Indian Journal of Economics and Business

Vol. 21 No. 1 (January, 2022)

Copyright@ Ashwin Anokha Publications & Distributions
http://www.ashwinanokha.com/IJEB.php

Organizational climate is a way to increase the employees’

wellbeing: in the presence of social undermining
Rubina Shaheen
Ph.D. Scholar, Institute of Management Sciences, University of Balochistan.

Dr. Safia Bano

Assistant professor, Institute of Management Sciences, University of Balochistan.

Dr. Jameel Ahmed

Assistant professor, Institute of Management Sciences, University of Balochistan.

Corresponding Author’s Email: [email protected]

Received: 05th September 2021

Revised: 17th November 2021
Accepted: 09th February2022

Abstract: Organizational climate is known as the perception of employees’ concerning their organizations, which
could lead to emotional reactions and consequently influences employees' behaviour. This paper intends to
explore the relationship between organizational climate and employees’ wellbeing within the academia of
Balochistan. While more, this study also identifies social undermining as a mediator between the association of
organizational climate and wellbeing. Data was collected from 413 sample of Professors, Assistant Professors, and
Lecturers from private and public sector universities of Balochistan. The sampling technique applied to collect the
data was Non-probability sampling in the cross-sectional timeframe. To test the data descriptive and inferential
statistical tools have been applied. Statistical software (Process Macro) was used to find the effect of mediating
variable (social undermining) between the association of organizational climate and employees’ wellbeing. Results
of correlation showed that organizational climate and wellbeing positively and significantly linked with each other.
While more, organizational climate effect 37% on employees’ wellbeing. Social undermining mediates the
relationship between organizational climate and employees’ wellbeing. The results suggested that perceiving a
positive organizational climate increases the wellbeing of the employees’. This research also suggested that the
relationship between organizational climate and employees’ wellbeing decreases in the presence of social
undermining between these relationships.

Keywords: organizational climate, wellbeing, social undermining, mediation analysis

Introduction

Over the last three decades, scholars have paid a lot of attention to the organizational climate
(Subramaniam, 2009; Dawson et al., 2008). At both the individual and organizational levels of analysis,
the organizational climate has been conceptualized (Chaudhary, Rangnekar & Barua, 2014).

305
 Organizational climate is a way to increase the employees’ wellbeing: in the presence of social undermining

Organizational climate is one of the crucial constructs of organizational behaviour (Ahmad Jasimuddin
& Kee, 2018; Sroka & Szántó, 2018) and is characterized by the relationships between people and
organization and relations of super ordination and subordination (Simberova, 2007). Simberova (2007)
identified that organizational climate is determined by the common influence of targets, formal structures,
processes, and behaviour of people. Previously, Forehand and Gilmer (1964) defined the organizational
climate as; “A collection of somewhat stable characteristics that illustrates an organization, differentiate it
from other organizations, relatively stable over time and influences organizational member’s behaviour.”
After that many researchers (Litwin & Stringer, 1968; Pritchard & Karasick, 1973) described the
organizational climate as the perception of employees regarding their organizations which would link to work
attitude formation.
Recently, scholars defined organizational climates as; representing employees' impressions of the
norms, procedures, and processes that are desired, encouraged and acknowledged in terms of the
organization's human resources (Steinke, Dastmalchian & Baniasadi, 2015). While more, organizational
climate can also be defined as how employees perceive and illustrate their environment in an organization in
both value-based and an attitudinal manner (Rozman & Strukelj, 2019). Organizational climate may include;
leadership support, cooperation, trust, conflicts, friendliness, fairness, commitment, and performance
standards (Saeed et al., 2019; Cygler et al., 2018; Viitala, Tanskanen & Säntti, 2015; Kostić-Bobanović &
Bobanović, 2013). Rozman and Strukelj (2019) identified organizational climate components including
employee motivation and satisfaction, employee commitment, employee relations, and leadership have
positively linked with work engagement of employees.
In recent decades, there has been an increase in wellbeing researches (Seligman, 2011; Stratham &
Chase, 2010; Diener et al., 1999; Keyes et al., 2002). Locke (1969) defined employee wellbeing as a positive
or pleasant emotional state coming from a positive assessment of one's employment or work experiences.
According to Warr (1987), it is an affective state characterized by pleasure and arousal. Ryff (1989)
highlighted autonomy, environmental mastery, the realization of potential, self-acceptance, meaningful
relationships with others, and purpose in life as components of wellbeing. People's reactions to the
challenges of everyday life are at the heart of wellbeing (Ryff, 1995; Bradburn, 1969). Shin and Johnson
(1978) defined it as "a comprehensive assessment of an individual's quality of life-based on his own set of
criteria" (Stratham & Chase, 2010; Goswami, & Bradshaw 2010; Zikmund, 2003). Furthermore, wellbeing is
defined as a lack of depression (Wilhoite, 1994), satisfaction with his or her entire existence (Van Tran,
1987), and a person's sense of hope, happiness, and goodwill toward themselves (Waite & Gallagher, 2000).
According to recent research, wellbeing is defined as; "The ability to accomplish life satisfaction (Diener &
Suh, 2000; Seligman, 2002a), goals (Foresight Mental Capital and Wellbeing Project, 2008), and happiness
(Pollard & Lee, 2003)." It includes employees’ life judgments and "day-to-day feelings (Lyubomirsky, &
Dickerhoof, 2006). Work-related wellbeing represents an employees’ total quality of work experience by
combining the traits of arousal, satisfaction, despair, and tension. Wellbeing is a complex phenomenon
(Diener & Ryan, 2009; Michaelson et al., 2009; Stiglitz, Sen, & Fitoussi 2009).
It is generally believed that it is important for businesses to strive to keep their staff happy since this
results in a variety of beneficial outcomes for the company (Price, 2001). Higher employee productivity,
improved commitment, increased corporate citizenship behaviour, and less intention to resign/ turnover are
all outcomes of employee wellbeing (Agarwal & Ferratt, 2001). Buitendach and De Witte (2005) added that
employee wellbeing also refers to a person's view and judgment of his or her job, which is influenced by the
individual's specific circumstances, such as values, needs, and expectations. When an individual's work
environment meets his or her needs, values, and personal qualities, employee wellbeing increases (Yee,
Yeung & Cheng, 2010). According to Giannikis and Mihail (2011), remuneration, adequate salary, empathic
supervisors, Positive social interaction, and an appealing working environment are all aspects that contribute
to employee wellbeing. It stresses the individual's overall internal sense of contentment or dissatisfaction
(Thompson & Phua, 2012).

