2017a). Many other researchers have also shown the detrimental effects of workplace bullying on work engagement (e.g., Einarsen et al., 2018). Similarly, increase in role stressors leads to low engagement from employees (Ayed and Vandenberghe, 2019). In other words, when stress level is high, engagement does not seem to have its positive effects (Orgambidez and Extremera, 2020). Negative environment arising out of bullying gets influenced by organizational culture (Salin, 2003). The organizational culture deals with various factors such as management influences, rules and regulations, risk-taking attitude of organization and leadership style (Rajalakshmi and Gomathi, 2016). To reduce workplace bullying, organizations must consider the organizational culture that prompts the employees to respond in behaviors that are unfavorable from the organization's viewpoint (Giorgi et al., 2015).

The Covid-19 pandemic may have endangered the organizational culture as well. There is a shift from traditional office-work culture to remote-work culture in almost all types of organizations (Kapusta et al., 2020). The challenges here are with managers who might have to access the organizational culture's resilience, how it changes, how the changes in the symbolic work affect it, and whether there are any culture transformations (Spicer, 2020) which play a crucial role in sustaining organizational culture. If not assessed and managed, it may give rise to abusive behaviors and bullying. There are not many studies available on it since the crisis is a recent one. During Covid-19, a major part of the work was carried on WFH basis on the digital platform, where bullying may arise while in communication with the peers or in virtual meetings (Yahya et al., 2020). However, a study by Mahmoudi and Keashly (2020) shows evidence for bullying or abusive leadership leading to adverse behaviors such as feelings of inequality, isolation, and the resultant impact on psychological health.

Objective
Most of the prevailing studies on behavioral responses to negative acts like workplace bullying have identified only one or two responses at a time. This study examines all the outcomes of EVLN model available separately in the literature in reaction to the most troublesome issues at the workplace and draws a conclusion by combining all the outcomes. Moreover, it also examines the impact of such negative actions on the culture and performance of organizations and what organizations should do to guard against workplace bullying and prevent its negative impact on organizational culture.

Methodology
The study adopted secondary method for the collection of information. Platforms such as Google Scholar, Jstor, Wiley Online Library, EBSCO, Scopus, Emerald-Insight, etc., which cover the literature on organizational culture, workplace bullying, EVLN model, and employee mistreatment, were considered. A total of 126 papers were initially gathered. These papers were then screened for duplication, resulting in the remaining pool of 101 unique articles. The publications were then categorized by the authors, and particularly those articles that focused on culture and at least one outcome of workplace bullying and the EVLN framework were selected. This screening process resulted in a final selection of 49 papers. The authors then meticulously reviewed each paper's abstract and evaluated its applicability to the current investigation and finalized a set of 24 papers for in-depth study and analysis, which ultimately formed the basis for drawing conclusions.

The authors ensured an equal representation of papers from each time period during the selection process shown in Figure 1. To acquire up-to-date knowledge of the domains under this study, the papers are selected from the recent span of years, i.e., 2011 to 2022, with a considerable majority of about 70%. The remaining papers fall outside of this time frame, which was included to provide a foundational overview of how research in this field has evolved over time. By examining earlier works, the authors aimed to obtain a wider perspective and comprehend the historical development of research in the field of interest. The methodology adopted is shown in Table 4.

The data has been analyzed by identifying the critical knowledge from the literature. Such analysis entails creating a chart for upcoming studies, in addition to analyzing the literature (Webster and Watson, 2002). Usually, this roadmap is accomplished by developing a conceptual model, one of the research designs for analyzing conceptual papers (Jaakkola, 2020). It describes a phenomenon and outlines the issues that need to be taken into account in the research. It can describe an action, a thing, or a process and explain how it works by exposing precedents, consequences, and conditions linked to the main construct (Meredith, 1993; and MacInnis and De Mello, 2011). This usually entails a type of theorizing that attempts to build a framework around the main idea, while giving a reasoning to look into and describe the causative relationships and processes at work (Delbridge and Fiss, 2013). Conceptual model-based articles generally include the key concepts and how they relate to one another, or a list of formal propositions that are reasoning based on the conceptual framework (Meredith, 1993).

