Amplifying unheard voices or fueling conflict? Exploring the impact of leader narcissism and workplace bullying in the tourism industry

Azazz, Alaa M. S. et al. Article Amplifying unheard voices or fueling conflict? Exploring the impact of leader narcissism and workplace bullying in the tourism industry Administrative Sciences Provided in Cooperation with: MDPI – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Basel Suggested Citation: Azazz, Alaa M. S. et al. (2024) : Amplifying unheard voices or fueling conflict? Exploring the impact of leader narcissism and workplace bullying in the tourism industry, Administrative Sciences, ISSN 2076-3387, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 14, Iss. 12, pp. 1-15, https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14120344 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/321146 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Citation: Azazz, Alaa M. S., Ibrahim A. Elshaer, Mansour Alyahya, Tamer Ahmed Abdulaziz, Walaa Moustafa Elwardany, and Sameh Fayyad. 2024. Amplifying Unheard Voices or Fueling Conflict? Exploring the Impact of Leader Narcissism and Workplace Bullying in the Tourism Industry. Administrative Sciences 14: 344. https://doi.org/10.3390/ admsci14120344 Received: 24 November 2024 Revised: 16 December 2024 Accepted: 18 December 2024 Published: 20 December 2024 Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). Article Amplifying Unheard Voices or Fueling Conflict? Exploring the Impact of Leader Narcissism and Workplace Bullying in the Tourism Industry Alaa M. S. Azazz 1,* , Ibrahim A. Elshaer 2,* , Mansour Alyahya 2, Tamer Ahmed Abdulaziz 3, Walaa Moustafa Elwardany 3and Sameh Fayyad 4 1Department of Social Studies, Arts College, King Faisal University, Al-Hofuf 380, Al-Ahsaa, Saudi Arabia 2Department of Management, College of Business Administration, King Faisal University, Al-Hofuf 380, Al-Ahsaa, Saudi Arabia; [email protected] 3Tourism Studies Department, High Institute for Tourism and Hotels (6 October), Giza 12573, Egypt; dr[email protected] (T.A.A.); dr[email protected] (W.M.E.) 4Hotel Studies Department, Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Suez Canal University, Ismailia 41522, Egypt; [email protected] *Correspondence: [email protected] (A.M.S.A.); [email protected] (I.A.E.) Abstract: The hospitality industry, well-known for its energetic and people-intensive nature, frequently depends on effective leadership to motivate teamwork and safeguard sustainable operational success. Nevertheless, leadership approaches may significantly influence workplace dynamics and leader narcissism appears to be a probable disruptor. This study explores the dual-edged influence of leader narcissism in the hospitality industry, specifically in determining employee unheard voice behavior and bullying in the workplace. While leader narcissism can amplify unheard voices by nurturing an environment where staff feel forced to speak up, it can also fuel workplace conflict by generating toxic interactions and advancing bullying in the workplace. This research utilized a self-administrated questionnaire, collecting data from employees in five-star hotels and category (A) tourism companies in Cairo, Egypt, from May to August 2024 through a convenience sampling technique. Of the 425 distributed questionnaires, 394 valid responses were received, and Smart PLS-3.0 was employed for hypothesis testing. The study’s findings indicate that employee voice behavior positively influences workplace bullying. There exists a favorable correlation between employee voice behavior and leader narcissism. Moreover, leader narcissism is proven to have a positive relationship with workplace bullying. Leader narcissism was recognized as a mediating variable in the connection between employee voice behavior and workplace bullying. While previous research has investigated how these factors influence work-related outcomes in broader organizational settings, this study focuses on their implications in tourism and hospitality. Additionally, the study delves into how leader narcissism mediates the connection between employee voice behavior and workplace bullying in the tourism industry. By highlighting and exploring the complexities of leader narcissism and its influence on workplace interrelationships, this research paper may offer valuable insights for top managers, policymakers, and academics seeking to generate healthier and more productive workplace environments in the tourism industry. Keywords: employee unheard voice behavior; workplace bullying; leader narcissism; tourism; hospitality 1. Introduction The workforce of an organization is arguably its most valuable asset, specifically in the labor-intensive tourism industry (Elshaer and Marzouk 2019). Workers in these sectors often encounter ethical dilemmas such as heavy workloads, inadequate compensation, bullying, and narcissistic leadership, leading to high turnover and absenteeism rates ( Hefny 2021 ;Aboramadan et al. 2021;Li et al. 2024). Regrettably, workplace bullying Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 344. