Workplace Bullying: Impact on Productivity, Teamwork, Sales and Income among Food Service Industry

| ABSTRACT For decades, workplace bullying has brought the attention of every organization’s Human Resource Management Department. Several research studies uncovered that workplace bullying is a constant problem in working life that is often ignored and even tolerated in organizations. This study is descriptive-correlational, and survey questionnaires were disseminated through Google forms as the primary data gathering tool. The respondents of the study were the service crews of five (5) different quick-service restaurants at Barangay Tikay, Malolos, Bulacan. The findings of the study revealed that: (1) employees completely disagree with experiencing workplace bullying, (2) the level of employee’s productivity, teamwork participation, and contributions to sales and income showed a significant disagreement, and (3) there is a significant relationship between workplace bullying experience and employee productivity, teamwork performance and contribution to sales and income. Therefore, the null hypothesis, which claimed that workplace bullying has no significant relationship on the employee’s productivity, teamwork participation, and contribution to sales and income of food service establishments, is hereby rejected. Several recommendations were presented to managers concerning the implementation of further measures to foster an excellent working environment for employees.


Introduction
For decades, workplace bullying has drawn worldwide attentiveness.Several research studies over the years have found that workplace bullying is a constant problem in working life that is often ignored and even tolerated in organizations.However, allowing this type of behavior can have harmful effects on the individual being victimized or bullied (Boudrias, Trépanier, & Salin, 2020).Research shows that more than 15% of employees are afflicted by workplace bullying worldwide (Nielsen, Matthiesen, & Einarsen, 2010).Although bullying has been reported to be higher among social and health, public administrator, and education sectors (Zapf, Einarsen, Hoel, & Vartia, 2020), research has shown that it is also present in a variety of organizations (Einarsen et al., 2010).
There are many definitions of workplace bullying; there is no single approved definition since different attitudes are taken by researchers.Hence, this study highlights some of these definitions that will help develop an in-depth understanding of the issue.
Workplace bullying is a pattern of persistent malicious, insulting, intentional or non-intentional behaviors that a target perceives as intentional efforts to harm, control, and drive a co-worker from the workplace.A situation in which one or more persons thoroughly and over a long period of time perceive themselves to be on the receiving end of negative treatment on the part of one or more persons, in a situation in which the person exposed to the treatment has struggled in defending themselves against this treatment (Cash, White-Mills, Crowe, Rivard, & Panchal 2019).Furthermore, Schilpzand, Pater, and Erez (2016) and Dalenjan, Shoorideh, Hosseini and Mohtashami (2017) reported that workplace bullying is a negative behavior and norms violation, ambiguous intention, and low insight characteristics of it.These behaviors comprise humiliating opinions, enmity, staring at others, disrupting others' conversation, ignoring the strength and identity of one person in others presence, being ignored or excluded from meetings, being underestimated publicly, and denying employee's ideas and opinions.
Discourteous behaviors are common within the workplace.Perceived co-worker discourteous behavior has a significant influence on employees, customers, and organizations.Past studies have explored that workplace bullying has a relationship with intention to quit, employee satisfaction, and impacts mental and physical health as well as work-family conflict and absenteeism.Few studies viewed that if workers are rude or impolite, their absenteeism may affect the employee's performance.Several studies also support that bullying has a negative effect on an individual's behavior and then causes negative results such as decreased work engagement (Torkelson, Holm & Backstrom, 2016., Smith, Morin & Lake, 2017; Smith, Morin & Lake, 2018).
Meanwhile, productivity refers to the relationship between the input provided and the output generated by a production or service system.Thus, productivity is defined as the efficient use of resources such as labor, land, capital, materials, energy, and information in the production of various goods and services, as cited by Afful (2010).
It is often not effective to provide employees with the needed resources and expect that productivity will increase automatically.This is because productivity will only increase when further consideration or benefit has been given there to the employee that the assigned job will be performed (The Insider, 2002).Accomplishing more with an equivalent amount of resources or achieving higher output in terms of volume and quality for the same input also depicts higher productivity, as cited by Afful (2010).Therefore, the utilization of strategies that focus on employee satisfaction, health, and morale by companies could be used to address issues on productivity in order to maintain high worker productivity (Corporate Leadership Council, 2003).
The food Service Industry, such as fast-food chains, food kiosks, cafes, bars, take-out and delivery stores, and full-service restaurants, is known to have one of the highest bullying rates compared to every other industry globally.Minimum-wage workers, like workers in the fast-food industry, experience this sort of bullying at their jobs at alarming rates, and therefore, the majority do not report the bullying.These workers have many disadvantages that make them easy victims of bullying.They are less inclined to seek help because their employment is usually at the will of the employer, and they fear losing their job if they complain.Their daily sustenance depends on their income from their job.Every case may involve a different cruelty of harassment and violent behavior, yet the barriers to asserting their rights low-wage workers face are remarkably similar.
This study has great importance, especially for food service businesses; it will help them to eliminate discourteous behaviors that happen at their workplace.It will give direction to managers in determining the impact of workplace bullying on the workers' productivity, participation with the team and sales and income of the food service establishments.

Review of Related Literature
The rationale behind this research study is to find the impact of workplace bullying on employees' productivity, teamwork, sales and income in the food service industry.This section focuses on existing and relevant literature on the subject matter.Existing literature used includes the history of bullying, past studies done in relation to it, and its work-related effects.Workplace bullying is a phenomenon that is attracting rising attention from researchers all over the world.Bullying at work existed a long time ago but has abruptly become prominent with a broad range of popular academic books and articles published.