According to Markus and Robey (1988), variance (factor) or process theories serve as the foundation for conceptual models. Variance theories take into account independent factors that affect how dependent variables vary, whereas process theories, in contrast, make use of events and states to describe the phenomenon. Review papers may incorporate both to create the conceptual models for future research (Webster and Watson, 2002). However, models apprehend relationships between variables, but do not, on their own, represent theory (Sutton and Staw, 1995). In this regard, it has been specifically discussed how a culture that promotes mistreatment (for example, workplace bullying) is related to one of the outcomes of EVLN as well as the process.

In this study, we have adopted Variance Theory and also focused on the process of one event leading to the another event/state by adopting Process theory to create the conceptual model shown in Figure 2. The discussion section includes an explanation for each factor or process mentioned by citing appropriate reference.

While discussing the domain of workplace bullying, there are a few foreign authors, like Stale Einarsen, Hoel Helge, Skogstad Anderas and Salin Denise, and a few Indian authors like D'cruz Premilla, Noronha Ernesto, Rai Arpana and Agarwal Upasana who pioneered the concept with a huge amount of research in this domain. Some of the studies that made an important contribution to this field are Einarsen et al. (2003) which describes the concept of bullying in the European tradition: Tambur and Vadi (2012) and Thomas and Au (2002) which relate bullying to the organizational culture and how it affects the behavioral outcomes; and Kwan et al. (2016), Mellahi et al. (2010), and Rai and Agarwal (2019), which contributed to the EVLN model. Two major studies that contributed to measuring workplace bullying are Einarsen et al. (2009) which validated the standardized instrument to measure workplace bullying in the European context, and Rai and Agarwal (2017b), which further validated the same instrument with minor changes, making it suitable for the Indian context.

From the literature, it is very much evident that culture plays a significant role in workplace bullying. Further, many authors have also studied the negative influence of workplace bullying on the human resource of the organization and the organization itself. This study specifically contributes to how workplace bullying affects human resources and what decisions they come up with in respect of EVLN model. Wth respect to the Indian context, there are a few studies such as Ciby and Raya (2014) and D'cruz and Noronha (2010) that focus on one of the elements of EVLN; and Rai and Agarwal (2019) focus on the whole model of EVLN. Hence, this area needs more attention with respect to the Indian context. Along with the model, research also proves that workplace bullying has a negative psychological effect, for instance, in terms of emotional exhaustion (Srivastava and Agarwal, 2020). Hence, studies that focus on this relationship and its negative effects are required.

Discussion
For sustaining organizational culture, it is important to consider national culture as well, since both are closely related (Szydlo and Grzeae-Buklaho, 2020). A mismatch between national culture and organizational culture can lead to negative impact such as employee stress and mistreatment of employees (Joiner, 2001). There are many types of mistreatments reported in the literature. A few of them are: disrespect and abuse (Madhiwalla et al. 2018), workplace bullying (Pilch and Turska, 2015), harassment (Einarsen et al., 2009), etc. On the other hand, work culture, such as job challenge, low trust, low support for innovative environment, etc., also influences the stress levels of the employees. The lower the positive environment in the organization, the higher the chances of stress to the employees (Suri and Arora, 2009). While stress arises from role stressors-role conflict and role ambiguity-it is a preliminary cause to ignite workplace bullying.

Many researchers, such as Hauge et al. (2007 and 2011b), Escartin et al. (2009), Nielsen and Einarsen (2012) and Mathisen et al. (2017), have examined the relationship between workplace bullying and stress. In the relationship between stressors and workplace bullying, stressors are an antecedent for bullying, leading to workplace bullying (Hauge et al., 2011a; Chia and Kee, 2018; and Goodboy et al., 2022); whereas for victims, stressors are the outcome of workplace bullying (Hauge et al., 2011b; Samnani and Singh, 2014; and Sinha and Yadav, 2017). Therefore, workplace bullying and stressors have a two-way cause-and-effect relationship depending on the perspective of the perpetrator and the victim.

