Exploring the Relationships Between a Toxic Workplace Environment, Workplace Stress, and Project Success with the Moderating Effect of Organizational Support: Empirical Evidence from Pakistan

Figures & data

Figure 1 Theoretical framework.

Table 1 Demographics

Measures	Items	Absolute Frequency	Percentage (%)
Gender	Male	302	75
	Female	101	25
Working experience	Less than five years	146	36.2
	5–10 years	179	44.4
	Above ten years	78	19.4
Position	Senior managers	45	11
	Middle managers	153	38
	Administrative staff	205	51
Respondent age	Less than 25 years	24	6.1
	25–34 years	170	42.2
	35–44 years	128	31.7
	Above 44 years	81	20
Education	Junior High School and below	102	25.3
	Matriculation/Secondary School	97	24.1
	Higher Secondary School/Technical School/FA	94	23.3
	Undergraduate	81	20.1
	Post-Graduate	29	7.2

Table 2 Validity and Reliability

Variables	Coding	Factor Loading	KMO	Alpha	Variance Explained
	TWE-1	0.87
	TWE-2	0.88
	TWE-3	0.86
Toxic workplace environment	TWE-4	0.87	0.96	0.96	79.
	TWE-5	0.88
	TWE-6	0.87
	TWE-7	0.89
	WS-1	0.80
	WS-2	0.81
	WS-3	0.82
Workplace stress	WS-4	0.83	0.92	0.94	77.8
	WS-5	0.80
	WS-6	0.86
	WS-7	0.85
	OS-1	0.82
	OS-2	0.84
	OS-3	0.89
Organizational support	OS-4	0.82	0.93	0.94	78.8
	OS-5	0.89
	OS-6	0.87
	OS-7	0.80
	PS-1	0.82
	PS-2	0.84
	PS-3	0.83
	PS-4	0.86
Project success	PS-5	0.87	0.93	0.95	82.0
	PS-6	0.89
	PS-7	0.72
	PS-8	0.73

Abbreviations: TWE, toxic workplace environment; WS, workplace stress; OS, organizational support; PS, project success; KMO, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin.

Table 3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Variables	CMIN/DF	RMSEA	GFI	AGFI	NFI	IFI	CR	AVE
Toxic workplace environment	3.634	0.095	0.964	0.915	0.979	0.985	0.96	0.77
Workplace stress	1.349	0.034	0.976	0.956	0.989	0.997	0.94	0.73
Organizational support	1.744	0.045	0.993	0.983	0.996	0.901	0.95	0.74
Project success	1.926	0.056	0.981	0.955	0.990	0.995	0.96	0.78

Abbreviations: RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; GFI, Goodness-of-Fit Index; AGFI, Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index; NFI, Normed Fit Index; IFI, Incremental Fit Index; CR, composite reliability; AVE, average variance extracted.

Table 4 The Comparative Results of Alternative Models

Measures	x^2/df	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	GFI
One-factor model: all the factors merged	25.08	0.073	0.067	0.290	0.134
Three-factor model: WS+TWE, OS, PS	2.217	0.956	0.954	0.064	0.810
Four-factor model: WS, TWE, OS, PS	1.273	0.991	0.990	0.030	0.913

Abbreviations: CFI, Comparative Fit Index; TLI, Tucker-Lewis index; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; GFI, Goodness-of-Fit Index; TWE, toxic workplace environment; WS, workplace stress; OS, organizational support; PS, project success.

Table 5 The Structural Equation Modelling Results of the Model

Hypothesis	Standardized Coefficients	Fitness Indicators
Hypothesis 1		CMIN/DF = 1.400 RMSEA = 0.037 GFI = 0.930 AGFI = 0.912 NFI = 0.965 IFI = 0.990
Toxic workplace environment →work stress	0.89*
Hypothesis 2
Workplace stress →project success	−0.49*
Hypothesis 3
Toxic workplace environment →project success	−0.41*

Note: Significance level at <0.05*.

Abbreviations: CMIN/DF, x²/degrees of freedom; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; GFI, Goodness-of-Fit Index; CFI, Comparative Fit Index; AGFI, Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index; IFI, Incremental Fit Index; NFI, Normed Fit Index.

Table 6 The Moderating Effect Analysis

Hypothesis 4	Standardized Coefficients	P	Fitness Indicators
Toxic workplace environment→workplace stress	0.404	***	CMIN/DF = 1.507 RMSEA = 0.043 GFI = 0.919 AGFI = 0.900 NFI = 0.957 IFI = 0.985
Organizational support→workplace stress	−0.505	***
Toxic workplace environment × organizational support→workplace stress	−0.024	***

Note: Significance level at < 0.001***.

Abbreviations: CMIN/DF, x²/degrees of freedom; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; GFI, Goodness-of-Fit Index; CFI, Comparative Fit Index; AGFI, Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index; IFI, Incremental Fit Index; NFI, Normed Fit Index.