Workplace Bullying
Workplace bullying is defined as the repeated negative treatment of individuals or a group directed towards an employee or group of employees over a long period of time, which is meant to intimidate and create a risk to the health and safety of the employees (State of Washington, Department of Labor and Industry, 2006).Furthermore, workplace bullying is also defined as an interpersonal conflict and refers to aggressive behaviors within the workplace that could bring negative impacts on victims (Gillen, Sinclair, Kernohan, Begley & Luyben, 2017).According to Hauge, Skogstad and Einarsen (2012), when defining workplace bullying, one significant criterion was the property of persistent negative behaviours.This criterion emphasised that workplace bullying did not occur occasionally but was prolonged over a period of time.
In reference to the definition provided, 'period of time' first reflects the characteristic of persistence, or a pattern of behavior (Einarsen, Skogstad & Rorvik, 2018), which distinguishes bullying from a 'one-off clash'.Hence, workplace bullying is usually subject to growth over time (Caponecchia and Wyatt 2009).However, the intensity of some one-off events, their potential for ongoing threat (Einarsen et al. 2018), and single incidents being repeated with different individuals (Caponecchia and Wyatt 2009) means the difficulty of one-off events remains subject to debate.Second, 'negative treatment relates to the occurrence and perception of significant, inappropriate, negative or unreasonable behaviors as against trivial behaviors (Einarsen et al. 2018).Reaching absolute agreement on what bullying behaviors are, however, is practically impossible because issues such as context, intensity and the existence of patterns of behavior are important, as is a person's subjective awareness of being bullied, which may vary quite substantially across individuals.Thus, for researchers, practitioners and, most significantly, targets of bullying, labeling specific workplace behaviors as acts of bullying are difficult.
One perspective which can advance the conceptualization of workplace bullying as an increasing conflict relates to the imbalance of power.Initial research in this field commonly identified superiors as the perpetrators of bullying, often linking top-down bullying to organizational structures, including the role of overseeing others and relational power differentials, particularly the misuse thereof (Salin, 2010).That means the occurrence of bullying behaviors between two groups or individuals should present an unbalanced relationship.However, according to Salin (2008), workplace bullying does not only refer to superiors' negative or harmful acts towards their subordinates; any employee in the workplace might be a bully or a victim at any time.This statement implies that workplace bullying is not limited to leadership behaviors but can occur at any level of the hierarchy, even the top.Furthermore, bullying also occurs from person to person at the same hierarchical level (Salin, 2008).Differences in experience, skills and even tenure could also contribute to informal power among employees and further lead to bullying (Saunders, Huynh & Goodman-Delahunty, 2007).
Moreover, workplace bullying is defined as an extreme type of social stressor where aggressive behavior is systematically and persistently aimed toward a targeted individual.Unlike exposure to other stressors encountered at work, which can reflect a negative job feature that is experienced by most organizational members, the aggressive behavior experienced by targets of bullying is likely to aggravate the satisfaction of fundamental psychological and relational needs and inflict severe psychological, emotional, and even physical pain upon exposed individuals.The persistent exposure to such behavior also seems to drain the individual's coping resources, gradually making the individual less ready to deal with daily work tasks and the requirements of the job.The uncertainty caused by exposure to such working conditions will thus be associated with strain for affected individuals, and studies have indeed shown targets of bullying to generally portray a high level of stress symptoms.For instance, Einarsen, Matthiesen and Skogstad (2012) found victims of bullying to report higher levels of burnout and lower levels of job satisfaction and psychological well-being as compared to non-targets, and similarly, Agervold and Mikkelsen (2012) found employees exposed to bullying to report more mental fatigue, psychological stress and psychosomatic symptoms as compared to their non-exposed colleagues.Moreover, not only bullied employees but also observers of such behavior reported higher levels of general stress and mental stress reactions than non-bullied employees.
Workplace bullying behaviors present in different forms, such as verbal abuse, socially isolating someone, gossiping and even physical violence (Einarsen, Hoel & Notelaers, 2009).Hoel (2010) categorized workplace bullying behaviors into five groups: a threat to professional status, a threat to personal standing, Isolation, overwork, and destabilization.Hoel's (2010) integration towards workplace bullying behaviors included both direct (e.g., insults) and indirect (e.g., withholding of information) forms of bullying.According to the groups they identified, workplace bullying practices can take both physical (e.g., overwork) and psychological (e.g., Isolation) manifestations.According to De Cuyper, Baillien, and De Witte (2009), workplace bullying behaviors can be characterized as personal or work-related bullying.Personal bullying included verbal abuse and gossiping, while workrelated bullying included the assignment of impossible work tasks and extreme deadlines.
Much workplace bullying research has been focused on the causes, symptoms, and consequences of the phenomenon that can be generalized across a variety of occupations (Glaso, Bele, Nielsen & Einarsen, 2011).General research has furthered our understanding of the topic.However, there are limitations to the present approach.Several authors have argued that the generalized literature should complement research studies that consider factors, issues, and concerns specific to working environments to develop more meaningful knowledge.
In the present study, workplace bullying will be applied to refer to the phenomenon where an employee faces repeated and prolonged exposure to varied sorts of predominate mistreatment.Such mistreatment is directed towards a target who is usually teased, badgered and insulted and who perceives himself or herself as not having the possibility to retaliate in kind (Einarsen et al., 2018).
Hence, bullying incidents have been occurring for centuries, but it is only recently that the brutality of a couple of incidents brought the issue to the surface (Onorato, 2013), making it arguably one of the most talked about issues worldwide across multiple disciplines.