306
 Rubina Shaheen et.al.

Another term used in this study is social undermining. Employees at work are frequently subjected
to social undermining or mistreatment (Strongman, 2014). The expression of unfavorable or negative
sentiments against a specific person to prevent that person from achieving her or his objectives is known as
social undermining (Crossley, 2009). The most common manifestations of social undermining are feelings of
hostility or dislike (Joseph et al., 2011). According to research, workplace negativity results in increased
stress, low commitment, low job satisfaction, and poor job performance, (Salin & Hoel, 2013; Fox &
Stallworth, 2010; Bergman et al., 2002).
Employees that are mistreated at work are also reported to keep discreet or quiet, dismiss, try to
ignore, and avoid their experiences (Cortina, et al., 2002). Cortina and Magley (2003) reported that such
people are likely to remain stressed. If some Individuals speak out against mistreatment, often experience
opposition from their peers, and results in poor work outcomes. As a result, both speaking up and avoiding
certain types of mistreatment are associated with a high level of cost and risk. Individuals who are mistreated
at work are likely to experience stress at work, such as negative emotions brought on by abusive supervision,
incivility, and bullying (Lim, Corti na & Magley, 2008; Bowling & Beehr, 2006). This phenomenon has
gained considerable attention from researchers, as they are trying to figure out how to deal with it (Abas &
Otto, 2016).
It is impossible to improve employee wellbeing until the antecedents are understood (Mafini, 2016),
and one of these antecedents has been identified as organizational climate, and its potential to predict
employee wellbeing in higher education institutions has been investigated in this study. This study has the
potential to confirm or invalidate prior findings of the organizational climates' ability to influence
employees’ wellbeing. Many studies have been conducted to find the relationship between organizational
climate and employees’ wellbeing (Shuck & Reio, 2014; Viitala et al., 2015; Hamidianpour et al., 2015) in a
different context, but no study has been found in the educational sector, specifically in Pakistan. While
more, the relationship between organizational climate and wellbeing tested directly (Bliese & Halverson,
1998; Shuck & Reio, 2014; Viitala, Tanskanen & Säntti, 2015; Rožman et al., 2019), but there is a lack of
understanding of the mediating effect between these relationships.
So the current research will fill the gap of literature and develop the theoretical model of
organizational climate and wellbeing. Furthermore, the influence of social undermining as a mediator
between the link of organizational climate and wellbeing will be investigated in this study. Duffy, Ganster,
and Pagon (2002) previously claimed that there is significant literature on positive workplace social ties,
however, less is known about the impact of negative work interactions on wellbeing. These arguments
provided a base to investigate the impact of social undermining (negative behaviour) on the relationship of
organizational climate and wellbeing.
1. Literature Review
2.1 Organizational climate and employees’ wellbeing
The relationship between organizational climate and employees’ wellbeing was tested by many
authors in different contexts. Bliese and Halverson (1998) investigated a relationship between leadership
climate strength and average psychological wellbeing by using a sample of seventy-three military groups. They
found a linear and positive relationship between these two variables. Shuck and Reio (2014) also examined
the nature of the relationship between organizational climate and employees’ wellbeing and found a positive
link. Viitala, Tanskanen, and Säntti (2015) conducted a study to explore the relationship between
organizational climate and wellbeing by using 24 public day-care centres in Finland. They discovered that
negative organizational climates are associated with negative work attitudes and job strains, whereas
favourable organizational climates are associated with positive work attitudes and wellbeing. Their findings
revealed that a positive organizational climate is substantially linked to employees’ wellbeing. Hamidianpour
et al. (2015) linked organizational climate with employees’ creativity in SMEs. Trinkner, Tyler, and Goff
(2016) used the urban police force as a sample and concluded that organizational climate improves the
wellbeing of employees’ at the workplace. Rožman et al. (2019) state that, an organizational climate in the

307
 Organizational climate is a way to increase the employees’ wellbeing: in the presence of social undermining

workplace has a significant impact on employees’ wellbeing and is also linked to increased job performance.
Mafini (2016) identified four dimensions of organizational climate: working conditions, work allocation,
remuneration, and manager-employee relationships. She conducted this study in South Africa by using
sample of one hundred sixty-four employees from seven service industry enterprises. Results showed that
organizational climate with its four dimensions was significantly predicting the employees’ wellbeing. Based
on these findings, it can be hypothesized that:
H1: There is a positive relationship between organizational climate and employees’ wellbeing.

