Submitted:
21 September 2023
Posted:
22 September 2023
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
Introduction
- Age. When you become an age-appropriate “senior” in society, you will be respected because of your age, and many people will accept your suggestions and opinions.
- Experience. Some people are considered senior because they have higher status and more experience.
- Length of service. There are many people who are regarded as "senior" even if they have been working for a long time. Beginners will be cautious despite the high position.
Material and Methods
Result
Results of Descriptive Statistical Tests
- Workplace Well-being: Examining the data in Table 1, the minimum value for Workplace Well-being is 3.67, the maximum value is 5, and the average value stands at 4.4318, accompanied by a standard deviation of 0.36001. These figures indicate that a majority of the respondents strongly agreed with the given answer.
- Seniority: Analyzing the information in Table 1, the minimum value for Seniority is 2.83, the maximum score is 5, and the average value stands at 4.3598, accompanied by a standard deviation of 0.50953. These findings indicate that a majority of the respondents selected the "agree" option.
- Workplace Bullying: Observing the data showcased in Table 1, Workplace Bullying is marked by a minimum value of 2.3, a maximum value of 5, and an average of 4.2841, coupled with a standard deviation of 0.59609. This result signifies that most respondents concurred with the provided answers.
- Employee Performance: Analyzing the data within Table 1, Employee Performance exhibits a minimum value of 4, a maximum value of 5, and an average of 4.4375, along with a standard deviation of 0.36717. These results suggest that a majority of the respondents indicated agreement with the provided answer.
Hypothesis Verification Result
Multiple Regression Analysis
- The present value on the Regression Model Equation Table is 2.099. This implies that when all independent variables, including workplace well-being, seniority, and workplace bullying, are set to zero, the value of the dependent variable-employee performance-is 2.099 points.
- A positive coefficient is shown on the relationship between workplace well-being (X1) and employee performance variable (Y), which means that there is the same direction between these variables. This can be interpreted that workplace welfare will increase and make employee performance will also increase.
- The negative coefficient indicates an inverse correlation that exists between the seniority value (X2) and the employee performance value (Y). High employee seniority in the employee work environment will result in decreased employee performance, based on the results of the data interpretation and this needs to be considered by managers because this factor has the greatest negative influence compared to other factors.
- Furthermore, there is a negative coefficient result indicating an opposite relationship between the workplace bullying variable (X3) and the employee performance variable (Y). This is the same as the result in no. 3, where the presence of intimidation in the workplace results in a decrease in employee performance
Partial Test Results (t-test)
- 1.
-
Testing the first hypothesis (H1)The information outlined in the above-mentioned Partial Test Results table underscores a compelling finding: the workplace variable “Workplace Well-Being" displays a considerable significance value of 0.000, significantly below the established threshold of 0.05. This outcome emphasizes a coefficient value of +0.908, distinctly signaling a positive and beneficial effect on the dependent variable. This positive coefficient aligns with the hypothesis acceptance (H1) and rejection of the null hypothesis (Ho), thereby affirming that well-being within the work environment indeed wields a pronounced and meaningful positive influence on employee performance.
- 2.
-
Testing of the Second Hypothesis (H2)The data presented in Table 3 provides a noteworthy observation: the seniority variable carries a meaningful significance value of 0.017, which stands below the established threshold of 0.05. This observation is accompanied by a coefficient value of -0.235, indicating a negative impact on the dependent variable. This outcome aligns with the acceptance of hypothesis H2 and the subsequent rejection of the null hypothesis (Ho). Therefore, we can assert that seniority significantly and detrimentally affects employee performance in a negative manner.
- 3.
-
Testing the third hypothesis (H3)Table 3 illustrates that the workplace variable "Bullying" exhibits a significant value of 0.019, below the established threshold of 0.05. Correspondingly, the coefficient value is -0.154, signifying an adverse impact on the dependent variable. As a consequence, hypothesis H3 is validated, while the null hypothesis (Ho) is rejected. Consequently, one can infer that workplace bullying significantly and negatively impacts employee performance, leading to adverse outcomes.