Impact of Workplace Bullying
According to Namie (2016), workplace bullying is difficult to manage because there are no laws against it in most states.Tennessee and California are the only two states with laws pertaining to workplace bullying (Namie, 2016).Since there is rarely a legal mandate, very few institutions have a policy against bullying or a process to deal with the behavior (Cowan, 2012).Workplace bullying has a tangible effect on people's lives and the economy in terms of lost productivity, efficiency, and profitability (Georgakopoulos, Wilkin & Kent, 2011).
A significant amount of research evidence suggests that workplace bullying has severe negative consequences for employees' health and well-being, organizational performance, and social context.The negative effects of workplace bullying on an individual include psychological illness, which could cause loss of self-image and respect.In addition to the impacts on the recipients, studies have shown that those who have observed or witnessed workplace bullying are also likely to experience some if the negative consequences.(Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2010;Hoel et al., 2011).
Focusing on an individual level, victims of workplace bullying also have reported decreased commitment to their job and organization, poor morale, and lower performance and productivity.This includes an increase in work errors, limited attentiveness, and lost time due to worry regarding the bullying situation.Additionally, targets may miss deadlines and have a loss of creative potential.Victims of bullying have also been found to use their time less effectively.(Einarsen et al. 2011;Lovell and Lee, 2011).
Lutgen-Sandvik (2012) claims that differences in gender, race, age, educational levels, and ethnicity result in increased conflicts and bullying behaviors.People find it difficult to understand the actions and motivations of individuals who are being perceived as different.People who lack conflict management skills and self-confidence are more susceptible to becoming victims of workplace bullying.Sometimes, bullies can also target overachievers as they may feel threatened by the victim's skills and competence.Cases of workplace bullying are likely to increase in times of crisis, mergers, downsizing, and restructuring.During such times, superiors are expected to deliver high performance and productivity using fewer resources.Leadership styles, organizational culture, and organizational developments are considered the prime source of bullying behavior's pervasiveness (Chirilă & Constantin, 2013).Ignored for a long time, the consequences of workplace bullying can be costly for the employees and the organization.
It has been established that workplace bullying also has serious implications for organizations and the labor market (Boudrias, Trépanier, & Salin, 2020).As for the impact on the organization, research has consistently indicated that bullying may lead to lower employee commitment to work and higher levels of labor turnover in organizations (Einarsen, Skogstad & Rorvik, 2018).That is why researchers such as Hoel and Cooper (2011) and Sheehan (2010) have all emphasized that organizations that do not pay much attention to these negative behaviors are at the risk of reporting reduced performance and productivity and increased labor turnover and absenteeism within the workforce, all of which can have a negative impact on the financial base of any organization.According to Lindsey, Avery, Dawson and King (2017), obvious victims of workplace bullying reported high overall job dissatisfaction.Besides, some studies assessed the value of workplace bullying on individuals, but most of them have limited the value to the overt consequences, like the cost of absenteeism and turnover rate (Meriläinen, Kõiv, & Honkanen, 2019).In absenteeism, because both health issues and avoidance tactics can be attributed to abusive supervisors, employees may call in to work or take extensive sick leave to support either their health or in an attempt to avoid the berating individual all at once.There are several consequences for an organization that are caused by excessive absenteeism.Not only is the productivity of the absent employee lost, but also the organization.According to Cooper (2011), "pressure is likely to mount on their co-workers with more people possibly reaching breaking point.With increased tension among co-workers as a result, perhaps reducing productivity and inflating sickness absence as well as turnover.As to turnover, the intention to leave may be due to the bullying itself and the symptoms suffered as a result of the bullying.Macleod and Hardy (2015) determined that employee turnover impacts organizations due to "recruitment costs and the cost of training and development.In addition to the apparent costs of turnover that include separation costs, replacement costs, and training costs, turnover also can lead to an actual resignation upon an increase in the intensity and duration of the bullying behaviors systematically conducted at the workplace (Zia-ud-Din, Arif, & Shabbir, 2017).
Employees working well within their team are better equipped to provide quality work.Relevant research has demonstrated that quality service depends on effective teamwork (Lerner et al., 2009).A review of team research reveals that a variety of characteristics frame the essence and importance of teamwork.Such characteristics include communication, leadership, and trust.It is important to note that effective teams produce better outcomes than individuals alone (Hays, 2013).Overall, more research is needed to help verify the impacts of bullying on teamwork behaviors, including communication, leadership, and trust.Alack of closed-loop communication may lead to misinterpretation of a message and thus increased strain in the workplace.Strain within the workplace is hypothesized to influence effective teamwork behaviors, including coordination, performance monitoring, and backup behavior (Gevers et al., 2010).
Bullying is merely one among the variety of potential sources of strain in the workplace.Such strain is likely to diminish team productivity and efficiency.It also may be that closed-loop communication channels will be negatively impacted by bullying, as such negative behavior tends to isolate employees.Bullying can also prove detrimental to the communication process.What is known is that communicative responses to problematic relationships need to be executed on an individual basis, as a universal fix will lead to disappointment (Hess & Sneed, 2012).Addressing bullying on an individual level provides a more effective approach.Given the importance of communication, negatively influencing this behavior will not likely enhance an employee's ability to provide quality work.The same can be said regarding both trust and leadership.Both variables promote effective teamwork.A lack of one or both variables has a potential negative effect on employee performance.In fact, trust is usually formed within the boundaries of the immediate workplace environment.Such trust is often influenced by the line manager (McCabe & Sambrook, 2014).Given the importance of teamwork within workplace relationships, damage to trust will fracture relationships in the workplace (Jackson et al., 2010).Building trusting relationships becomes a goal for any team wanting to perform at the highest levels of effectiveness.
When a bullying atmosphere starts to permeate an organization, morale is destroyed, and productivity is affected.The workplace often contains distorted personality types that appear to possess only one purpose: to find somebody else to attack, to belittle, criticize, and destroy.Many leaders and managers either fail to acknowledge the matter, or they are themselves the problem.

Workplace Productivity
Employers have numerous responsibilities in the workplace, one of which is their legal obligation to provide employees with a healthy and safe working environment (Occupational Health and Safety Act, Parliament of Victoria, 2004).Additionally, organizations, whether public or private sector, must manage productivity and meet business targets while maintaining a steady labor force by attracting and retaining appropriately skilled employees.
Productivity is about how well individuals combine resources such as raw materials, labor, skills, capital, equipment, land, intellectual property, managerial capability, and financial capital to produce goods and services.
Investments in buildings, equipment, technology, processes, and procedures are insignificant except if individuals who utilize and apply them are performing since a business cannot exist without people.Nonetheless, it is easier to measure the return on these investments than it is to measure the productivity of people, as this is the hardest thing to measure (The Insider, 2002).Generally, productivity alludes to the relationship between the input provided and the output generated by a production or service system.Thus, productivity is characterized as the effective utilization of resources such as labor, land, capital, materials, energy, and information in the production of various goods and services (Kianto, Shujahat, Hussain, Nawaz & Ali, 2019).
It is frequently not effective to provide employees with the required resources and expect that productivity will increment naturally.This is because productivity will only increase when further consideration or benefit has been given to the employee for which the assigned job will be performed (The Insider, 2002).Achieving more with the same number of resources or achieving higher output in terms of volume and quality for the same input also depicts higher productivity (Kianto et al., 2019).Hence, the use of a variety of strategies that focus on employee satisfaction, health, and morale by organizations could be used to address issues on productivity to maintain high worker productivity (Corporate Leadership Council, 2003).
Alternatively, productivity can be characterized as the relationship among results and the time it takes to accomplish them.Consequently, the less time it takes to achieve desired outcomes, the more productive a system is (Kianto et al. 2019).Then again, employee productivity relies on the amount of time an individual is physically present and the degree to which that individual is mentally present at a job or functioning efficiently while present at a job (Corporate Leadership Council, 2003).Bullying influences job satisfaction, which will directly affect the productivity of those witnessing or tormenting bullying behavior (PsychTests AIM Inc, 2009).For instance, in a study among Norwegian union members, 27% guaranteed that it decreased their organization's productivity (Einarsen et al., 2011).
An organization is a social unit of structured and managed people to meet a need or to pursue collective goals, or an organization is a systematic arrangement of people to achieve the same specific purpose.Every organization is composed of three components, people, goals, and systems.The purpose is expressed as goals generally.Each organization has a systematic structure that defines members; and some members are managers, and some are operatives.According to Caroline (2008), the organization is a social entity whose goal is coordinated, deliberately organized activity systems with a preamble boundary.Alan (2008) claimed that productivity is the rate at which an employer, company, or country produces goods and the amount produced compared with how much time, work, and money is needed to produce them.
However, there is difficulty in determining the direct impact of bullying on an organization's productivity, as this tends to be a result of different factors such as health, dissatisfaction, sickness, absenteeism, and turnover, among others (Einarsen, Hoel & Nielsen, 2011; Giga, Hoel & Lewis, 2012) Thus, some researchers are of the view that bullying behaviors do not appear to undermine productivity since employees will still perform even when faced with bullying incidents.As such, little relationship is found between people's attitudes toward their jobs and their productivity, as measured by output and even the quality of their work.Similarly, Giga, Hoel and Lewis (2010) also assert that there is little uncertainty that bullying will affect performance and productivity.