With respect to EVLN model, there are four outcomes, viz., Exit, Voice, Loyalty and Neglect, that are employee responses to workplace bullying. The review indicates that a majority of the employees respond in two ways. First, the employee takes the passive route reaction and continues to stay with the company by being loyal, but in the longer run, it triggers exiting the organization. This is in line with the findings of Farrell and Rusbult (1992), who stated that employee loyalty can influence both exit and voice; a loyal employee will raise their voice and the one who exits may prove less loyal towards the organization. D'cruz and Noronha (2010) also observed the same in their study, where employees first tried to cope with the situation with family or peer support to build their confidence while voicing their situation to HR, but later ended up exiting the firm when HR expressed disbelief in complainant's experience of bullying and blamed them for the situation rather than taking action for the same. It also highlighted that the whole process made employees feel distressed and increased their anxiety levels and sadness, impacting their work. The decision between loyalty and neglect depends on the level of commitment. According to Mellahi et al. (2010), high-commitment workers are more likely to choose neglect over loyalty, even though they might not leave their jobs or voice their feelings. Further, they also identified the means by which employees overcome the situation/perpetrator-through sickness, putting less effort, missing the meeting, etc. as a coping mechanism. Where the organizational culture is not supportive, voicing is not an option for the employees as they may be mistreated by their superiors; employees remain silent due to the fear of power held by the superiors (Noelle-Neumann, 1991). Also, to safeguard and preserve the available resources, it is natural and a safe option to keep silent at work (Xu et al., 2015).

The review also suggests that variables such as emotional exhaustion (Srivastava and Agarwal, 2020), lack of psychological safety (Rai and Agarwal, 2019), and low organizational commitment play a role that results in the tendency to exit the organization or intention to leave, employee silence, and decrease in loyalty. It is here that organizational support is much needed that buffers the friction between workplace bullying and employee responses (Djurkovic et al., 2008). For instance, it lessens an employee's intention to leave or exit. Since this behavior results from behavioral scripts, or previously held cognitive beliefs about current events or behaviors (Thomas and Au, 2002), the entire process (Figure 2) impacts organizational culture. Therefore, a sustainable organizational culture is essential because there is a reciprocal relationship between organizational culture and the effects of workplace bullying, as shown in Figure 2. Therefore, organizational culture also has a two-way relationship with outcomes of workplace bullying, which makes it inevitable to create a sustainable organizational culture.

Implications: Resilient employees experience low intention to quit and increased productivity (White, 2013). Hence, to reduce workplace bullying, organizations must consider introducing factors of resilience such as leadership support, secured work communities, policies and practices that encourage and empower employees, etc., because it is the organizational culture that is responsible for workplace bullying (Lee and Varon, 2020). Even after this, if workplace bullying persists, then organizations must have an anti-bullying policy; failing to comply must invite punitive action against the guilty. Also, companies should have an ethical code of conduct, listing the desirable and undesirable interpersonal behaviors.

Conclusion
The present study emphasizes the importance of organizational and national cultures in maintaining a healthy work environment and preventing repercussions. Stress and poor treatment of employees may result from a cultural mismatch. The findings revealed bullying at work, and stress has a bidirectional cause-and-effect relationship in which one causes the other. Based on the analysis of EVLN (D'cruz and Noronha, 2010; Glambek et al., 2014; Rai and Agarwal, 2019; Lee and Varon, 2020; and Bentley et al., 2021), employees first choose loyalty but ultimately leave, whereas high-commitment workers may choose neglect. The organization's culture plays a crucial role given that it affects employee silence and safeguarding of resources. The relationship between bullying and employee reactions is mediated by emotional exhaustion, a lack of psychological safety, and a lack of organizational commitment. The detrimental effects of bullying are tempered by organizational support, which influences organizational culture. Hence, organizations must have a sustainable culture consistent with the national culture to prevent bullying, foster employee wellbeing, and ensure long-term success.