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14120344 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/admsci Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 344 2 of 15 presents a key challenge in this field, eroding collaboration and the overall business climate, impacting regions worldwide (Wahba et al. 2023). The tourism and hospitality sector faces social risks due to frequent reports of mistreatment and bullying from employees (Srivastava et al. 2024). Workplace bullying can be described as a scenario where one or multiple individuals feel persistently subjected to negative actions or behavior from one or more individuals over an extended period. In such situations, the target encounters challenges in effectively defending themselves against these behaviors (Xiang et al. 2023). Workplace bullying is identified by a set of defining aspects, which include enduring recurrent and frequent undesirable offensive actions, prolonged duration of exposure to such mistreatment, an evident power inequality between those responsible for the bullying and the individuals targeted, as well as a prevailing sense of persecution resulting from the harassment experienced (Reknes et al. 2020;Krishna et al. 2023). Scholars noted that employees in the tourism industry are more vulnerable to suffer from recurrent conflicts and bullying in the workplace because of high pressure at work and the increased job demands, schedules that disrupt work–life balance, overwhelming workloads, time constraints that create intense work rhythms, repetitive and monotonous tasks that restrict creativity and individual initiative, frequent interactions with customers that can lead to tense situations escalating to harassment or violence, and inadequate training or experience in certain positions which can affect productivity and the quality of services (Xiang et al. 2023). Almost 16% of employees were subjected to undesirable behavior in the workplace in the tourism industry (Srivastava et al. 2024). Numerous research studies have detailed the negative impacts associated with workplace bullying. This phenomenon has been linked to heightened levels of individual emotional exhaustion and anti-productive actions (Srivastava and Dey 2020; Jung and Yoon 2018). Moreover, within the realm of organizational behavior, workplace bullying was found to have a detrimental influence on job performance, intentions to leave employment, absenteeism rates, as well as employee voice behavior (Khalique et al. 2018; Khan et al. 2021b;Valentine and Fleischman 2018). Employee voice behavior underscores the endeavors of employees to propose innovative ideas for change, even in the face of opposition or disagreement from others (Tabrizi et al. 2023 ). Employee voice holds considerable importance for workers’ wellbeing, job performance, innovation and creativity, and internal organizational culture (Huang et al. 2023) . Previous evidence suggests that voice behavior can create favorable outcomes such as improved job performance and workplace efficiency (Frazier and Bowler 2015 ). While the intention behind workers voicing their constructive suggestions is to support organizations in applying positive procedures, improving organizational efficiency, and fostering job satisfaction, employee voice may also influence the likelihood of bullying in the workplace (Liang and Yeh 2019;Jung and Yoon 2018;Alzyoud et al. 2024). Conversely, employee voice behaviors have been explored through the lens of different leadership styles, incorporating “transformational leadership” (TL) (Zhu et al. 2012) and “authentic leadership” (Hannah et al. 2011). The main findings from these empirical studies suggest that these leadership styles may positively impact the employees’ voice behavior. In contrast, other research finds that narcissistic leadership is adversely connected to employee voice behavior (Carnevale et al. 2018a;Liao et al. 2019). Narcissism means feeling important and superior and focusing on oneself ( Li et al. 2024 ). The significance of narcissism within organizational contexts cannot be understated because many leaders show narcissistic behaviors (Owens et al. 2015). Consequently, researchers in the organizational domain have progressively highlighted the impact of leader narcissism in work environments (Carnevale et al. 2018b;Zhang et al. 2022). Recent empirical studies have highlighted the association between leader narcissism and negative responses from subordinates, such as decreased job engagement, reluctance to speak up, reduced