Teamwork
Teamwork is as old as mankind, and many organizations use the term teamwork in either one sense or the other, such as in the production and marketing processes.A management team, production team or an entire organization can be referred to as a team.Teamwork is essential and required for viable patient management due to the increased specialization of tasks (Lerner, Magrane, & Friedman, 2009).A team might be characterized as a small number of people with the ability to provide complementary skills while at the same time committed to a common purpose and goal (Lerner et al., 2009).Furthermore, teams hold themselves collectively responsible for such goals (Mickan & Rodger, 2005).Salas, Sims, and Burke (2005) highlighted the importance of each team member's thoughts, actions, and feelings.The authors stressed that when combined, thoughts, activities, and feelings facilitate coordinated performance and task objectives, resulting in value-added outcomes.
Effective teamwork is one tool for addressing the prevalence and impact of bullying (Rocker, 2008).Indeed, understanding the role of teams and bullying within the food service industry is critical to distinguishing potential solutions to bullying in team contexts.
Ahmad and Manzoor (2017) claimed that there is a growing consensus among scholars that organizations may be getting work done through individuals.Yet, his super achievement lies in the fulfillment of set goals through teamwork.Teamwork is not just the foundation of all successful management but the means of improving overall results in organizational productivity.Hays (2013) described teamwork as an idea of working together to achieve the same goals and objectives for the good of the service users and organizations to deliver a good quality of service productivity.Ruth (2007) claimed that employees' teamwork is seen as constituting a larger group of people than what the job position describes.The essence of teamwork is that the workload is reduced and broken into pieces of work for everyone to take part.Miller, Kim, Silverman and Bauer (2018) defined teamwork as a grouping of professionals whose members work intensely on a specific common goal using their positive synergy, individual mutual accountability, and integral abilities.Employees take many steps toward achieving key action items, and nothing important is finished.Teamwork is the ability to work together towards a common vision.It is a fuel that allows common people to attain exceptional results.
Collective action is widely recognized as a positive force for teamwork in any organization or institution to succeed.Teams enable individuals to empower themselves and to increase benefits from cooperative work engaged on as a group.Getting together with others can also allow individuals to better understand the importance of teamwork and how organizations operate and promote teamwork success.Davis (2007) stated that employers consistently stress the need to employ those (employees) who can be able to work with a team, and they (employers) generally talk of teamwork when they want to emphasize the need for various talents possessed by different employees.The organizations, however, coordinate the employees into diverse teams, such as the management team and production team.

Sales and Income
Salesperson performance can be defined as behavior evaluated in terms of its contribution to the organization's goals (Johnston & Marshall, 2006).In order to align the behavior of salespeople with organizational goals, salespeople are often required to generate and optimize sales volume.While some scholars in selling argue that salespeople only depend on individual difference factors like role stress, motivation, and skills to perform well.Bagozzi's (1978) model of selling explicitly mentions the environment of the salesperson as a relevant source of salesperson effectiveness (Friman, Rosenbaum & Otterbring, 2018).
Inherent to the sales task is the fact that salespeople encounter a large variety of selling circumstances.Consequently, salespeople are often required to engage in adaptive behaviors when interacting with customers.Adaptive selling behavior (Wessels, 2011) represents one of the most established streams of sales force research.Recent meta-analytical evidence supports the significance of this relationship (Franke & Park, 2006).Also, there is agreement amongst sales force researchers that adaptive selling behavior positively affects salesperson performance (Challagalla & Shervani, 2006).
Salespeople have been argued to become more prone to practice adaptive selling behavior due to three key arguments (Wessels, 2011).First, salespeople need to be motivated; those adapting sales behaviors to selling situations will prompt greater sales.Second, they need confidence in their ability to use various sales approaches and alter these during customer interactions.Third, salespeople need to possess the capabilities necessary to communicate in an adaptive manner.Recently, Martin and Bush (2006) demonstrated a correlation of .26 between transformational leadership and the extent to which salespeople employ "customeroriented selling", which is conceptually related to adaptive selling.Transformational leaders who engage in inspirational communication are likely to encourage salespeople to take risks to achieve higher performance levels.They motivate salespeople to see changing environments as situations full of opportunities (Mehta, 2015); hence, they motivate salespeople's intrinsic beliefs that interacting adaptively with customers is essential to grasp these opportunities.The motivation to adopt selling behaviors is a key driver of adaptive selling behavior (Wessels, 2011).

Significance of the Study
The findings may provide information beneficial to the following individuals: Employees.The study may be an avenue for all the employees to become aware and have some knowledge about workplace bullying, especially its cause and effect.The result of the study will guide them in their awareness of workplace bullying.
Victims / Targets.The results of the study might broaden the current understanding of the influence of personality and other factors on becoming the victims of bullying.
Food Service Industry Establishments.The result of the study will provide them with some information on how to prevent and eliminate harmful behavior among the workers and help the victims of bullying.It will also give direction to managers in determining the impact of workplace bullying on workers' productivity, participation with the team, and sales and income of the food service establishments.
Future Researchers.The results of this study may also be useful to future researchers, for this may serve as a valuable piece of literature.This may inspire them to conduct experimental investigations on the impact of workplace bullying on employees' productivity, teamwork, sales, and income contribution to quick-service restaurants.