Discussion
The Relationship of Workplace Well-Being and Employee Performance
Impact of Seniority on Employee Performance
Relationship between Workplace Bullying and Employee Performance
Conclusions
Theoretical and practical implications
Practical Implication
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Adams, J.M. The Value of Worker Well-Being. Public Heal. Rep. 2019, 134, 583–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Allen, V.; Rahman, N.; Weissman, A.; MacCann, C.; Lewis, C.; Roberts, R.D. The Situational Test of Emotional Management – Brief (STEM-B): Development and validation using item response theory and latent class analysis. Pers. Individ. Differ. 2015, 81, 195–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bryson, A.; Forth, J.; Gray, H.; Stokes, L. Does Employing Older Workers Affect Workplace Performance? Ind. Relations: A J. Econ. Soc. 2020, 59, 532–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bryson, A.; Forth, J.; Stokes, L. Does employees’ subjective well-being affect workplace performance? Hum. Relations 2017, 70, 1017–1037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- buku metode penelitian pendidikan sugiyono. (n.d.).
- Conrad, H. From Seniority to Performance Principle: The Evolution of Pay Practices in Japanese Firms since the 1990s. Soc. Sci. Jpn. J. 2009, 13, 115–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dohmen, T.J. Performance, seniority, and wages: formal salary systems and individual earnings profiles. Labour Econ. 2004, 11, 741–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fischer, R.; Smith, P.B. Values and Organizational Justice: Performance- and seniority-based allocation criteria in the United Kingdom and Germany. J. Cross-Cultural Psychol. 2004, 35, 669–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hauge, L.J.; Skogstad, A.; Einarsen, S. Individual and situational predictors of workplace bullying: Why do perpetrators engage in the bullying of others? Work. Stress 2009, 23, 349–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Horak, S.; Yang, I. Whither seniority? Career progression and performance orientation in South Korea. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2019, 30, 1419–1447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jacobs, R.; Hofmann, D.A.; Kriska, S.D. Performance and Seniority. Hum. Perform. 1990, 3, 107–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, C.; Johnstone, M.; Hadley, F.; Waniganayake, M. Early childhood educators’ workplace well-being: It’s everyone’s right! Australas. J. Early Child. 2020, 45, 322–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, R.T.; Brotheridge, C.M. When prey turns predatory: Workplace bullying as a predictor of counteraggression/bullying, coping, and well-being. Eur. J. Work. Organ. Psychol. 2006, 15, 352–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liefooghe, A.P.D.; Mac Davey, K. Accounts of workplace bullying: The role of the organization. Eur. J. Work. Organ. Psychol. 2001, 10, 375–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Litchfield, P. Workplace wellbeing. Perspect. Public Heal. 2021, 141, 11–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lovell, B.L.; Lee, R.T. Impact of Workplace Bullying on Emotional and Physical Well-Being: A Longitudinal Collective Case Study. J. Aggress. Maltreatment Trauma 2011, 20, 344–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, T.-P.; Chen, J. The effects of teacher’s emotional intelligence on team-member exchange and job performance: the moderating role of teacher seniority. Curr. Psychol. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Menhas, M., & Siddiqui, D. A. (2021). How Employee Seniority Affects Creative Job Performance, And Innovation: The Role of Creative Process Engagement and LMX, Complemented by Synergy Diversity Climate. SSRN Electronic Journal. [CrossRef]
- Mukrimaa, S. S., Nurdyansyah, Fahyuni, E. F., YULIA CITRA, A., Schulz, N. D., غسان, د., Taniredja, T., Faridli, E. Miftah., & Harmianto, S. (2016). No 主観的健康感を中心とした在宅高齢者における 健康関連指標に関する共分散構造分析Title. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan Guru Sekolah Dasar, 6(August), 128.