Limitations and Future Scope: The first limitation of this study is that it is purely based on literature review and does not have empirical evidence for the whole framework. Hence, future studies can be done to test the relationship between the factors and the process established in the framework. The second limitation is that with the help of the model, the paper identifies the issues that are already reported in the past research, but does not provide a solution to the issues, for instance, workplace bullying affecting the employees psychologically and organizations in terms of high attrition. Hence, future research can be done on factors that can mitigate workplace bullying and the behavioral/organizational outcomes. Also, this review is limited to the EVLN model, future research can be done on other types of behavioral outcomes as well.

References

1. Agervold M (2009), "The Significance of Organizational Factors for the Incidence of Bullying", Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, Vol. 50, No. 3, pp. 267-276.
2. Agervold M and Mikkelsen E G (2004), "Relationships Between Bullying, Psychosocial Work Environment and Individual Stress Reactions", Work and Stress, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 336-351.
3. Ayed A K B and Vandenberghe C (2019), "Role Stressors and Prosocial Performance: The Effect of Emotional Exhaustion and Job Engagement", Le Travail Humain, Vol. 82, No. 4, pp. 293-316.
4. Baillien E, Neyens I, De Witte H and De Cuyper N (2009), "A Qualitative Study on the Development of Workplace Bullying: Towards a Three Way Model", Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 1-16.
5. Balducci C, Cecchin M and Fraccaroli F (2012), "The Impact of Role Stressors on Workplace Bullying in Both Victims and Perpetrators, Controlling for Personal Vulnerability Factors: A Longitudinal Analysis", Work and Stress, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 195-212.
6. Beehr T A (1995), Psychological Stress in the Workplace, Routledge, London.
7. Bentley T A, Teo S T T, Nguyen D T N et al. (2021), "Psychosocial Influences on Psychological Distress and Turnover Intentions in the Workplace", Safety Science, Vol. 137, pp. 105-200.
8. Berthelsen M, Skogstad A and Lau B (2011), "Do they Stay or do they Go? A Longitudinal Study of Intentions to Leave and Exclusion from Working Life Among Targets of Workplace Bullying", International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 178-193, https://doi.org/10.1108/01437721111130198
9. Bowling N A and Beehr T A (2006), "Workplace Harassment from the Victim's Perspective: A Theoretical Model and Meta-Analysis", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91, No. 5, pp. 998-1012.
10. Chia S M and Kee D M H (2018), "Workplace Bullying and Task Performance: A Study on Salespeople in Retail Industry", Management Science Letters, Vol. 8, No. 6, pp. 707-716.
11. Ciby M and Raya R P (2014), "Exploring Victims' Experiences of Workplace Bullying: a Grounded Theory Approach", Vikalpa, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 69-82.
12. Cox T and Cox S (1993), "Occupational Health: Control and Monitoring of Psychosocial and Organizational Hazards at Work", Journal of the Royal Society of Health, Vol. 113, No. 4, pp. 201-205.
13. D'Cruz P and Noronha E (2010), "The Exit Coping Response to Workplace Bullying: The Contribution of Inclusivist and Exclusivist HRM Strategies", Employee Relations, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 102-120, https://doi.org/10.1108/01425451011010078
14. Delbridge R and Fiss P C (2013), "Editors' Comments: Styles of Theorizing and the Social Organization of Knowledge", Academy of Management Review, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 325-331.
15. Djurkovic N, McCormack D and Casimir G (2008), "Workplace Bullying and Intention to Leave: The Moderating Effect of Perceived Organizational Support", Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 405-422.
16. Einarsen S, Raknes B I and Matthiesen S B (1994), "Bullying and Harassment at Work and their Relationship to Work Environment Quality: An Exploratory Study", European Work and Organizational Psychologist, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 381-401.
17. Einarsen S, Hoel H, Zapf D and Cooper C L (2003), "The Concept of Bullying at Work: the European Tradition", in S Einarsen, H Hoel, D Zapf and C L Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International Perspectives in Research and Practice, pp. 3-30, Taylor & Francis, New York.