2.2 Social undermining and employees ’wellbeing

Duffy et al. (2002) reported that organizational specialists are less likely to discover social
undermining behaviour since it is subtle and occurs over time. As Epstein (1966) explained that when
compared to people in groups, improperly shared identities commonly cause aggressiveness or enmity. On
the other hand, employees may be able to get away with undermining more readily than other forms of
animosity (Crossely, 2009). Negative behaviours (such as social undermining) are inversely linked with
employees’ wellbeing (Abbey, Abramis & Caplan, 1985). The impacts of undermining and early support on
work achievements were more significant and considerable (Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2012). Social
undermining cause’s depression and depression is negatively linked with wellbeing of the employees’
(Crossely, 2009). Previous research has found that social undermining activities have negative organizational
consequences, such as increased unproductive work behaviours and reduced job satisfaction, both of which
are manifest variables of employees’ wellbeing (Yörük & Yörük, 2012; Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 1999;
Seligman, 2002). Undermining can have negative personal impacts such as low self-esteem, unhappiness,
mental health, and psychosomatic issues (Joseph et al., 2011; Duffy et al., 2006). Taherpour et al. (2016)
stated that social undermining negatively impacts co-creation and interpersonal connections in the
workplace. Cynicism and distress resulting from social undermining were negatively associated with
employees’ wellbeing of the police force (Trinkner, Tyler & Goff, 2016). Sabeen and Arshad (2018) stated
that social undermining directly influences wellbeing. They also reported that the social undermining effect
on performance (abstaining and withdrawal) of faculty members of public and private universities in
Pakistan. Based on these findings it can be stated that:
H2: Social undermining negatively impacts the wellbeing of employees’.
2.3 Organizational climate and social undermining
Literature shows that social undermining might be a reason to stimulate the negative behaviours
known as counterproductive work behaviours (Bosak et al., 2017). Research also revealed that social
undermining is linked with many dimensions of organizational climate. While, expect approval, warmth,
and support, responsibility, conflict, and Structure are the five components of organizational climate (El-
Kassar, Chams, & Karkoulian, 2011). Social undermining leads to job turnover while organizational climate
is negatively linked with turnover intentions (Jeswani & Dave, 2012; Burli & Chan, 2020). Castille et al.
(2016) suggested that negative affective, cognitive, and behavioural outcomes of the phenomenon of social
undermining. The negative organizational climate is connected to stress and cynicism (Viitala et al., 2015).
Duffy, Ganster, and Pagon (2017) concluded that social undermining is negatively and significantly
associated with employees outcomes. Hamza (2018) linked social undermining with knowledge sharing
climate and found a negative association between these two variables. Based on these findings it can be
hypothesized that:
H3: organizational climate negatively linked with social undermining
2.4 Social undermining as a mediator between organizational climate and wellbeing
The organization's best interest is to encourage and promote productivity at work wellbeing, Positive
wellbeing is crucial for organizational success (Hone et al., 2015; Deweand Cooper, 2012). Employees that
are happy and have healthy minds put more thought and effort into their jobs activities (Day & Randell,
2014; Keyes and Grzywacz, 2005; Canaff and Wright, 2004). Decreases in cognitive resources and increased

308
 Rubina Shaheen et.al.

concentration on unpleasant or irrelevant information are linked to poor psychological health, such as
exhaustion, fatigue, anxiety, and depressed mood (Ford et al., 2011), which is linked to decreased
performance (Taris, 2006). There is a complex relationship between wellbeing and experiences in the work
(Gershon et al., 2002; Shane, 2010). While more, Neal and Tromley (1995) stated that the unique nature of
the climate is likely to provide a major competitive advantage to a corporation. According to Dawson et al.
(2008), climate perceptions will have a beneficial impact on performance as well as other behavioural and
attitudinal outcomes. Hakanen et al. (2006) found that social climate has a positive impact on worker
involvement. Furthermore, Xanthopoulou et al. (2009) discovered a link between work engagement and
team climate. According to Chaudhary et al. (2014), the relevance of social interaction climate in affecting
employee attitudes and perceptions. They concluded that companies should work to improve their social
climate. Previously, Gant et al. (1993) investigated the influence of undermining among colleagues and
supervisors with supervisee relationships using 288 members African American members of social work. The
results showed that when social undermining was included in a set of predictors (gender, age, and social
support), significant increases in anxiety, despair, depersonalization, and irritability among social workers.
According to Vinokur and Ryn (1993), social support and undermining in intimate relationships
have a negative impact on the wellbeing of unemployed people. Distress, according to Gilmartin (2002), is a
process by which officers' experiences impact their health and well-being. The adverse effects of social
undermining at the human level, including mental health and self-efficacy, as well as at the organizational
climate level, were summarised by Zhu, Jinyun, and Xiaoming (2013). Individual interactions and reactions
to social undermining were also reported to be impacted by cognition, personality, and other internal
variables on the one hand, and social context, social support, and other external elements on the other.
Another study conducted by Ju and Yoon (2019) examine the link between employee voice (and silence),
social undermining (supervisor, co-worker, and customer), and organizational deviant behaviour. The
findings revealed that being undercut has a negative impact on employee voice and a favourable impact on
employee silence.
So it can be hypothesized:
H4: There is the mediating effect of social undermining between organizational climate and
employees’ wellbeing.