Theoretical/Conceptual Framework
Workplace bullying is not only about aggressive behavior, but it can destroy a victim's health, ability to work, emotional well-being, self-worth, and financial condition.Workplace bullies have a strong negative impact on the business for which they work.
As cited by Ping Gong (2017), workplace bullying behaviors present in different forms, such as verbal abuse, isolating someone, gossiping and even physical violence.Workplace bullying is categorized into two groups: Isolation and professional threat status.Scholars explored the role of self-efficacy in the relationship of interpersonal trust and leadership style related to Isolation in the workplace (Munir et al., 2015).In Afful's (2010) study, findings suggest that bullying does affect workers' productivity and, ultimately, an organization's productivity, as was noted by most of the respondents (86%).Moreover, most respondents reported that they were least productive (52%) due to workplace bullying.Also, findings indicate that duties and responsibilities are not performed to the maximum potential because of bullying in the organization, hence leading to a loss in productivity.The study does not only establish these facts but also provides in-depth knowledge and useful efforts to identify, prevent, reduce, and combat workplace bullying to prevent loss in productivity.
With teamwork, the study of Agarwaal and Adjirackor (2016) concentrated specifically on the use of the term teamwork, which involves reshaping the way work is carried out.This includes organizing employees into teams based on a distinct product, each team performing a particular task.Their respondent teams were given a high degree of responsibility and worked with flexibility.Agarwal and Adjirackor (2016) research interest is to understand or know how teamwork in the organization has and can contribute to improved productivity.Whereas the impact of teamwork on organizational productivity involves internal and external factors that contribute to high productivity.The internal factors have to do with team norms, ground rules, interpersonal and rational skills or qualities that determine how individual's teams will function, while the external factors are the organizational culture, systems, and structures within which all teams perform, determine the level of teamwork within an organization.Various other measures of organizational productivity are also included in the research study, which are esprit de corps (Team Spirit), team trust, and recognition & rewards.
On sales and income, Henry Mervin Sachinder Dietz (2009) focused his study on the job performance of salespeople because (1) employees in sales jobs work under a high degree of autonomy, as they enact the role of boundary spanners between the selling firm and the buyer, (2) the degree of rejection inherent to the sales job is exceptional vis-à-vis other professions, (3) ever-increasing customer demands, paralleled by a growing trend towards sales force effectiveness confronts salespeople in today's economy with continuously rising performance targets (Järvinen & Taiminen, 2016).In many selling organizations, the "acceptable" performance of salespeople is inadequate for achieving organizational success in the marketplace (Shuck, Zigarmi & Owen, 2015).Finally, (4) there is a plethora of candidate-constructs to be potentially impacted by leaders and teams, such that job performance for salespeople is enhanced.This framework illustrates that when workplace bullying happens and impacts individuals' positive image, their tendency to share in work-related activities will be decreased, and their fervor and devotion to their work will be diminished too.Subsequently, when employees are exposed to discourteous behaviors at the workplace, there will be an impact on their productivity, teamwork, and contribution to the sales and income of food service establishments.

Statement of the Problem
The research assessed the impact of workplace bullying on the employees' productivity, teamwork participation and contribution to sales and income in the food service industry.
Specifically, the problem of the study answered the following questions: 1.
What is the assessment of the respondents on the level of workplace bullying in the food service industry in terms of: 1.1 Isolation and; 1.2 Professional status threat?

2.
What is the assessment of the respondents on employee productivity, teamwork performance, and contribution to sales and income of the food service industry?

3.
Is there a significant relationship between workplace bullying and employee productivity, teamwork performance, and contribution to sales and income in food service establishments?

Hypothesis of the Study
In line with the formulated statement of the problem, this hypothesis has been determined: Ho: Workplace Bullying has no significant relationship on employee productivity, teamwork performance, and contribution to sales and income of food service establishments.

Definition of Terms
The following terms are defined by the manner of their use in the study.
Isolation.The physical, mental, and emotional absence of an employee in an organization (Orhan et al., 2016) Examples are: preventing access to opportunities, social Isolation and withholding of information.Food Service Industry.Quick service restaurant within the industry is, a specific type of restaurant that serves fast-food cuisine and has minimal table service, such as fast-food chains, food kiosks, cafes, bars, take-out and delivery stores, and full-service restaurants.
Productivity.The effectiveness of employees' efforts towards achieving the food service establishment's goals and objectives.
Professional Status Threat.Accusations regarding lack of effort, belittling opinions, public, professional humiliation, failure to give credit when due, and removal of responsibility.
Quick Service Restaurants.Also known as fast food service restaurants where, rank and file employees are addressed as service crews.
Service crew.The common term for employees or servers working in quick service restaurants.

Sales and Income.
The contribution through the employee's effort with the money that the establishment earns from doing business with its customers, while income is what is left over after expenses, gains, losses, taxes and other obligations have been deducted (profit).
Teamwork.The combined effective and efficient action of the food service establishment employees which are also affected by their workplace bullying experiences.

Sales and Income
Workplace Bullying.Behaviors in the workplace that occur repeatedly and regularly over a period that offend, socially exclude, or adversely affect the work of an employee.Workplace bullying is repeated and persistent non-physical mistreatment of a person that often follows a progressive pattern, with the target eventually ending up in an inferior position.

Scope and Delimitation of the Study
The study assessed the impact of workplace bullying on the employees' productivity, teamwork and sales and income contribution to the food service industry.It described workplace bullying through the researchers' identified types, which are Isolation and professional status threats.However, it did not include other types of bullying, which are a threat to personal standing and overwork.Employee productivity, teamwork and sales and income contribution levels were observed with the relationship of every variable on internal culture.The respondents of this research were service crews from five (5) quick service restaurants in Barangay Tikay, Malolos, Bulacan.

Methods and Techniques Used
The significant influence of a negative workplace culture on employee performance has been studied by a few researchers, and as this issue continues to happen with organizations taking this matter blindly, the internal impact of such affects not only the person involved but also the continuous process and delivery of quality service and products due to low performance of employees in the organization.This research was structured on a quantitative descriptive correlational research design, where numeric score ratings are assigned to gather the perception of a specific respondent to observe a structured pattern.Quantitative research allows for objectivity, fast data collection and analysis of the data in a statistical form that can provide a thorough overview of the study (Health Research Funding, 2018).Aside from the descriptive quantitative design, correlation was also used to further understand how variables relate with each other; according to I-Chant A. Chiang, Rajiv S. Jhangiani, and Paul C. Price (2013), correlation research is a non-experimental research design in which two variables are measured and assessed on the aspect of their statistical relationship in strength and range.A purposive sampling technique was used, that is, according to Hameed (2016), allows the researcher to select a particular setting and respondents to participate in the research, and for this study, the employees of quick service restaurants.Furthermore, the researcher computed the sample size using the sample size calculator by raosoft.com,where the confidence level will be set to 95%, and a 5% margin of error will be expected.The total number of employees of the quick service restaurants is necessary for the researcher to calculate the final sample size.