willingness to assist others, and limited innovative behaviors (e.g., Carnevale et al. 2018a ; Fehn and Schütz 2021; Norouzinik et al. 2022). Although leader narcissism has been extensively studied in management, its impacts within the tourism industry have not been Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 344 3 of 15 adequately investigated (Aboramadan et al. 2021). The tourism industry can be considered as one of the sectors where employees commonly encounter significant job demands and unfavorable treatment from their superiors (Wang et al. 2021; Shum 2020) . Due to the demanding work environment and centralized organizational structures prevalent in tourism organizations, there is a need to explore the implications of leader narcissism in this specific context. Even though there is growing scholarly attention towards investigating the interrelationships between bullying in the workplace, employee voice behavior, and leader narcissism, there is currently no comprehensive overview of this subject within the specific context of tourism and hospitality literature. Consequently, there is a need for a thorough and holistic review of the nexus between leader narcissism and employee voice behavior specifically within the tourism industry context. This is because the findings from existing systematic reviews conducted in general business settings may not directly apply to the tourism context’s unique characteristics. For example, the tourism industry often has a more centralized business structure (Aboramadan et al. 2021) and experiences higher customer interaction levels than other business sectors. These unique characteristics may affect the dynamics between leadership traits, such as narcissism, and employee voice behavior in ways that broader business research does not address. Consequently, a targeted investigation of this relationship within the tourism and hospitality sector is essential to yield insights specific to this context (Li et al. 2024). The mechanisms by which specific factors influence this correlation, and the strength of their effects may vary from those in other industries. Furthermore, some unique antecedents of this relationship may not be captured in the systematic reviews of research conducted in broader business literature. To bridge these gaps, this study, focusing on the tourism industry, investigates the relationship between employee voice behavior and bullying in the workplace, examines the impact between employee voice behavior and leader narcissism, analyses the correlation between leader narcissism and bullying in the workplace, and explores the mediating role of leader narcissism in the relationship between employee voice behavior and bullying in the workplace. Researching the correlation between employee voice behavior, leader narcissism, and workplace bullying in the tourism and hospitality industry is crucial for enhancing employee well-being and job satisfaction. Understanding how leader narcissism affects these dynamics can help create a supportive work environment. By uncovering the influence of toxic leadership on employee interactions, organizations can implement interventions to promote a healthier workplace culture. Exploring this relationship provides insights into organizational culture, guiding the cultivation of a positive work environment with open communication and mutual respect This paper is structured as follows: Section 2presents the theoretical framework and hypothesis development. Sections 3and 4detail the research methodology and data analysis, respectively. The discussion and the theoretical implications are presented in Section 5, while Section 6addresses the practical implications. The conclusion of the study is presented in Section 7. Finally, the limitations and suggestions for future research directions are provided in Section 8. 2. Theoretical Framework and Hypothesis Development 2.1. Employee Voice Behavior and Workplace Bullying Employee voice can be conceptualized as “speaking out and challenging the status quo to improve the situation” (Huang et al. 2023). It encompasses employees’ efforts to generate creative suggestions for unexpected changes, even if other people disagree (Tabrizi et al. 2023) .Elsetouhi et al. (2023) explained that voice behavior is derived from the employees’ deep desire to change and argue the current scenario to enhance regulatory signals as they require and not because of deep fear or pressure. Lu and Gursoy (2024) referred to employee voice as any voluntary behavior and action shown by employees to express their feelings, interests, and concerns about work-related challenges to their Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 344 4 of 15 leaders. As per Ghani and Malik (2023), employee voice (EV) has two types. The first arises when employees show dissatisfaction