2.5 Hypothesized model

Social undermining
H2H3

Organizational Employees’ Wellbeing

climate
H1

The theory supports the model

This paper is supported by the complexity theory related to the organizational climate and
employees’ behaviour, which was suggested by Lewin, Lippitt, and White (1939). Furthermore, Glick

309
 Organizational climate is a way to increase the employees’ wellbeing: in the presence of social undermining

(1985) added in climate theory that it adds value to individual and Organisational behaviour. This
theory provided the base to better understand the individual behaviour in an organizational setting
(James et al., 2008; Parker et al., 2003), which can be explained as the consequence of an interacting
process including environmental elements and personal attributes (Liu et al., 2021). Organizational
Climate is the discussion about people, perceptions, preferences, and place (Shintri, 2019). According
to complexity theory, employees behave in a manner as they perceived their organizational
environment. While, the environment of the organization is the practices, policies, and procedures set
by the organization. This theory has also supported the relationship between organizational climate and
perceived organizational performance (Berberoglu, 2018). If employees perceive their organizational
climate positively, so that will increase their wellbeing. While the perception of an employee about the
organizational climate is designed by its cognition process. The cognitive theory suggested that how an
individual selects, organizes, and sets meanings to the environmental stimuli. If a person found the
environment positive, it will stimulate positive behaviour.
Social undermining between the relationship of organizational climate and wellbeing explained
by fairness theory. According to the fairness theory, when people are confronted with bad events (such
as being belittled by a co-worker or supervisor), they engage in cognitive comparisons known as
counterfactual thoughts, in which they compare what happened to what could have happened. While
Folger and Cropanzano's (1998) enhanced the fairness theory of social undermining in several
perspectives including the equity considerations in organizations. Fairness theory further elaborates that
when a person is the object of social undermining, he or she responds by concoct numerous alternate
accounts of actual events (Kasimatis & Wells, 1995). As a result, they frequently evaluate and respond
to current events not just in terms of what happens, but also in terms of what should, could, and/or
would have happened (Sherman & McConnell, 1995; Roese & Olson, 1995). These aspects serve as the
theoretical foundation for forecasting that the social environment of undermining will play a role in
how severely employees react to undermining.

3. Methodology
3.1 Population and Sample
Previously, organizational climate and its relationship with the wellbeing of the employee were
ignored in academia so this study was conducted by using a target the Baluchistan’s academic faculty
members as population. While the sample was selected from different public and private universities
including; professors, assistant professors, lecturers, currently provide services in universities. A total of
450 people received the questionnaire (as MacKinnon and Lockwood, 2001 mentioned in their book
that; 350 sample size is best to test the mediation effect). For mediation analysis, this study followed
MacKinnon and Lockwood's (2001) sample size limit (for generalizability). 413 questionnaires were
returned via online and hard copy, out of a total of 450. With a response rate of 92 percent, data was
obtained from 413 respondents, resulting in a minimum acceptable response rate of 49 percent (as
mentioned by Baruch & Holtom, 2008). The sample was chosen for its convenience because it is easily
and readily available. Furthermore, due to time and money restrictions, convenience sampling is
becoming the preferred sampling technique over other techniques because it is less expensive and easy
to use (Ackoff, 1953).
3.2 Research Instrument
A closed-ended questionnaire was used to obtain the information. The questionnaire was
divided into four sections: organizational climate, wellbeing, social undermining, and demographic
nature of the respondents. On a five-point Likert scale, the responses were recorded about the variable
that intent to measure. This study employed a 10-item scale designed by Warr (1990) and utilized by

310
 Rubina Shaheen et.al.

Springer and Hauser (2006) to assess wellbeing: “To what extent does your job have negative
characteristics (e.g. high demands; requires a lot of effort; little consultation on change; role conflict;
issues with other members of staff); To what extent does your job have positive characteristics (e.g.
control over what you do or how you do it; support from colleagues; support from managers;
appropriate rewards)?”. Duffy et al. (2002; 2006) prepared an 11-item scale to assess social undermining.
To assess the organizational climate, Peña-Suárez (2013) scale was adopted having 15 items including: “I
am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond that normally expected to help this organization be
successful; I would accept almost any type of job assignment to keep working for this organization.”
The questionnaire's reliability and validity were also examined in the setting of Baluchistan’s
higher education institutions.
4. Data analysis and findings
The data was loaded into the SPSS program for further analysis (version 26.0). After screening
the data for normality, outliers, and missing values, the demographic variables were given in frequency
distribution, and descriptive analysis was used to identify the data's nature. The value of mean and
standard deviation identify the central tendency and dispersion of the data from its central value. While
skewness and kurtosis were all used to determine the normality of data. Many scholars (Field, 2009;
Trochim & Donnely, 2006; George & Mallery, 2010; Gravetter& Wallnow, 2006) identified the range
of skewness and kurtosis within +2,-2.