Respondents of the Study
This study was conducted on quick service restaurants, namely, Jollibee, McDonald's, KFC and Shakey's at Barangay Tikay, Malolos, Bulacan.These quick service restaurants observe standard procedures, particularly in selecting appropriate employees' skills and emotional abilities; therefore, employees from these establishments are expected to be literary able and can contribute to the provision of structured data that may be used to observe the relationship of the variables in this study.The respondents were selected rank and file employees with an age range of 18-25 who have worked in the store for three contracts, which is the common length of stay among service crews.These respondents provided perceptions that contributed to the topic of bullying within the quick service restaurants.After collecting the instruments, only 126 questionnaires were completely answered and used for data processing.
Table 1 shows the distribution of respondents in each corresponding quick service restaurant as study site.Total 150

Instruments of the Study
The instrument of the study is a channel to collect answers from respondents to test hypotheses.A survey questionnaire was used as the research tool in this study.Instruments of each variable adapted from Ping Gong (2017) about workplace bullying in the hospitality industry were modified and made appropriate in a different setting, which was a food service establishment.
Another reference for the instrument is the study of Claudia Akaaba Afful (2010) about workplace bullying and its impact on employees' productivity.
The validity and reliability of each of the measured items were tested through a pilot survey before undertaking the main data collection.Gray (2009) suggested that piloting can reduce non-response rates and improve the questionnaire's accuracy, clarity, and reliability.The pilot questionnaires were distributed to ten (10) managers and service crews.There was a 100% response rate for the pilot study since all 10 respondents answered to the questionnaire.Through this pilot, important concerns were recognized, and modifications were made before conducting the actual survey.The wording and presentation of the questionnaire were adjusted to make it more reliability.The consistency of each item is monitored to test the constructs' dependability.
Cronbach's coefficient α was used to calculate the internal consistency reliability of the instrument by determining how all items in the instrument relate to all other items and to the total instrument (Gay, Mills, & Airasian, 2006).
To test the constructs' reliability, where the consistency of each item is observed.Through Cronbach's Alpha (CA) reliability analysis, the researcher was able to observe that the internal consistency of the items of the questionnaire is good since the score of CA is greater than .70 as reflected in Table 2.

T a b l e 2 R e lia b i l it y Te s t in g R e s u lt Constructs
Cronbach's Alpha

Over-all .982 30
The components of the research instrument are as follows: Part I Enumerated workplace bullying experiences in terms of Isolation and personal status threat assessed by the respondents working among food service establishments.
Part II Measured the employees' productivity, participation with the team, and sales and income contribution of the service crews to the quick service restaurant.

Data Gathering Procedure
The mode of data gathering was the questionnaire method through Google form for easy dissemination to the respondents of the study.Each of the respondents was given a well-structured, well-instructed, and standardized set of questions to describe their workplace bullying experience.Furthermore, the researcher conducted short interviews for clarifications and the information gathered from related literature and other materials were utilized to support the research claim and characterize the relationship between workplace bullying and employee productivity, teamwork, sales, and income contribution to the food service industry.
Selected participants accepted the invitation to take part in the interviews through verbatim transcription.
In collecting the above-mentioned data, the researcher carried out the following procedures: 1.
A letter was sent to the Store Manager to seek permission to conduct the study.

2.
With the approval of the Store Manager, the researcher used Google Forms to disseminate the questionnaires.

3.
The researcher checked if all the items were answered for the conduct of the study.

4.
The researcher made an assurance that a copy of the output shall also be provided to the study sites.

Data Processing and Statistical Treatment
Using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 25, the data gathered in this research was analyzed with the use of descriptive analysis.It was used to describe the perception of employees in the presence of workplace bullying in the organization and to observe the level of engagement of the employees.Furthermore, the SPSS v.25 Correlation analysis was utilized in part II and part III of the instruments.This is to observe the relationship between workplace bullying and employees' productivity, teamwork and contribution to the sales and income of the food service establishment.Data was subjected to normality testing to consider the distribution of data and to know what statistical formula would be used.Normal data distribution results were analyzed with the use of Pearson-r, and non-normal data distribution results were computed with Spearman-rho.
The respondents' workplace bullying experience was quantified and described using a scale, range of scoring and descriptors.The instrument was a 4-point rating scale in which the respondents expressed their degree of agreement or disagreement on given indicators using the following responses: strongly agree (4), agree (3), disagree (2), and strongly disagree (1).The scale for scoring of the participants is shown in Table 3.

Ethical Considerations
The researcher observed the following ethical considerations in the conduct of this study.

1.
The survey instrument was validated by the Graduate School panel of experts and approved by the Dean prior to data gathering.

2.
The researcher secured permission from the Store Manager and the respondents before conducting the survey.They were also advised that participation in the study is voluntary and that they have the right to refuse to be interviewed if doing so would cause them any discomfort.

3.
The researcher explained the purpose and expectations of the study to the participating employees in quick service restaurants.Participants were also assured of complete anonymity and confidentially without fear of negative consequences.

4.
The researcher thoroughly instructed the respondents on the proper way of completing the questionnaire through Google forms.Some interviews were also conducted for more in-depth information gathered from the respondents.

5.
The researcher provided the participating quick service restaurants with a copy of the overall results of the study and ensured its confidentiality.

Presentation, Analysis, and Interpretation of Data
This chapter presents analyses, and interprets the data collected in the study.For clarity of presentation and consistency in the discussion, the data are presented following the order and sequence of the questions raised in Chapter 1, to wit: (1) the assessment of the respondents on the level of workplace bullying in food service industry in terms of Isolation and professional status threat, (2) the assessment of the respondents on the employee's productivity, teamwork participation and contribution to sales and income of food service industry, and (3) the relationship of workplace bullying and employee productivity, teamwork performance and contribution to sales and income in food service establishments.

Results and Discussions
Observing the perception of the respondents of this study in table 4, the results show that employees completely disagree that they experience workplace bullying.Probably, according to a manager, service crews are just happy while they are working.As members of the organization, they never felt that they were excluded from any work-related social activity (µ= 1.79) and that they felt no rejection from other members when they inquired about work-related information (µ= 1.79); furthermore, employees disagree that workplace bullying is present in their organization since each has been appreciated (µ= 1.95) and was given praise from performing tasks and was never blamed for any fault they didn't do (µ= 1.95), and that even they have done wrong, no negative comments were delivered to them (µ= 1.95).).However, all these studies commonly assume that the proper functioning of a restaurant demands work teams to accept a hierarchical structure and submit to a quasi-military style of discipline.In this context, verbal and even physical violence toward young and considerably inexperience members of a team are accepted as normal and inherent to the profession, as well as necessary for their socialization and professional development.However, Mathiesen et al. (2010) determined a higher prevalence of bullying in upscale restaurants.

T a b l e 4 D e s c r i p t i ve S t a t i s t i c s R e s u l t o n L e ve l o f W o r k p la c e B u l ly i n g E x p e r ie n c e
Furthermore, according to Dolan (2011), if a manager or leader does not intervene with the employee during a perceived period of Isolation, the employee's motivation may decrease, resulting in poor work performance.Isolation is the most emotionally painful experience a mentally healthy person can endure.Therefore, Isolation is a primary tactic used to punish or torture.
Table 5 shows the data that ascertain the level of employee productivity.Results showed a significant disagreement that employee disagrees that there is a decline in their satisfaction with their work (µ= 1.79) and that each of them disagree more that they cannot meet deadlines (µ= 1.91) and commit mistakes or errors while on-the-job (µ=1.91).
Workplace bullying has a negative impact on job satisfaction, which directly impacts the productivity of people who witness or are subjected to bullying (PsychTests AIM Inc, 2009).For instance, in a study among Norwegian union members, 27% guaranteed that it decreased their employee's and organization's productivity (Einarsen et al., 2018).However, some experts argue that bullying practices do not reduce productivity because employees will continue to work even if they are bullied.As a result, there is a moderate association between people's attitudes toward their occupations and productivity, as measured by production and even work quality.7 that employee disagree with statements of this research that pertains to their neglect of contributing to the increase of sales and income of the establishment.In detail, respondents disagree that enthusiasm in accommodating customer orders and reservations is neglected (µ= 1.81) and also disagree that they are not motivated to offer new products of the restaurant (µ= 1.90) and do not offer profitable food products (µ= 1.90).