at work and openly state their opinions, suggestions, and problems without that being related to their resignation. The second occurs when employees offer suggestions and solutions for advancing the organization’s practices and actively share these suggestions during decision-making meetings. According to Liang and Yeh (2019), employee voice is intended to enhance current conditions but can also create negative perceptions that affect the relationships of those who voice their concerns. They noted that when employees advocate for changes to the status quo, those who disagree with these actions may resort to bullying and harassment against them. Workplace bullying consists of repetitive harassment behaviors, including verbal abuse, a power inequality between perpetrators and victims, frequent negative actions, and persistent hostility (Park and Ono 2017). The International Labor Organization (ILO) defines workplace bullying as “offensive behavior characterized by vindictive, cruel, malicious, or humiliating attempts to undermine an individual or groups of employees” (Wieser and Mata-Greenwood 2013). Scholars view workplace bullying as “a situation in which one or more individuals perceive themselves to be continually affected by the negative behaviors of one or more individuals over a period of time, and in which the target has difficulty defending themselves against these behaviors” (Xiang et al. 2023). In their study, Anasori et al. (2023) argued that a bullied individual is psychologically affected, and this could negatively affect their situation, with bullying considered an output of energy leading to exhaustion. According to Wahba et al. (2023 ), workplace bullying refers to situations in which an employee, whatever their position, is systematically and frequently victimized or mistreated by peers, subordinates, or supervisors. This negative behavior leads to several detrimental consequences, including an intention to leave the job, minimizing the self-confidence of mistreated employees, maximizing absenteeism, reducing productivity, and negatively affecting job performance. Bullying behaviors can manifest in different ways, such as by appointing unreasonable responsibilities; setting intolerable schedules; withholding confidential information; and participating in more personal unfavorable actions like verbal and non-verbal abuse, unjustified criticism, and spreading unpleasant rumors (Caponecchia et al. 2020 ). According to Singh and Srivastava (2023), workplace bullying is described by the following four key features: “(1) being exposed to repetitive and recurrent unwelcomed offensive behaviors; (2) subjected to a long-time frame; (3) power discrepancy between the perpetrators and the target); and (4) feeling of being mistreated and harassment” (Krishna et al. 2023; Reknes et al. 2020;Nielsen and Einarsen 2018;Coetzee and van Dyk 2018). In this context, it is confirmed that high unemployment can greatly affect workplace bullying, as individuals often feel compelled to endure abusive behaviors due to concerns about job security. Research shows that experiencing workplace bullying is linked to an increased risk of long-term unemployment. One study revealed that individuals who faced bullying had an odds ratio of 4.6 for being unemployed five years later, underscoring the negative consequences of bullying on job stability and career advancement ( Glambek et al. 2015) . Moreover, in environments where job opportunities are scarce, employers may exploit this vulnerability, leading to a culture where bullying is tolerated or overlooked. This dynamic can create a cycle where victims of bullying are less likely to report their experiences due to fear of retaliation or job loss, further perpetuating the problem (Cowan et al. 2021). Interpreting the interrelationship between employee voice and workplace bullying in the tourism and hospitality industry still shows a lot of mixed results, and the available research is relatively limited. Several studies discussed the correlation between employee voice and its potential outcomes, such as job satisfaction (Yuan et al. 2023); service recovery performance (Alzyoud et al. 2024); coping strategies, and counterproductive behavior (Jung and Yoon 2018); job stress; job performance; organizational commitment (Wahba et al. 2023 ); employee emotional exhaustion (Said and Tanova 2021); and employees’ turnover intention (Biswakarma et al. 2024). While these studies discussed the rela- Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 344 5 of 15 tionship between employee voice and bullying in the workplace, they are still limited in other fields. Khan et al. (2021b) explored the link between employee voice and bullying in the workplace and the study findings support a positive relationship. Liang’s (2021) and Liang and Yeh’s (2019) study results were also in line with the study conducted by Khan et al. (2021b). In light of these findings, the following hypothesis is proposed: Hypothesis 1. Employee voice behavior is positively correlated with workplace bullying. 