Table 4.1 Mean S.D. and Normality of data

Mean S.D. Skewness Kurtosis

Wellbeing 4.26 0.22 -.057 -.324

Organizational
4.16 0.12 .146 .377
Climate

Social
1.92 0.24 -.136 .240
Undermining

Demographic characteristics of the respondents

The demographic of the current study consists of gender, age, qualification, job experience, and
employment sector. Findings revealed that both genders (male and female) took part in the current
study and recorded their response. The male participation rate was (52.8%), while 195 females (47.2%)
participated in this research. The ages variable was distributed into four groups from; 21 to 50 and
above. Respondents were divided into groups based on their age: 151 (36.6 percent) were between the
ages of 21 and 30, 43.3 percent were between the ages of 31 and 40, 59 were between the ages of 41 and
50, and just 24 were between the ages of 50 and above. The respondents' qualifications were assessed at
three levels (Master's, MS/M.Phil., and Ph.D.). 109 respondents said they had a master's degree, 256
said they had an MS/M.Phil. degree and 48 said they had a Ph.D. Marital status was also investigated
because it has a direct impact on organizational atmosphere and wellbeing. 34.1 percent of those
surveyed were single, 63.2 percent were married, and 1.5 percent was divorced. These participants were
recruited from Baluchistan’s private (47.2 percent) and public (52.8 percent) universities. The

311
 Organizational climate is a way to increase the employees’ wellbeing: in the presence of social undermining

respondents' job experience was divided into five categories: 37.5 percent said they had 1-5 years of
experience, 44.1 percent said they had 6 to 10 years of experience, 11 percent said they had a total of 11
to 15 years of job experience, and the remaining 25 reported that they had 20 years or more of job
experience.

Table 4.2 Characteristics of participants

Gender Frequency frequency in percentage

Male 218 52.8

Female 195 47.2

Total 413 100.0

Age

21-30 151 36.6

31-40 179 43.3

41-50 59 14.3

50 years and above 24 5.8

Total 413 100.0

Marital status

Single 141 34.1

Married 261 63.2

Divorced 6 1.5

Total 408 98.8

System 5 1.2

Total 413 100.0

Work experience

1-5 years 155 37.5

6-10 years 182 44.1

11-15 years 46 11.1

16- 20 years 16 3.9

20 years and above 9 2.2

312
 Rubina Shaheen et.al.

Total 408 98.8

System 5 1.2

Total 413 100.0

Education level

Master 109 26.4

MS/M.Phil. 256 62.0

Ph.D. 48 11.6

Total 413 100.0

Nature of org

Public Sector 218 52.8

Private Sector 195 47.2

Total 413 100.0

Cronbach alpha is used to assess reliability. Internal consistency is commonly defined as a

Cronbach's alpha of.70 or higher, while a higher value is desired if there are many items (Lyubomirsky
& Lepper, 1999; Cortina, 1993). The organizational climate scale had an internal consistency.89; the
social undermining scale had an internal consistency of.95, while the wellbeing scale had an internal
consistency of.92. These findings revealed that the entire questionnaire was extremely reliable.
To illustrate the relationship between the selected variables (organizational climate, wellbeing of
the employees, and social undermining). The correlation results showed that the variables had a linear
relationship and that all of the variables had a substantial association. The organizational climate was
shown to be positively related to wellbeing (r=.84) and adversely related to social undermining (r=-.68).
Negative and moderate associations between social undermining and wellbeing (r= -.67) were also
found. As a result of the findings, it can be stated that improving organizational climate will likewise
improve employee wellbeing. Furthermore, the negative link between social undermining and wellbeing
revealed that as social undermining increases, wellbeing decreases.
Table 4.3 Relationship between the variables (Correlation)
Wellbeing Org Climate Social Undermining

Wellbeing 1

Organizational
.84** 1
Climate

Social Undermining -.067* -.068* 1

Note:* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

313
 Organizational climate is a way to increase the employees’ wellbeing: in the presence of social undermining

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

N=413
The study's first premise was to determine the impact of organizational climate on employees’
wellbeing. The findings revealed that organizational climate had a 37 percent impact on employee
wellbeing (R2=.37, Sig=.000). The beta coefficient value (b=.043) revealed that the effect is positive and
significant. The study's second premise was to determine the impact of social undermining on
wellbeing. The findings revealed that social undermining had an impact on wellbeing (R2=.73,
Sig=.000). The beta coefficient value (b=.0613) revealed a negative and significant link. The study's third
hypothesis sought to discover a link between organizational climate and social undermining. Findings of
the hypothesis indicated that 17% of organizational climate creates variance in social undermining (R2=
.17). The relationship was negative and significant (b= -0.183, sig= .000).
The study's fourth hypothesis was to determine the function of social undermining in
modulating the link between organizational climate and employees’ wellbeing. The direct effect of
organizational climate on employees’ wellbeing is .0603, whereas the indirect effect is .0318
(LLCI=.0382: ULCI=.2507). The mediating impact is significant (t= 1.43, S.E= 0.54, p=.0167) since
both the upper and lower limit values are positive (no zeros in this range). Findings also illustrated that
social undermining appeared to somewhat mediate the relationship between workplace climate and
wellbeing.