T a b l e 5 D e s c r i p t i ve S t a t i s t i c s R e s u l t o n L e ve l o f E m p lo y e e P r o d u c t i v i t y
The findings of the study are supported by Harrison Psychological Associates (2020), which reports the business costs of bullying to employers where people are being harassed.The business pays in losses of productivity, turnover, operating cost, and the quality of product/service deliverables.While bullying incidents are allowed to strengthen in their frequency, the loyalties of your employees weaken.This results in businesses losing valuable human resource investments, the loyal, trained, and seasoned employees the employer nurtured over many years.As a result, when interacting with customers, salespeople are frequently obliged to participate in adaptive actions.Furthermore, one of the most well-established lines of sales force research is adaptive selling behavior (Wessels, 2011).During the study, the perception of respondents on workplace bullying, performance, teamwork and participation in sales and income have been ascertained.In the observation of experiencing workplace bullying, through descriptive statistics, results showed that respondents from Table 8 disagree (µ= 1.8958) that they are experiencing bullying in their workplace.A manager has been interviewed and attested to this result, explaining that service crews do have rapport during service operations.Also, analysis on productivity (µ= 1.8429), teamwork performance (µ=1.8968), and employee contribution to sales and income (µ= 1.8635), through descriptive analysis, showed that respondents disagree that employees illustrate low levels of productivity, participate in teamwork performance and concern in boosting sales and income of the organization.

T a b l e 7 D e s c r i p t i ve S t a t i s t i c s R e s u l t o n E m p l o y e e C o n t r ib u t io n t o S a le s a n d I n c o m e o f t h e Es t a b l is h m e n t
According to Buddy (2011), in hospitality businesses, such as restaurants or commercial kitchens, bullying commonly occurs.Long work hours, heavy workloads, isolations, and high standards in hospitality kitchens lead to a high-stress level.Thus, the abusive practices might be ways for them to release stress.Furthermore, Ram (2015) argued that bullying could become part of work culture.However, regardless of whether bullying is accepted or is part of organizational culture, it is anti-social behavior.In the aim to observe the relationship of the respondent's (n=126) experience with workplace bullying, Pearson-r was used to determine the relationship.Results from the data gathered in this study, as illustrated in table 9, show that there is a significant relationship between workplace bullying experience and employee productivity, teamwork performance and contribution to sales and income with a p-value of <0.01.Furthermore, results show that the three constructs, namely Employee Productivity (rs=.815),Employee Teamwork Performance (rs=.794), and Employee Contribution to Sales and Income (rs=.807),illustrate a strong positive correlation, rejecting the null hypothesis of this research that claims that there is no significant relationship between workplace bullying experience and the employee's productivity, teamwork performance and contribution to sales and income.

Summary of Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations
This chapter presents the summary of findings from the data gathered with statistical analysis.Conclusions were drawn from the research hypothesis and then supplemented with recommendations.

Summary of Findings
The study aimed to assess the impact of workplace bullying on the employees' productivity, teamwork participation and to contribution to sales and income to the food service establishments.
The survey instrument used in this research was adapted from Ping Gong (2017) about workplace bullying in the hospitality industry.An additional reference instrument was used in the study adapted from Claudia Akaaba Afful (2010) in her study about workplace bullying and its impact on employees' productivity.
The following are the answers to the specific problems identified in Chapter I.
The observation from the perception of respondents on workplace bullying, performance, teamwork, and participation showed that respondents disagree (µ= 1.8958) that they are experiencing bullying in their workplace because, according to a manager, the service crews are shoring rapport during their operations.In addition, the analysis on productivity, teamwork performance (µ=1.8968), and employee contribution to sales and income showed that respondents disagree that they illustrate low levels of productivity, participation in teamwork performance and concern in boosting sales and income of the organization.

Problem 1:
The assessment of the level of workplace bullying in the food service industry in terms of Isolation and personal status threat.It has been observed that the employees completely disagree with experiencing workplace bullying because they are showing smiles while they are working, as explained by a manager.Employees never felt that they were excluded from any work-related social activity (µ= 1.79) and felt no rejection from other members when they inquired for work-related information (µ= 1.79).Moreover, employees disagree that workplace bullying is present in their organization because they experience being appreciated (µ= 1.95), given praise for performing tasks and never blamed for any fault they did not do (µ= 1.95), and that even if they have done wrong, no negative comments were delivered to them (µ= 1.95).It seems that there is no experience of Isolation and professional threat among the service crews.
A significant amount of research evidence suggests that workplace bullying has severe negative impacts on employees' health and well-being, organizational performance, and social context.The negative effects of workplace bullying on an individual include psychological illness, which could cause loss of self-image and respect.In addition to the impacts on the recipients, studies have shown that those who have observed or witnessed workplace bullying are also likely to experience some if the negative consequences.(Hoel et al., 2011).
Moreover, according to Dolan (2011), if a manager or leader does not intervene with the employee during a time of perceived Isolation, the employee's motivation on the job may decrease and result in a lack of performance.Isolation is the most emotionally painful experience a mentally healthy person can endure.That is why Isolation is a primary tactic used to punish or torture.It is the bully's most harmful weapon.
Problem 2: The assessment of the respondents on employee productivity, teamwork performance and contribution to sales and income of the food service industry.
The study ascertained the level of employee productivity showed a significant disagreement that employees experience declines in their satisfaction with their work (µ= 1.79), and each of them disagreed that they could not meet deadlines (µ= 1.91) and commit mistakes or errors while on-the-job (µ=1.91).However, there is a difficulty in determining the direct effect of bullying on productivity, as this tends to be as a result of different factors such as health, dissatisfaction, sickness, absenteeism, and turnover, among others (Giga, Hoel & Lewis, 2010).Hence, some researchers believe that bullying behaviors do not appear to weaken productivity since employees will still perform even when faced with bullying incidents.As such, a modest relationship is found between people's attitudes toward their jobs and their productivity, as measured by output and even the quality of their work.Correspondingly, Giga, Hoel and Lewis (2010) also state that there is little doubt that bullying will affect productivity.
The respondents highly observe teamwork performance since they disagree that within the organization, only a few of them do not help or get involved in teams when accomplishing different tasks (µ= 1.87) and further showing relative teamwork as the respondents disagree that they are not interested to show-up for work (µ= 1.92).Though according to Gevers (2010), workplace bullying influences effective teamwork behaviors, including coordination, performance monitoring, and backup behavior.Given the importance of teamwork within workplace relationships, damage to teamwork will fracture relationships in the workplace (Hess & Sneed, 2012).
Furthermore, employees disagree with statements that pertain to their neglect of contributing to the increase of sales and income of the establishment because most of the service crews are participating in up-selling products.In detail, respondents disagree that enthusiasm in accommodating customer orders and reservations is neglected (µ= 1.81) and disagree that they are not motivated to offer new products of the restaurant (µ= 1.90) and do not offer profitable food products (µ= 1.90).Thus, salespeople are often required to engage in adaptive behaviors when interacting with customers.Adaptive selling behavior (Wessels, 2011) represents one of the most established streams of sales force research.Recent meta-analytical evidence supports the significance of this relationship (Franke & Park, 2006).Also, there is agreement amongst sales force researchers that adaptive selling behavior positively affects salesperson performance (Challagalla & Shervani, 2006).
Problem 3: The relationship between workplace bullying and employee productivity, teamwork performance and contribution to sales and income in food service establishments.
The study showed that there is a significant relationship between workplace bullying experience and employee productivity, teamwork performance and contribution to sales and income with a p-value of <0.01.It also showed that the three constructs, namely Employee Productivity (rs=.815),Employee Teamwork Performance (rs=.794), and Employee Contribution to Sales and Income (rs=.807),illustrated a strong positive correlation that rejected the null hypothesis of this research that claims that there is no significant relationship between workplace bullying experience and the employee's productivity, teamwork performance and contribution to sales and income.