18. Einarsen S, Hoel H and Notelaers G (2009), "Measuring Exposure to Bullying and Harassment at Work: Validity, Factor Structure and Psychometric Properties of the Negative Acts Questionnaire- Revised", Work and Stress, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 24-44.
19. Einarsen S, Hoel H, Zapf D and Cooper C L (2011), "The Concept of Bullying and Harassment at Work: The European Tradition", Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace: Developments in Theory, Research, and Practice, 2nd Edition, pp. 3-39, CRC Press, Abindgdon.
20. Einarsen S, Skogstad A, Rorvik E et al. (2018), "Climate for Conflict Management, Exposure to Workplace Bullying and Work Engagement: A Moderated Mediation Analysis", The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 549-570.
21. Escartin J, Rodriguez-Carballeira A, Zapf D et al. (2009), "Perceived Severity of Various Bullying Behaviours at Work and the Relevance of Exposure to Bullying", Work and Stress, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 191-205.
22. Escartin J, Salin D and Rodriguez-Carballeira A (2011), "Conceptualizations of Workplace Bullying. Gendered Rather than Gender Neutral?", Journal of Personnel Psychology, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 157-165.
23. Farrell D (1983), "Exit, Voice, Loyalty, and Neglect as Responses to Job Dissatisfaction: A Multidimensional Scaling Study", Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 596-607.
24. Farrell D and Rusbult C E (1992), "Exploring the Exit, Voice, Loyalty, and Neglect Typology: The Influences of Job Satisfaction, Quality of Alternatives, and Investment Size", Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 5, pp. 201-218.
25. Giorgi G, Leon-Perez J M and Arenas A (2015), "Are Bullying Behaviors Tolerated in Some Cultures? Evidence for a Curvilinear Relationship between Workplace Bullying and Job Satisfaction Among Italian Workers", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 131, No. 1, pp. 227-237.
26. Glambek M, Matthiesen S B, Hetland J and Einarsen S (2014), "Workplace Bullying as an Antecedent to Job Insecurity and Intention to Leave: A 6-month Prospective Study", Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 255-268, https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12035
27. Goodboy A K, Martin M M, Mills C B and Clark-Gordon C V (2022), "Workplace Bullying in Academia: A Conditional Process Model", Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 1-24.
28. Harvey M, Treadway D, Thompson Heames J and Duke A (2008), "Bullying in the 21st-Century Global Organization: An Ethical Perspective", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 85, No. 1, pp. 27-40.
29. Hauge L J, Skogstad A and Einarsen S (2007), "Relationships between Stressful Work Environments and Bullying: Results of a Large Representative Study", Work and Stress, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 220-242.
30. Hauge L J, Einarsen S, Knardahl S et al. (2011a), "Leadership and Role Stressors as Departmental Level Predictors of Workplace Bullying", International Journal of Stress Management, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 305-323.
31. Hauge L J, Skogstad A and Einarsen S (2011b), "Role Stressors and Exposure to Workplace Bullying: Causes or Consequences of What and Why?", European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 20, No. 5, pp. 610-630.
32. Hirschman A O (1970), Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Response to Decline in Firms, Organizations and States, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
33. Hofstede G (1980), "Motivation, Leadership, and Organization: Do American Theories Apply Abroad?", Organ. Dyn. Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 42-63.
34. Hofstede G (1997), Cultures and Organizations, McGraw-Hill, New York.
35. Hofstede G (2001), Culture's Consequences, 2nd Edition, Sage Publications Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA.
36. Hofstede G (2007), "Asian Management in the 21st Century", Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 24, pp. 411-420.
37. Hofstede G, Hofstede G J and Minkov M (2010), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, Rev. 3rd Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York.