Results of the hypothesized model

Social
undermining
b1= -.59 b2=-.038

Employees’ Wellbeing
Organizational
C= .0603
climate

Figure 2.2 Results of the hypothesized model

5. Discussion
This study aimed to determine the link between organizational climate and employees’
wellbeing. With the use of social undermining as a mediator between these relationships, this study also
intended to investigate the mechanism of association between organizational climate and employees’
wellbeing. To attain this objective four hypotheses have been designed. The study's first hypothesis was
to identify a link between organizational climate and the wellbeing of university teaching faculty. The
findings revealed that these two factors had a strong positive and significant association. Furthermore,
regression results revealed that corporate atmosphere has a favourable and significant impact on
employee well-being. The study's initial hypothesis is supported by the findings. These findings are also

314
 Rubina Shaheen et.al.

in line with Vital et al., (2015) findings, as they stated that a positive organizational climate
(encouraging, friendly supportive, and relaxed) is positively linked with the wellbeing of employees’ at
the workplace. While these results are contrasted with the finding of Trinkner, Tyler, and Goff (2016)
as they concluded that organizational climate did not have a significant direct effect on employees’
wellbeing.
The study's second hypothesis was to discover a link between social undermining and
happiness. The findings revealed that there is a link between social undermining and employees’
wellbeing. Employees’ wellbeing will be reduced if there is a higher level of social undermining. These
findings revealed that social undermining in the workplace could be an unpredictably wonderful
phenomenon that has a significant impact on employees' mental health. Because undermining is
considered a bad sort of social relationship, so it encounters a person's mental harmony negatively
(Rook, 1984; Vinokur & Vinokur-Kaplan, 1986). These results are also similar to the previous findings
of Abbey et al., (1985), Kammeyer-Mueller et al., (2012), and Taherpour et al., (2016). The study's third
hypothesis sought to discover a link between organizational climate and undermining behaviour.
Results of the study suggested that negative organizational climate promotes undermining behaviour
while there is a negative relationship between positive organizational climate and social undermining
(my co-workers). These results are also supported by previous results of Castille et al. (2016) and Duffy
et al. (2017)
The mediation test was used in this study to determine the findings of the fourth hypothesis.
The findings revealed that there is a mediating impact between organizational climate and employees'
wellbeing. As a result, it was discovered that while organizational climate improves employees’
wellbeing, social undermining reduces this link due to its significant negative qualities. These findings
indicated that negative behaviours at the workplace influence the organizational level factor
(organizational climate) and dispositional factors (employees’ wellbeing). These findings also revealed
that social undermining is a behavioural feature of human relationships and a substantial predictor of
what happens in any business, including how it functions and how employees interact, communicate,
and carry out tasks.
6. Conclusion
Organizations are complex adaptive systems in which the organizational climate promotes
interactions among individuals, teams, and groups, and from these interactions emerge ideas, attitudes,
and adaptive behaviours (Schneider & Somers, 2006; Anderson, 1999). Most organizational behaviour
research has only looked at one level of analysis (Tasic, Tantri, & Amir, 2019). Local relationships have
a huge impact on employees' behaviour choices, and the dominant state in the business has a significant
impact on individuals (Zhang, Xing, & Guo, 2020). The study's goal was to determine the direct and
indirect effects of corporate climate on employee happiness. The findings revealed that the
organizational climate has a substantial impact on the wellbeing of university teaching faculty in both
the public and private sectors of Balochistan. Furthermore, social undermining has a mediating effect
on the relationship between organizational climate and employees’ wellbeing. One of the most
important characteristics of an organizational setting is social undermining (Taherpour et al., 2016) and
is negatively linked with the organizational climate and wellbeing of the employees’. The results
illustrated that a positive organizational climate increases the wellbeing of the employees but the
negative nature of social behaviour (social undermining) by the co-workers decreases the positive effect
of organizational climate on employees’ wellbeing. Recognition behaviour undermining behaviour can
aid in the development of positive workplace connections, but this can be difficult. As social
undermining becomes more prevalent in the workplace, it is being used to block co-workers’ ability to
build and sustain healthy interpersonal relationships (Greenbaum et al., 2012). Unfair social criticism

315
 Organizational climate is a way to increase the employees’ wellbeing: in the presence of social undermining

can impair a person's mental health, causing depression symptoms to worsen. It can be concluded that
to increase employees’ wellbeing, firms should concentrate on improving the positive characteristics of
organizational climate and need to minimize the negative behaviour (social undermining) at the
workplace.
6.1 Future direction

There are different types of social undermining behaviour. This study only tested the co-worker
undermining while another form of social undermining (family and supervisor) can be tested for a
better understanding of the phenomenon. The current study was limited to the mediating effect of
social undermining as negative behaviour. Other forms of negative behaviours such as bullying,
discrimination can also be tested as mediators between the relationship of organizational climate and
employees’ wellbeing. Negative behaviour, such as workplace bullying, and its resilience, as well as how
it affects organizational climate, will be examined in the future. Despite the importance of teaching
faculty in higher education institutions, bad interpersonal interactions and techniques to counteract
undesirable behaviour are still in their infancy, and researchers and academicians might focus on them.
This study considered the organizational climate as a latent variable while many researchers identified
its different manifest variables and dimensions (e.g. recruitment, selection, training, etc. Mafini, 2016).
Further studies can be extended by the researcher and practitioners to examine the organizational
climate with its dimensions. Employees’ wellbeing and its theoretical model can be explored in
combination with organizational climate in a different context (as suggested by Takemura &
Ramaswamy, 2016). Demographic characteristics such as age, gender, marital status, and employment
experience can also be used to assess the organizational environment. This study was carried out in
Pakistan's educational sector, and it was discovered that comparable studies might be carried out with
larger samples obtained from other organizations not included in this study. Meta-analysis and mixed
methodology will be recommended for a detailed understanding of the concept.
6.2 Implication
The executive of the organizations needs to enhance the positive organizational climate to
increase the individual factor to enhance the productivity of the employees’ to support the harmony,
and peace in an organization. Organizational climate can be used as a management tool to provide a
greater understanding concerning employees’ wellbeing by providing impressions on how they perceive
their organization. If studies about organizational climate are done frequently, the organizational
climate will be better understood. Consequently, this will, in turn, assist the description of problems
and their solutions. In addition, it is also the management’s responsibility to develop an organization
that encourages a good organizational climate that contains supportive and friendly, and well-defined
employees’ mental health work environment. Keeping good employees is important to ensure business
success. Organizations should make employees’ wellbeing part of their corporate culture. In the
workplace, there should be a clear expectation of constructive behaviour, with a focus on treating all
employees with dignity and respect. Negative behaviour should be dealt with as soon, informally, and
effectively as feasible. In this regard, informal supervision rules may be useful. The focus should be on
prevention and encouraging positive behaviour and communication (Rayner, 2002), maybe through the
implementation of a positive conduct code.
6.3 Practical Contribution of the study