Conclusions
The following conclusions are hereby drawn from the findings of the study: 1.
Employees completely disagree with experiencing workplace bullying and never felt that they were excluded from any work-related social activity.Most of the employees felt no rejection from other members when they inquired about work-related information, and they disagreed that workplace bullying is present in their organization.

2.
Employees agreed that they did not experience declined satisfaction in their work, nor did they cannot meet deadlines and commit mistakes or errors while on the job.The respondents highly observed teamwork and showed relative teamwork as the respondents disagreed that they were not interested in showing up for work.Moreover, employees disagree that they neglect contributing efforts to the increase of sales and income of the establishment.Employees disagree that they are not expressing enthusiasm in accommodating customer orders, and reservations are often neglected; they also disagree that they are not motivated to offer new restaurant products and do not offer profitable food products.

3.
The study showed that there is a significant relationship between workplace bullying experience and employee productivity, teamwork performance and contribution to sales and income with a p-value of <0.01.It also showed that the three constructs, namely Employee Productivity (rs=.815),Employee Teamwork Performance (rs=.794), and Employee Contribution to Sales and Income (rs=.807),illustrated a strong positive correlation that rejected the null hypothesis of this research that claims that there is no significant relationship between workplace bullying experience and the employee's productivity, teamwork performance and contribution to sales and income.

Recommendations
The recommendations that follow were based on the findings and conclusions derived from this study: 1.
Considering that the respondents do not experience bullying in their workplaces, it is not an assurance that all of them are the same.Some maybe afraid to express their situations because of peer pressure since most of them are young employees.Such individual queries may also be done by the managers for more in-depth information and guarantee that it will be treated with confidentiality and may be used to improve employee welfare.

2.
In spite of that, the employees agreed they did not experience a decline in satisfaction in their work, nor did they cannot meet deadlines and commit mistakes or errors while on-the-job.Managers should periodically conduct briefings or consistent coaching so that the service crews would feel comfortable and might share just in case they are already experiencing offensive gestures from their fellow employees.Teamwork performance is highly observed by the respondents and should be maintained by the managers through being proactive, particularly during peak hours, showing that even managers can also do the tasks of service crews.Up-selling should also be initiated by the managers, not only the service crews so that they will be more enthusiastic.

3.
Indeed, from the study, there is a significant relationship between workplace bullying experience and employee productivity, teamwork performance and contribution to sales and income; however, it does not affect the working relationship of the employees.Managers should think of activities to make the employees more involved in the service operations and express value to the contributions of the employees, particularly with sales and teamwork.Managers can sometimes provide incentives from their personal pockets or salary, so these young employees will be even more cooperative.However, managers should not forget to always explain what teamwork could do in an individual but, most importantly, to achieve the company goals that will prolong the store operations life.

Table 1
Respondents of the Study

Table 3
Rating Scale with Verbal Interpretation Limited research regarding workplace bullying has been conducted since then, and most of the studies have focused on the hospitality sector, such as hotels, bars, restaurants, catering contractors, fast food establishments, and cafeterias.(Meloury and Signal.2014; Alexander et al., 2012; Mathisen et al., 2010

Table 6
results show that teamwork performance is highly observed by the respondents since they disagree that within the organization, only a few of them do not help or get involved in teams when accomplishing different tasks (µ= 1.87) and further showing relative teamwork as the respondents disagree that they are not interested to show-up for work (µ= 1.92).The findings of the study find support Agarwaal and Adjirackor (2016) that workplace bullying impacts effective teamwork behaviors such as coordination, performance monitoring, and backup behavior.Because teamwork is so important in professional relationships, any damage to teamwork can cause workplace relationships to fall apart.Moreover, the teamwork success in reducing the impact of bullying on employee performance demonstrates that the role or function of good teamwork can lessen the impact of bullying.The characteristics and personal attitudes of good individuals, the establishment of a sense of kinship or friendship will make other work team members more interested in synergizing and reducing the intention to do bullying (Mete and Sökmen, 2016), (Chesler, 2014), (Bano, 2016) (Carroll and Lauzier, 2014), and (Ndegwa and Moronge, 2016).
(Einarsen et al., 2018) from the study fromEinarsen (2018)that bullying is common within the workplace.Perceived co-worker discourteous behavior has a significant influence on employees, customers, and organizations.Past studies have explored that workplace bullying has a relationship with employees' and organizations' productivity(Einarsen et al., 2018), employee teamwork Agarwaal and Adjirackor (2016), and employee's contribution to sales and income (Wessels.2011).Several studies also support that bullying has a negative effect on an individual's behavior and then causes negative results such as decreased work engagement (Torkelson, Holm & Backstrom, 2016., Smith, Morin & Lake, 2017; Smith, Morin & Lake, 2018).