38. Houshmand M, O'Reilly J, Robinson S and Wolff A (2012), "Escaping Bullying: The Simultaneous Impact of Individual and Unit-Level Bullying on Turnover Intentions", Human Relations, Vol. 65, No. 7, pp. 901-918. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726712445100
39. Jaakkola E (2020), "Designing Conceptual Articles: Four Approaches", AMS Review, Vol. 10, Nos. 1-2, pp. 18-26.
40. Jex S M (1998), Stress and Job Performance. Theory, Research and Implications for Managerial Practice, Thousand Oaks, Sage, CA.
41. Joiner T A (2001), "The Influence of National Culture and Organizational Culture Alignment on Job Stress and Performance - Evidence from Greece", Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 229-242.
42. Kapusta M B K P and Sukiennik M (2020), "Strategic Analysis of Selected Factors Shaping the Occupational Health and Safety Culture of Mining Companies in Poland, Part 2", Journal of the Polish Mineral Engineering Society, Vol. 1, pp. 243-248.
43. Keashly L and Harvey S (2005), "Emotional Abuse in the Workplace", In S Fox and P E Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive Behavior: Investigations of Actors and Targets, pp. 201-235, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
44. Kwan S S M, Tuckey M R and Dollard M F (2016), "The Role of the Psychosocial Safety Climate in Coping with Workplace Bullying: A Grounded Theory and Sequential Tree Analysis", European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 133-148.
45. LePine J A and Van Dyne L (2001), "Voice and Cooperative Behavior as Contrasting Forms of Contextual Performance: Evidence of Differential Relationships with Big Five Personality Characteristics and Cognitive Ability", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86, No. 2, pp. 326-336.
46. Lee J and Varon A L (2020), "Employee Exit, Voice, Loyalty, and Neglect in Response to Dissatisfying Organizational Situations: It Depends on Supervisory Relationship Quality", International Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 57, No. 1, pp. 30-51. doi: 10.1177/2329488416675839.
47. Leymann H (1996), "The Content and Development of Mobbing at Work", European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 165-184.
48. Loh J, Restubog S L D and Zagenczyk T J (2012), "Consequences of Workplace Bullying on Employee Identification and Satisfaction Among Australians and Singaporeans", Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 236-252.
49. MacInnis D J and De Mello G E (2005), "The Concept of Hope and its Relevance to Product Evaluation and Choice", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69, No. 1, pp. 1-14.
50. Madhiwalla N, Ghoshal R, Mavani P and Roy N (2018), "Identifying Disrespect and Abuse in Organisational Culture: A Study of Two Hospitals in Mumbai, India", Reproductive Health Matter Journal, Vol. 26, No. 53, pp. 36-47.
51. Mahmoudi M and Keashly L (2020), "Covid-19 Pandemic May Fuel Academic Bullying", BioImpacts, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 139-140.
52. Markus M L and Robey D (1988), "Information Technology and Organizational Change: Causal Structure in Theory and Research", Management Science, Vol. 34, No. 5, p. 5.
53. Martin J (1992), Cultures in Organizations: Three Perspectives, Oxford University Press, USA.
54. Mathisen G E, Einarsen S and Mykletun R (2017), "The Relationship Between Supervisor Personality, Supervisors' Perceived Stress and Workplace Bullying", Vol. 99, No. 4, pp. 637-651.
55. Matthiesen S B and Einarsen S (2010), "Bullying in the Workplace: Definition, Prevalence, Antecedents and Consequences", International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 202-248. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOTB-13-02-2010-B004
56. Mellahi K, Budhwar P S and Li B (2010), "A Study of the Relationship Between Exit, Voice, Loyalty and Neglect and Commitment in India", Human Relations, Vol. 63, No. 3, pp. 349-369.
57. Meredith J (1993), "Theory Building Through Conceptual Methods", International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 13, No. 5, pp. 3-11.
58. Michie S and Williams S (2003), "Reducing Work Related Psychological Ill Health and Sickness Absence: A Systematic Literature Review", Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 60, No. 1, pp. 3-9.
59. Nadi M A and Shojaee M (2019), "Relationship Between Perception of Bullying in the Workplace, Job Self-Alienation, Organizational Support with the Intention to Leave Work and the Role of Mediator of Forced Citizenship Behavior", Journal of Applied Sociology, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 31-36.