The findings assist users in better understanding the value of organizational climate and its
relationship to employees’ wellbeing in Baluchistan’s academia. The findings of this study could be used
by managers in similar situations as diagnostic tools or as a reference benchmark for social undermining

316
 Rubina Shaheen et.al.

in the resolution of employees’ wellbeing issues. This research is beneficial to both individuals and
organizations. As a result of this study, the executive of the organization will identify the social
undermining at the workplace that affects the productivity of the employees specifically on the mental
health (wellbeing) of the employees. So, the employees will be more productive as a result of a positive
organizational climate. Organizational performance may be enhanced by the beneficial effects of a
positive organizational climate on employees’ wellbeing. The outcomes of the study will contribute to
the body of knowledge on several topics and will back up the theoretical model of employees’ wellbeing,
organizational climate, and also social undermining. This study aims to bring balance to the literature
by concentrating on negative interaction, namely social undermining. However, it is vital to investigate
and reduce potential behaviours among academics to maintain trust and collaboration.

References

Abas, N. A. H. B., & Otto, K. (2016). Interpersonal mistreatment, organizational attitudes and
wellbeing: The impact of instigator’s hierarchical position and demographic characteristics.
Organization Management Journal, 13 (1), 5-20.

Abbey, A., Abramis, D. J., & Caplan, R. D. (1985). Effects of different sources of social support and
social conflict on emotional well-being. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 6(2), 111–
129. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp0602_2

Ackoff, Russell L. (1953). The design of social research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Agarwal, R., &Ferratt, T.W. (2001). Crafting and HR strategy to meet the need for IT workers.
Communications of the ACM, 44(7), 58‒64.

Ahmad, K. Z. B., Jasimuddin, S. M., & Kee, W. L. (2018). Organizational climate and job satisfaction:
Do employees’ personalities matter? Management Decision, 56(2), 421–
440. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-10-2016-0713

Anderson, P. (1999). Perspective: complexity theory and organization science. Organization Science, vol.
10, no. 3, pp. 216–232.

Baruch, Y., &Holtom, B. C. (2008). Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational
research. Human Relations, 61(8), 1139–1160.

Bergman, H., Béland, F., &Perrreault, A. (2002). The global challenge of understanding and meeting
the needs of the frail older population. Aging Clinical and Experimental Research, 14(4), 223-225.

Bliese, P. D., & Halverson, R. R. (1998). Group consensus and psychological well-being: A large field
study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(7), 563–580. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-
1816.1998.tb01720.x

Bosak, J., Dawson, J., Flood, P. and Peccei, R. (2017). Employee involvement climate and climate
strength: A study of employee attitudes and organizational effectiveness in UK hospitals. Journal
of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 4(1), 18-
38. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-10-2016-0060

317
 Organizational climate is a way to increase the employees’ wellbeing: in the presence of social undermining

Bowling, N. A., &Beehr, T. A. (2006). Workplace harassment from the victim's perspective: A
theoretical model and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 998–
1012. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.998

Bradburn, N. M. (1969). The Structure of Psychological Well-Being. Oxford: Aldine.

Buitendach, J. & De Witte, H. D. (2005). Job insecurity, extrinsic and intrinsic job satisfaction and
affective organisational commitment of maintenance workers in a parastatal. South African
Journal of Business Management, 36(2). DOI:10.4102/sajbm.v36i2.625

Buitendach, J.H., & De Witte, H. (2005). Job insecurity, extrinsic and intrinsic job satisfaction and
affective organizational commitment of maintenance workers in a parastatal. South African
Journal of Business Management, 36(2), 27-37.

Burli, A., & Chan, J., 2020. Outcomes Following Aggressive Management of Locoregional Disease in
Anaplastic Thyroid Carcinoma in the Era of IntensityModulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT).
International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics, 108(2), E47.

Canaff, A. L., & Wright, W. (2004). High anxiety: Counseling the job-insecure client. Journal of
Employment Counseling, 41(1), 2–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1920.2004.tb00872.x

Chaudhary, R., Rangnekar, S. &Barua, M. K. (2014). Organizational Climate, Climate Strength and
Work Engagement. Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences, 133, 291–303.
DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.195

Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98

Cortina, L. M., &Magley, V. J. (2003). Raising voice, risking retaliation: Events following interpersonal
mistreatment in the workplace. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8(4), 247–
265. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.8.4.247

Cortina, L. M., Lonsway, K. L., Magley, V. J., Freeman, L. V., Collinsworth, L. L., Hunter, M., &
Fitzgerald, L. F. 2002. What’s gender got to do with it? Incivility in the federal courts. Law and
Social Inquiry, 27, 235-270.