2.2. Employee Voice Behavior and Leader Narcissism The concept of “narcissism” originated form the word “narcissus”, which implies the following three main characteristics: “(1) inflated self-concept; (2) interpersonal exploitation; and (3) inordinate need for tribute from others” (Liao et al. 2019). Narcissism is explained by following “a highly inflated, excessively positive, and exaggerated view of oneself” (Neufeld and Johnson 2016). Narcissists consistently display delusions of grandeur, superiority, and anxious competitiveness (Li et al. 2023). Previous studies have confirmed that narcissism can have a contradictory impact on workplace behaviors ( Grijalva and Newman 2015 ). Similarly, narcissism is a main driver of hostile workplace deviation, such as abusive supervision, which is connected with charismatic, assertive, and many other seemingly positive behaviors (Waldman et al. 2018). When a leader demonstrates narcissistic personality traits, this manifests in four key ways as follows (Li et al. 2023 ): (1) Charisma: they might have strong social communication skills, foresight, and an appealing appearance. (2) Egoistic motives: they are repeatedly guided by selfserving wants rather than the company’s benefits. (3) Deceptive motives: they employ manipulative tactics such as thought management or insincere issues to use others for their benefit. (4) Knowledge inhibition: they are very sensitive to others’ criticism, eager for praise, and hostile towards any negative feedback. Consequently, while narcissistic leaders can inspire their followers and stimulate initiative, they also present a perplexing and potentially harmful dynamic. Previous studies show limited direct empirical evidence examining the interrelationship among leader narcissism and the voice behavior of employees in the tourism industry. However, research in other fields suggests that leader narcissism can indirectly impact employee voice. For instance, Yao et al. (2019) found that when subordinates perceive their supervisors as selfish and prone to suppressing knowledge, they are less likely to give adverse feedback about the company, preventing critical information from reaching leadership. Other scholars note that leader narcissism lowers employees’ trust in their leader, which is in turn related to increased employee silence (Hamstra et al. 2021). Additionally, Hooseini et al. (2023) argue that narcissistic leaders’ actions and behaviors emotionally damage those who follow them and stop them by responding destructively to their criticism. subordinates who perceive their supervisors as narcissistic are more likely to view the manager’s behavior as self-serving rather than prosocial. These differing perceptions of the leader’s impression management tactics can impact the quality of the leader-member exchange, influencing employee voice behavior. While direct evidence is limited in the tourism and hospitality context, these findings from other sectors suggest that leader narcissism may indirectly hinder employee voice by eroding trust, promoting silence, and shaping perceptions of the leader’s motivations (Liao et al. 2019). In line with previous discussion, the hypothesis below is suggested: Hypothesis 2. Employee voice behavior is positively correlated with leader narcissism. 2.3. Leader Narcissism and Bullying in the Workplace The correlation between leader narcissism and workplace bullying is significant and multifaceted, as evidenced by various research findings. A study by Qayyum et al. (2020), showed that narcissism is positively related to counterproductive workplace behaviors, including interpersonal aggression and sabotage. Narcissistic leaders are hypersensitive Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 344 6 of 15 to threats to their ego, leading them to react aggressively when they feel challenged. This aggression can take the form of bullying, where the narcissistic leader targets subordinates to assert dominance and control. Another study by Jaffar et al. (2022) showed that managers’ narcissism is positively linked with cynicism and workplace bullying. The presence of a narcissistic leader can foster a culture of bullying within an organization. When such leaders engage in bullying behaviors, it can normalize these actions and encourage similar behaviors among other employees. This creates an environment where bullying is tolerated or even expected, further perpetuating the cycle of abuse and toxicity in the workplace. Conversely, Khan et al. (2021a) argued that negative work environment (i.e., bullying in the workplace) and narcissistic managers are some antecedents that destructively impact the productivity of individuals in the banking business. The study of Khan et al. (2021a) supported the previous arguments in the banking and telecommunications sectors and found a direct positive correlation between narcissistic leaders and workplace bullying, which is exacerbated by employee silence. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed: Hypothesis 3. Leader narcissism is positively correlated with bullying in the workplace. 2.4. Leader Narcissism as a Mediator Between Employee Voice Behavior and Bullying in the Workplace In the context of leader narcissism, acting as a mediator between the investigated variables (voice behavior and workplace bullying), research is limited in the field of tourism industry. This role can be better understood through several key findings. Firstly, previous studies by Hooseini et al. (2023) and Hamstra et al. (2021) have emphasized the positive interrelationship between employee voice behavior and bullying in the workplace. They suggested that employees who speak up, provide feedback, or raise concerns may be more vulnerable to negative repercussions like bullying if their input is not well received. Secondly, research by Yao et al. (2019), Hamstra et al. (2021), and Hooseini et al. (2023) have highlighted the positive impact between employee voice behavior and leader narcissism. Employee voice behavior leads to increased interactions with a narcissistic leader. Due to their self-centered nature, a narcissistic leader may react negatively to employee voice behavior, perceiving it as a challenge to their authority or ego. Thirdly, studies by Jaffar et al. (2022) ,Khan et al. (2021a), and Qayyum et al. (2020) showed a positive link between leader narcissism and bullying in the workplace. When such leaders engage in bullying behaviors, it can normalize these actions and encourage similar behaviors among other employees. Building upon these established correlations, this study suggests the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 4. Leader narcissism mediates the relationship between employee voice behavior and bullying in the workplace. Building on the literature discussed in the preceding sections, this study introduces a conceptual model (Figure 1) that outlines the hypothesized relationships among the study variables. Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 16 Figure 1. The research model. 3. Research Methodology A quantitative research paradigm was employed to explore the impact of leader narcissism and workplace bullying in the tourism industry. In this paradigm, the related literature was critically reviewed to design the conceptual framework and justify the research hypotheses, and then, valid and reliable measures were derived from previous literature to develop the study questionnaire. Accordingly, a structured questionnaire was designed and delivered to the targeted sample. Finally, the data collected were analyzed with PLS-SEM. 3.1. Scale Advancement A survey was created to evaluate the research hypotheses, and the study’s metrics were derived from previous studies. The employee voice behavior (EVB) was assessed using five items derived from Maynes and Podsakoff (2014). The workplace bullying variable was measured using a seven-item scale developed by Einarsen et al. (2009). Finally, six items from Hochwarter and Thompson (2012) were used to measure perceived supervisor narcissism (PSN). A 5-point Likert-style response format was employed, with one signifying “strongly disagree” and five representing “strongly agree.” 3.2. Respondents and Data Acquisition Procedure The questionnaires were directed at employees of five-star hotels (20 hotels) and category (A) tourism companies (19 companies) located in Cairo, Egypt, during the period from May to August 2024 using convenience sampling techniques. The research team shared the online questionnaires with hotel and tourism company managers to help us collect data. A total of 31 of the 425 questionnaires collected were disregarded due to inadequate responses. As a result, 394 questionnaires from 243 employees of hotels and 151 employees of tourism companies were found to be valid. Participants were informed that their agreement to participate in the survey meant that they had agreed to an informed consent process and had the option to engage in the study or decline. Participants were informed that their answers would be analyzed statistically and kept in strict confidentiality. Additionally, an independent sample test was conducted to check whether there were any differences between the study samples (samples collected from hotels and tourism companies), and it was found that there were no significant differences, so the samples were treated as one sample. 