60. Neuman J H and Baron R A (2011), "Social Antecedents of Bullying: A Social Interactionist Perspective", in S Einarsen, H Hoel, D Zapf and C L Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace, Developments in Theory, Research and Practice, 2nd Edition, pp. 201-225, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
61. Nielsen M B and Einarsen S (2012), "Outcomes of Exposure to Workplace Bullying: A Meta-analytic Review", Work and Stress, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 309-332.
62. Noelle-Neumann E (1991), "The Theory of Public Opinion: The Concept of the Spiral of Silence", In J A Anderson (Ed.), Communication Yearbook, Vol. 14, pp. 256-308, Sage Publications, Inc. http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1991-97095-006
63. Oade A (2009), Managing Workplace Bullying: How to Identify, Respond to and Manage Bullying Behavior in the Workplace, Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
64. Orgambidez A and Extremera N (2020), "Understanding the Link Between Work Engagement and Job Satisfaction: Do Role Stressors Underlie this Relationship?", Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, Vol. 61, No. 3, pp. 443-449.
65. Pilch I and Turska E (2015), "Relationships Between Machiavellianism, Organizational Culture, and Workplace Bullying: Emotional Abuse from the Target's and the Perpetrator's Perspective", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 128, No. 1, pp. 83-93.
66. Power J L, Brotheridge C M, Blenkinsopp J et al. (2013), "Acceptability of Workplace Bullying: A Comparative Study on Six Continents", Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66, No. 3, pp. 374-380.
67. Rai A and Agarwal U (2017a), "Linking Workplace Bullying and Work Engagement: The Mediating Role of Psychological Contract Violation", South Asian Journal of Human Resources Management, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 42-71.
68. Rai A and Agarwal U A (2017b), "Exploring Nature of Workplace Bullying and Psychometric Properties of Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised (NAQ-R) in Indian Organizations", Journal of Indian Business Research, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 229-247.
69. Rai A and Agarwal U A (2018), Workplace Bullying and Employee Silence: A Moderated Mediation Model of Psychological Contract Violation and Workplace Friendship", In Personnel Review, Vol. 47, No. 1. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-03-2017-0071
70. Rai A and Agarwal U A (2019), "Linking Workplace Bullying and EVLN Outcomes: Role of Psychological Contract Violation and Workplace Friendship", International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp. 211-227.
71. Rajalakshmi M and Gomathi S (2016), "Relationship Between Workplace Bullying and Organizational Culture", Sona Global Management Review, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 71-82.
72. Rayner C (1998), "Workplace Bullying: Do Something! [Earlier Version of this Paper was Presented at the Bullying at Work Research Update Conference (1998: Staffordshire University Business School, UK)]. Journal of Occupational Health and Safety, Australia and New Zealand, Vol. 14, No. 6, pp. 581-585.
73. Reknes I, Einarsen S, Knardahl S and Lau B (2014), "The Prospective Relationship Between Role Stressors and New Cases of Self-reported Workplace Bullying", Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, Vol. 55, No. 1, pp. 45-52.
74. Rusbult C E, Farrell D, Rogers G and Mainous A G (1988), "Impact of Exchange Variables on Exit, Voice, Loyalty, and Neglect: An Integrative Model of Responses to Declining Job Satisfaction", Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 599-627.
75. Rusbult C E, Zembrodt I M and Gunn L K (1982), "Exit, Voice, Loyalty, and Neglect: Responses to Dissatisfaction in Romantic Involvements", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 43, No. 6, pp. 1230-1242.
76. Salin D (2003), "Ways of Explaining Workplace Bullying: A Review of Enabling, Motivation and Precipitating Structures and Processes in the Work Environment", Human Relations, Vol. 56, pp. 1213-1232. doi:10.1177/00187267035610003
77. Salin D, Cowan R, Adewumi O et al. (2019), "Workplace Bullying Across the Globe: A Cross-Cultural Comparison", Personnel Review, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp. 204-219.
