1. Introduction
By caring most about profitability and putting other organizational conditions into the background for a long time, organizations today strive to attract and retain talent. However, negative workplace conditions might render such efforts futile [
1]. Accordingly, many studies have been conducted to examine negative workplace conditions and their impact on both the organization and employees [
2]. To be more specific, a widely studied topic within the context of workplace negativity has been “organizational toxicity” (OT). The concept of “toxicity”, as the underlying factor of OT, is defined as “the inherent capacity of a substance to produce a harmful effect on the organism” [
3]. While the term is heavily used in chemistry to describe the poisonous nature of matters [
4], management studies, since the 1980s, have also been using terms such as “toxic” or “toxicity” to describe organizations [
5,
6]. Making ground in management studies as “organizational/workplace toxicity”, this concept refers to “a situation that causes employees to suffer and have problems, reduces interest in their jobs by negatively affecting their morale and motivation” [
7]. OT can be accepted as workplace negativity, reducing overall employee satisfaction and performance, damaging teamwork and causing higher turnover rates [
8]. From this perspective, OT appears to be an organizational problem, affecting employees in negative ways and, consequently, representing critical risks for the future of the organization.
“Toxic emotions” pave the way for the emergence of OT. They are consequences of “toxic events” in organizations [
9]. Workplace negativities in organizations such as overworking, injustice, mobbing, infidelity, insensitivity, intrusiveness, lack of empathy and emotional intelligence and bullying can be examples of toxic events [
7]. In fact, toxic events can be observed in all organizations on some level; however, if they are ignored, employees can leave behind innovative ideas and productivity [
10]; their ties with the organization may be damaged, and they can experience issues such as anxiety, stress, depression and burnout syndrome (BS) due to the negative effects on their physical and psychological well-being [
11,
12,
13]. Viewed as a problem caused by OT, BS is, at its core, a dynamic process, comprising (1) exhaustion, (2) depersonalization and (3) low self-esteem or personal accomplishment [
14,
15]. In addition, BS can be defined as a physical and emotional exhaustion syndrome, causing employees to have negative attitudes towards their jobs, while their desire for engagement is reduced [
16,
17]. Those who experience BS feel “helpless, hopeless, and powerless” [
18]. Stress caused by OT in the relationship between OT and BS has a critical role. That is because stress is one of the destructive consequences of OT on employees [
13,
19]. The lengthy persistence of stress is one of the most important reasons for the emergence of BS [
20]. Actually, Schaufeli and Enzmann [
21] state that burnout is the end product of chronic stress due to work. Various studies in literature [
22,
23,
24,
25] support these arguments, revealing that OT positively affects BS.
BS is not only a negative effect of OT on employees [
12]. BS is, at the same time, one of the key reasons for depression [
26]. BS and depression are sometimes used interchangeably due to their similarities. While there are studies in the literature revealing that BS causes depression, there are also studies stating that depression causes BS. However, some studies state that BS and depression are very similar phenomena and overlap. In this respect, the findings regarding the relationship between BS and depression are inconsistent [
27]. Maslach and Schaufeli [
28] reported that one of the components of BS is depression. However, Hallsten [
29] defined BS as a type of depression resulting from the exhaustion process. Bianchi et al. [
30] stated that BS and depression exhibit a very high correlational relationship, and they revealed that the two variables overlap. Similarly, Bianchi and Brisson [
31] pointed out that BS and depression overlap at the symptom and etiological level. In this study, the approach that accepts that BS causes depression was adopted. Because still, there is growing consensus in literature, arguing that BS must be considered as a specific problem in and of itself, separate from depression [
32,
33]. According to Glass and McKnight [
34], there is a relationship between BS and depression that is far from the exact overlapping of the concepts. BS and depression have a similar relationship with control. This is because perceived lack of control causes burnout, which in turn leads to depressive symptomatology. Srivastava and Tang [
26] have shown that BS causes increased health problems and depression, along with decreased performance of individuals. Demir [
35] has determined that negative effects arising from leader–member interaction and stress, as well as burnout, are among the factors that cause depression. Depression is defined as a serious disorder with symptoms persisting for more than two weeks, such as sadness, loss of interest, loss of appetite, insomnia, fatigue, feeling worthless or guilty, difficulty in thinking and considerations of suicide [
36]. Observed commonly in middle-aged individuals, depression [
37] is accepted as a disabling psychiatric illness with personal and economic consequences [
38]. Depression causes employees to have reduced productivity and [
39] performance [
40], display absenteeism behavior, short-term disability [
41], become unemployed due to high turn-over rates [
42] and receive lower incomes [
39]. Depression is also a significant issue with respect to the burden it unloads on the global economy. It has been found that anxiety and depression cause an estimated loss of 1 trillion USD in global productivity [
43].
Due to the positive relationship between BS and depression [
44], BS is thought to influence the development of depression. Freudenberger [
14] even claims that employees experiencing BS “look, act and seem depressed”. In addition, various studies in the literature [
26,
35,
45,
46] clearly reveal the positive relationships between BS and depression.
Irrespective of the negative effect BS has on depression, varying studies in the literature point out that negative circumstances, arising from OT, may cause depression by themselves. In other words, while BS is one of the reasons employees experience depression [
35], circumstances caused by OT are viewed as important factors by themselves for the development of depression. In this context, Danaher [
47], Mohamed et al. [
48], Rasool et al. [
49] and Wang et al. [
13] shared noteworthy findings, indicating that OT has a positive impact on depression. Moreover, Appelbaum and Roy-Girard [
50] underline that employees in toxic organizations may find themselves in hopelessness, anger, low morale, poor communication and depression due to such circumstances, causing them to reveal poorer job performances and higher levels of absenteeism. Combining such findings in the literature with the ones stating that OT causes BS [
22] and BS causes depression [
35], we may hypothesize that BS plays a mediator role in the relationship between OT and depression.