4. Data Analysis The suggested hypotheses of the model were tested using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). This method evaluates the relationships between constructs in the inner model as well as their interactions with latent variables in the outer model. It is particularly well-suited for complex research models that involve interaction Figure 1. The research model. Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 344 7 of 15 3. Research Methodology A quantitative research paradigm was employed to explore the impact of leader narcissism and workplace bullying in the tourism industry. In this paradigm, the related literature was critically reviewed to design the conceptual framework and justify the research hypotheses, and then, valid and reliable measures were derived from previous literature to develop the study questionnaire. Accordingly, a structured questionnaire was designed and delivered to the targeted sample. Finally, the data collected were analyzed with PLS-SEM. 3.1. Scale Advancement A survey was created to evaluate the research hypotheses, and the study’s metrics were derived from previous studies. The employee voice behavior (EVB) was assessed using five items derived from Maynes and Podsakoff (2014). The workplace bullying variable was measured using a seven-item scale developed by Einarsen et al. (2009). Finally, six items from Hochwarter and Thompson (2012) were used to measure perceived supervisor narcissism (PSN). A 5-point Likert-style response format was employed, with one signifying “strongly disagree” and five representing “strongly agree”. 3.2. Respondents and Data Acquisition Procedure The questionnaires were directed at employees of five-star hotels (20 hotels) and category (A) tourism companies (19 companies) located in Cairo, Egypt, during the period from May to August 2024 using convenience sampling techniques. The research team shared the online questionnaires with hotel and tourism company managers to help us collect data. A total of 31 of the 425 questionnaires collected were disregarded due to inadequate responses. As a result, 394 questionnaires from 243 employees of hotels and 151 employees of tourism companies were found to be valid. Participants were informed that their agreement to participate in the survey meant that they had agreed to an informed consent process and had the option to engage in the study or decline. Participants were informed that their answers would be analyzed statistically and kept in strict confidentiality. Additionally, an independent sample test was conducted to check whether there were any differences between the study samples (samples collected from hotels and tourism companies), and it was found that there were no significant differences, so the samples were treated as one sample. 4. Data Analysis The suggested hypotheses of the model were tested using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). This method evaluates the relationships between constructs in the inner model as well as their interactions with latent variables in the outer model. It is particularly well-suited for complex research models that involve interaction effects (moderation) and indirect effects (mediation). Additionally, the Smart PLS-3.0 software provides a user-friendly graphical interface, making it more accessible compared to tools like AMOS. This approach has also been widely adopted in prior research studies. The model was assessed through a two-step sequential method recommended by Leguina (2015). 4.1. Assessment of Outer Measurement Model The research examined convergent (CV) and discriminant validity (DV) to assess the outer model. Table 1displays Cronbach’s alpha ( α ) (ranging from 0.863 to 0.920), composite reliability (CR) values (varying between 0.901 and 0.937), and factor loading (SFL) scores (spanning from 0.715 to 0.891), indicating satisfactory cut-off levels (>0.70) (Hair et al. 2019). Additionally, the average variance extracted (AVE) scores were above 0.50, and in turn, CV was proved (Henseler et al. 2009). Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 344 8 of 15 Table 1. External model assessment metrics. Parameters Loading VIF αC_R AVE Employee Voice Behavior (EVB) 0.863 0.901 0.646 EVB_1 0.749 1.805 EVB_2 0.829 2.226 EVB_3 0.825 2.139 EVB_4 0.793 2.015 EVB_5 0.821 2.155 Workplace Bullying (WB) 0.900 0.921 0.625 WB1 0.715 1.655 WB2 0.831 2.572 WB3 0.815 2.353 WB4 0.805 2.207 WB5 0.785 2.242 WB6 0.792 2.309 WB7 0.784 2.129 Perceived Supervisor Narcissism (PSN) 0.920 0.937 0.714 PSN_1 0.854 3.134 PSN_2 0.841 2.618 PSN_3 0.891 3.698 PSN_4 0.829 2.794 PSN_5 0.870 3.260 PSN_6 0.779 2.110 Regarding the evaluation of DV, three criteria were adopted as follows: “cross-loading analysis”, the “Fornell-Larcker criterion”, and the “Heterotrait–Monotrait ratio of correlation (HTMT)” (Leguina 2015). As shown in Table 2, the factor loading (outer loading) for each factor (emphasized in bold) exceeded its corresponding cross-loading values. Table 2. Cross-load outcomes. EVB PSN WB EVB_1 0.749 0.365 0.517 EVB_2 0.829 0.315 0.531 EVB_3 0.825 0.411 0.546 EVB_4 0.793 0.406 0.581 EVB_5 0.821 0.428 0.588 PSN_1 0.507 0.854 0.599 PSN_2 0.497 0.841 0.568 PSN_3 0.378 0.891 0.580 PSN_4 0.344 0.829 0.561 PSN_5 0.383 0.870 0.547 PSN_6 0.295 0.779 0.516 WB_1 0.620 0.456 0.715 Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 344 15 of 15 Reknes, Iselin, Mats Glambek, and Ståle Valvatne Einarsen. 