Crossley, C.D. (2009). Emotional and behavioural reactions to social undermining: A closer look at
perceived offender motives. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 108 (1), 14–
24.

Dawson, J.F., Gonzalez-Roma, V., Davis, A., & West, M.A. (2008). Organizational climate and climate
strength in UK hospitals. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17(1), 89-111.

Day, A., & Randell, K. D. (2014). Building a foundation for psychologically healthy workplaces and
well-being. In A. Day, E. K. Kelloway, & J. J. Hurrell, Jr. (Eds.), Workplace well-being: How to build
psychologically healthy workplaces (pp. 3–26). Wiley Blackwell.

Diener, E. & Ryan, K. (2009). Subjective Well-Being: A General Overview.

South African Journal of Psychology, 39(4),391-406.
https://doi.org/10.1177/008124630903900402

318
 Rubina Shaheen et.al.

Diener, E., Suh, E. M. (Eds). (2000). Culture and subjective well-being. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D., & Pagon, M. (2017). Social Undermining in the Workplace. Academy of
Management Journal, 45(2),

Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., Shaw, J. D., Johnson, J. L., &Pagon, M. (2006). The social context of
undermining behaviour at work. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 101(1),
105–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.04.005

Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social Undermining in the Workplace. Academy of
Management Journal, 45, 331-351.

El-Kassar, A., Chams, N., &Karkoulian, S. (2011). Organizational climate and its effects on the
employees commitment. The Business Review, 19(1), 127-135.

Epstein, W. (1966). Perceived depth as a function of relative height under three background
conditions.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(3), 335-338

Field, A. (2009) Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. 3rd Edition, Sage Publications Ltd., London.

Ford, M.T., Cerasoli, C.P., Higgins, J. A., &Decesare, A. L. (2011). Relationships between
psychological, physical, and behavioural health and work performance: A review and meta-
analysis. Work and Stress 25(3), 185-204. DOI:10.1080/02678373.2011.609035

Forehand, G. A., & Gilmer, B. V. H. (1964). Environmental Variation in Studies of Organizational

Behaviour. Psychological Bulletin, 62, 361-382.

Fox, S., & Stallworth, L. E. (2010). The battered apple: An application of stressor-emotion-
control/support theory to teachers’ experience of violence and bullying. Human Relations, 63(7),
927–954. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726709349518

Gant, L. M., NagdaBiren, A., Brabson, H.V., Jayaratne, S., Chess, W., &Anup,S. (1993). Effects of
Social Support and Undermining on African American Workers’ Perceptions of Coworker and
Supervisor Relationships and Psychological Well-being. Social Work, 38(2), 158–64.

George, D. &Mallery, P. (2010). SPSS for Windows Step by Step A Simple Guide and Reference 17.0
Update. 10th Edition, Pearson, Boston.

Gershon, R. R. M., Lin, S., & Li, X. (2002). Work stress in aging police officers. Journal of Occupational
and Environmental Medicine / American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 44(2),
160–167.

Giannikis, S. &Mihail, D. (2011). Flexible work arrangements in Greece: a study of employee

perceptions. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(2), 417-432.
DOI:10.1080/09585192.2011.540163

Greenbaum, R. L., Mawritz, M. B., &Eissa, G. (2012). Bottom-line mentality as an antecedent of social
undermining and the moderating roles of core self-evaluations and conscientiousness. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 97(2), 343–359. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025217

319
 Organizational climate is a way to increase the employees’ wellbeing: in the presence of social undermining

Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., &Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Burnout and work engagement among
teachers. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 495 – 513

Hamidianpour, F., Esmaeilpour, M., Alizadeh, M.S., &Dorgoee, A. (2015). The Influence of Emotional
Intelligence and Organizational Climate on Creativity and Entrepreneurial Orientation of
Small to Medium-Sized Enterprises. European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences, 4(1).

Keyes, C. L. M., Shmotkin, D., &Ryff, C. D. (2002). Optimizing well-being: The empirical encounter of
two traditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 1007– 1022.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.1007

Lyubomirsky, S., &Lepper, H. S. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability and
construct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46(2), 137-155.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006824100041

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison
of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7(1),
83–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.83

Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4), 719–727. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.719

Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-
being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069- 1081. https://doi.org/10.1037
/0022-3514.57.6.1069

Taherpour, F., Rajaeepour, S., Siadat, A., & Kazemi, I. (2016). Analysis of Bilateral Effects between
Social Undermining and Co-Creation among University Faculty Members. International
Education Studies, 9 (7), 10.5539/ies.v9n7p135

Vinokur-Kaplan, D., & Bergman, S. (1986). Retired Israeli social workers: Work, volunteer activities,
and satisfaction among retired professionals. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 9(4), 73–86.
https://doi.org/10.1300/J083V09N04_06

Vinokur, A. D., van Ryn, M. (1993). Social support and undermining in close relationships: Their
independent effects on the mental health of unemployed persons. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 65, 350-359.

Viitala, R., Tanskanen, J., & Säntti, R. (2015). The connection between organizational climate and well-
being at work. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 23(4), 606–
620. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-10-2013-0716

320