- Murat, D.; Aytac, S.; Bondy, J. Workplace Wellbeing Among Justice Department Staff. Aust. New Zealand J. Organ. Psychol. 2012, 4, 20–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murtisaputra, E.; Ratnasari, S.L. PENGARUH LINGKUNGAN KERJA, INSENTIF, KOMUNIKASI DAN SENIORITAS TERHADAP SEMANGAT KERJA KARYAWAN. J. Dimens. 2019, 7, 434–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naseer, S.; Raja, U.; Syed, F.; Bouckenooghe, D. Combined effects of workplace bullying and perceived organizational support on employee behaviors: does resource availability help? Anxiety, Stress. Coping 2018, 31, 654–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pradhan, A.; Joshi, J. Impact of Workplace Bullying on Employee Performance. Int. Res. J. Manag. Sci. 2019, 4, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Putri, G.P.; Wijono, S. HUBUNGAN ANTARA WORKPLACE BULLYING TERHADAP PRODUKTIVITAS KERJA KARYAWAN DI PT. TIGA MANUNGGAL TEXTILE (TIMATEX) SALATIGA. J. Psikol. Talent. 2018, 3, 20–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ratnasari, S.L.; Purba, W.C. PENGARUH KONFLIK KERJA, STRES KERJA, DAN BEBAN KERJA TERHADAP KINERJA KARYAWAN PT. MUTIARA HUTAMA SUKSES. J. BENING 2019, 6, 180–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Research Methods in Education. (n.d.).
- Rodgers, R.C.; Helburn, I.B.; Hunter, J.E. The Relationship of Seniority to Job Performance Following Reinstatement. Acad. Manag. J. 1986, 29, 101–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosander, M.; Blomberg, S. Workplace bullying of immigrants working in Sweden. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2022, 33, 2914–2938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosander, M.; Hetland, J.; Einarsen, S.V. Workplace bullying and mental health problems in balanced and gender-dominated workplaces. Work. Stress 2022, 37, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Samnani, A.-K.; Singh, P.; Ezzedeen, S. Workplace bullying and employee performance. Organ. Psychol. Rev. 2013, 3, 337–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Surabaya, U. N. , Pendidikan, F. I., Psikologi, J., Dan, P., & Psikologi, P. S. (2012). 230625679.
- Taris, T. What weneedto know about workplace bullying. Work. Stress 2022, 36, 129–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Warr, P. , & Nielsen, K. (2018). Wellbeing and Work Performance. Handbook of Well-Being, February, 1–14. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323268036.
- Wright, T.A.; Cropanzano, R. Emotional exhaustion as a predictor of job performance and voluntary turnover. J. Appl. Psychol. 1998, 83, 486–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
| Descriptive Statistics | |||||
| N | Minimum | Maximum | Means | std. Deviation | |
| Workplace Well-Being | 44 | 3.67 | 5.00 | 4.4318 | .36001 |
| Seniority | 44 | 2.83 | 5.00 | 4.3598 | .50953 |
| Workplace Bullying | 44 | 2.30 | 5.00 | 4.2841 | .59609 |
| Performance Employee | 44 | 4.00 | 5.00 | 4.4375 | .36717 |
| Valid N (listwise) | 44 | ||||
| Coefficients a | ||||||
| Model | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | Sig. | ||
| B | std. Error | Betas | ||||
| 1 | (Constant) | 2,099 | .504 | 4.167 | .000 | |
| Workplace Well-Being | .908 | .129 | .890 | 7,025 | .000 | |
| Seniority | -.235 | 094 | -.326 | -2,488 | .017 | |
| Workplace Bullying | -.154 | 063 | -.250 | -2,451 | .019 | |
| a. Dependent Variable: Performance Employee | ||||||
| Coefficients a | ||||||
| Model | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | Sig. | ||
| B | std. Error | Betas | ||||
| 1 | (Constant) | 2,099 | .504 | 4.167 | .000 | |
| Workplace Well-Being | .908 | .129 | .890 | 7,025 | .000 | |
| Seniority | -.235 | 094 | -.326 | -2,488 | .017 | |
| Workplace Bullying | -.154 | 063 | -.250 | -2,451 | .019 | |
| a. Dependent Variable: Performance Employee | ||||||
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).