78. Samnani A K and Singh P (2014), "Performance-enhancing Compensation Practices and Employee Productivity: The Role of Workplace Bullying", Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 5-16.
79. Schein E H (1985), "Defining Organizational Culture", Classics of Organizational Theory, Vol. 3.
80. Schein E H (1990), "Organizational Culture", American Psychologist, Vol. 45, No. 2, pp. 109-119.
81. Schein E H (2004), Organizational Culture and Leadership, 3rd Edition, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., San Francisco, CA.
82. Sinha S and Yadav R S (2017), "Workplace Bullying in School Teachers: An Indian Enquiry", Indian Journal of Health and Wellbeing, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 200-205.
83. Spector P E and Jex S M (1998), "Development of Four Self-Report Measures of Job Stressors and Strain: Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale, Organizational Constraints Scale, Quantitative Workload Inventory and Physical Symptoms Inventory, Educational Publishing Foundation", http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/ocp/3/4/356/. Accessed on May 4, 2017.
84. Spicer A (2020), "Organizational Culture and Covid-19", Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 57, No. 8, pp. 1737-1740.
85. Srivastava S and Agarwal S (2020), "Workplace Bullying and Intention to Leave: A Moderated Mediation Model of Emotional Exhaustion and Supervisory Support", Employee Relations: The International Journal, Vol. 42, No. 6, pp. 1547-1563.
86. Suri S and Arora N (2009), "Work Culture and Occupational Stress in Indian Organizations", ASBM Journal of Management, Vol. 2, No. 1, 80-88.
87. Sutton R I and Staw B M (1995), "What Theory Is Not", Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 371-384.
88. Szyd3o J and Grzeae-Buk3aho J (2020), "Relations Between National and Organisational Culture-Case Study", Sustainability 2020, Vol. 12, No. 4, p. 1522.
89. Tajeddini K and Trueman M (2012), "Managing Swiss Hospitality: How Cultural Antecedents of Innovation and Customer Oriented Value Systems can Influence Performance in the Hotel Industry", Int. J. Hosp. Manag., Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 1119-1129.
90. Tambur M and Vadi M (2012), "Workplace Bullying and Organizational Culture in a Post-transitional Country", International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 33, No. 7, pp. 754-768.
91. Thomas D C and Au K (2002), "The Effect of Cultural Differences on Behavioral Responses to Low Job Satisfaction", Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 309-326.
92. Todor W D (1980), A Movement Paradox: Turnover? Transfer? Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the Academy of Management, Detroit.
93. Trevino L K, Butterfield K D and McCabe D L (1998), "The Ethical Context in Organizations: Influences on Employee Attitudes and Behaviors", Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 447-476.
94. Tyler T R, Lind E A and Huo Y J (2000), "Cultural Values and Authority Relations: The Psychology of Conflict Resolution Across Cultures", Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 1138-1163.
95. Van den Broeck A, Baillien E and De Witte H (2011), "Workplace Bullying: A Perspective from the Job Demand-resource Model", SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, Vol. 37, No. 2.
96. Webster J and Watson R T (2002), "Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review", In Quarterly, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 13-23.
97. White M (2013), "Building a Resilient Organizational Culture", UNC Kenan-Flagler Business School.
98. Wiedmer T (2010), "Workplace Bullying: Costly and Preventable", Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, Vol. 77, No. 2, pp. 35-41.
99. Willcoxson L and Millett B (2000), "The Management of Organisational Culture", Australian Journal of Management & Organisational Behaviour, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 91-99.
100. Xu A J, Loi R and 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, Vol. 26, No. 5, pp. 763-774.
101. Yahya A S, Khawaja S and Chukwuma J (2020), "Covid-19 and a Potential Rise in Bullying Behaviors", Prim Care Companion CNS Disord, Vol. 22, No. 3.
102. Zapf D and Gross C (2001), "Conflict Escalation and Coping with Workplace Bullying: A Replication and Extension", European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 497-522.