2020. Injustice perceptions, workplace bullying and intention to leave. Employee Relations: The International Journal 43: 1–13. [CrossRef] Said, Hamad, and Cem Tanova. 2021. Workplace bullying in the hospitality industry: A hindrance to the employee mindfulness state and a source of emotional exhaustion. International Journal of Hospitality Management 96: 102961. [CrossRef] Shum, Cass. 2020. The recursive relationship between abusive supervision and service performance. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights 4: 18–34. [CrossRef] Singh, Anupriya, and Shalini Srivastava. 2023. Consequences of workplace bullying on hotel employees: A three-wave longitudinal approach. International Journal of Conflict Management 34: 982–1003. [CrossRef] Srivastava, Shalini, and Banasree Dey. 2020. Workplace bullying and job burnout: A moderated mediation model of emotional intelligence and hardiness. International Journal of Organizational Analysis 28: 183–204. [CrossRef] Srivastava, Shalini, Muskan Khan, Arpana Kumari, and Ajay Kumar Jain. 2024. A study of workplace bullying and coping strategies in hospitality sector: Role of moral injury and inclusive leadership. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance 11: 18–34. [CrossRef] Tabrizi, Reza Sharbaf, Osman M. Karatepe, Hamed Rezapouraghdam, Elisa Rescalvo-Martin, and Constanta Enea. 2023. «Green human resource management, job embeddedness and their effects on restaurant employees’ green voice behaviors». International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 35: 3453–80. [CrossRef] Valentine, Sean, and Gary Fleischman. 2018. From schoolyard to workplace: The impact of bullying on sales and business employees’ machiavellianism, job satisfaction, and perceived importance of an ethical issue. Human Resource Management 57: 293–305. [CrossRef] Wahba, Marwa, Samar Khalaf, and Nirmen Hanen. 2023. How Does Workplace Bullying Effect on Organizational Commitment and Job Performance? Mediating Effect of Job Stress in Hotels and Egyptian Travel Agents. Journal of Association of Arab Universities for Tourism and Hospitality 25: 227–45. [CrossRef] Waldman, David A., Danni Wang, Sean T. Hannah, Bradley P. Owens, and Pierre A. Balthazard. 2018. «Psychological and neurological predictors of abusive supervision». Personnel Psychology 71: 399–421. [CrossRef] Wang, Zhining, Shuang Ren, Doren Chadee, and Chuanwei Sun. 2021. The influence of exploitative leadership on hospitality employees’ green innovative behavior: A moderated mediation model. International Journal of Hospitality Management 99: 103058. [CrossRef] Wieser, Christina, and Adriana Mata-Greenwood. 2013. Work-Related Violence and Its Integration into Existing Survey. In19th International Conference of Labour Statisticians, Geneva. Available online: https://www.ilo.org/resource/conference-paper/workrelated-violence-and-its-integration-existing-surveys (accessed on 17 December 2024). Xiang, Keheng, Jie Liu, Guanghui Qiao, Fan Gao, and Huan Zhou Zhang. 2023. Does bullying reduce occupational commitment in hospitality employees? Mixed empirical evidence from resource conservation theory and embodied cognition perspectives. International Journal of Hospitality Management 108: 103365. [CrossRef] Yao, Zhu, Xianchun Zhang, Zhenxuan Liu, Lili Zhang, and Jinlian Luo. 2019. Narcissistic leadership and voice behavior: The role of job stress, traditionality, and trust in leaders. Chinese Management Studies 14: 543–63. [CrossRef] Yuan, Lu, Hyun Jeong Kim, and Hyounae (Kelly) Min. 2023. How Cultural Intelligence Facilitates Employee Voice in the Hospitality Industry. Sustainability 15: 8851. [CrossRef] Zhang, Li, Ming Lou, and Huihui Guan. 2022. How and when perceived leader narcissism impacts employee voice behavior: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Management & Organization 28: 77–98. [CrossRef] Zhu, Weichun, John J. Sosik, Ronald E. Riggio, and Baiyin Yang. 2012. Relationships between Transformational and Active Transactional Leadership and Followers’ Organizational Identification: The Role of Psychological Empowerment. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management 13: 186–212. [CrossRef] Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.