Defined as the individual’s faith in their talents to complete a particular task or overcome faced challenges [
51], occupational self-efficacy (OSE) might be an aiding function to cope with certain issues arising from working conditions. While various studies in the literature [
26,
35] show that BS leads to depression, employees who feel occupational self-efficacy may experience lower levels of depression. In other words, OSE may function as a buffer for BS-caused factors to drag individuals into depression [
52]. In this context, numerous studies in the literature [
53,
54,
55,
56] show negative relationships between BS and OSE. Alongside such negative relationships between BS and OSE, findings from past studies concerning the relationship between OSE and depression are important for the sake of this study. For example, Gecas [
57] argues that OSE is a key factor for mental health, revealing that it specifically has a diminishing effect on depression. As cited in Gecas [
57], the learned helplessness theory states that individuals feel inefficient when they believe that their actions have no consequences whatsoever on their surroundings, which can lead to depression. However, the exact opposite, namely the belief that their actions can have meaningful consequences can lead to possessing feelings of efficacy, which could be a barrier between them and depression. According to Manhas and Bakhshi [
58], occupational self-efficacy of employees is an important resource for success and self-confidence. These people approach challenging conditions as matters to overcome, rather than threats. In this context, employees with high levels of self-efficacy would be more resilient against stress and depression, achieving better results. In other words, OSE acts as a buffer mechanism for preventing depression.
The purpose of this study is to examine the mediating role of burnout and the moderating role of occupational self-efficacy in the relationship between organizational toxicity and depression. The study aimed to test the moderated mediation research model shown in
Figure 1. In this regard, based on the above literature review, the following hypotheses were proposed.
Hypothesis 1. Organizational toxicity positively affects depression.
Hypothesis 2. Organizational toxicity positively affects burnout.
Hypothesis 3. Burnout positively affects depression.
Hypothesis 4. Burnout has a mediating role in the effect organizational toxicity has on depression.
Hypothesis 5. Occupational self-efficacy has a moderating role in the effect burnout has on depression.
Hypothesis 6. Occupational self-efficacy has a moderating role in the indirect effect organizational toxicity has on depression as mediated by burnout.
In the literature review, it was seen that there are various studies focusing on organizational toxicity, workplace toxicity and burnout syndrome. In addition, it has been determined that there are many studies in the literature focusing on the relationships between burnout syndrome and depression. However, no studies examining organizational toxicity, burnout syndrome and depression variables in the context of the mediating role of burnout syndrome and the moderating role of self-efficacy could be accessed. In this respect, we believe that this study makes a theoretical contribution to the workplace toxicity literature and to researches in the field of tourism. In this study, we determined that occupational self-efficacy has a critical role in combating burnout syndrome and depression, which is affected by organizational toxicity. We consider that this finding can make a practical contribution to the managerial practices of tourism businesses specifically.
4. Discussion
Good working conditions are just as important as offered financial means for an organization to be successful. Conditions that cause workplace negativity within the organization negatively influence employees’ physical and psychological well-being, organizational loyalty, performance, motivation and effectiveness [
2,
11,
12,
13,
80]. In this context, eliminating or improving such conditions that would lead to workplace negativity is quite important for both organizations and employees. This study focuses on the OT problem as it is one of the factors approached within the framework of workplace negativity [
81]. Within the framework of the hypotheses, relationships between OT, BS and depression variables were investigated; in addition, we inquired about the moderating role of OSE in them. This section attempts to discuss, interpret and explain the results of the conducted hypotheses tests in comparison with the findings of other studies in the literature. Conservation of Resources (COR) theory, developed by Hobfoll [
82], is used to explain the findings.
Within the scope of the study, Hypothesis 1 concerning the link between OT and BS was tested. Consequently, the hypothesis was supported as OT is observed to positively affect BS. Toxic organizations are known for their negative workplace conditions such as a history of poor decision-making, high levels of employee dissatisfaction, ineffective working conditions and destructive human relations [
50,
83]. Each one of these conditions can be viewed as a toxic event, causing toxic emotions [
84]. The exposure to toxic events that cause OT [
9] leads to long-term stress [
85]. Persisting stress is a key reason underlying BS [
20]. In this context, acquired results appear to be in line with the theoretical assessments of previous studies. Moreover, a study conducted by Jaime et al. [
86] on psychiatrists found that toxic management conditions cause toxic feelings in employees, which positively affects BS. Rusbasan et al. [
87] conducted a study on student athletes, where they found that toxic coaching by their coaches can lead athletes to experience BS. Ghanbari and Mojooni [
88] concluded in their study that toxic leadership causes teachers to suffer from BS. Another study, conducted by Koropets and Polents [
89], underlines that toxic working conditions in organizations lead to BS, while employees’ ways of making sense of the toxic conditions are also influential in causing such a phenomenon to occur. On the other hand, Bakan et al. [
90] and Hadadian and Zarei [
91] found in their studies positive links between stress and toxic leadership, which is considered to be one of the components of OT.
Consequent to the testing of Hypothesis 2, which concerns BS and depression, BS was found to influence depression positively, which supports the hypothesis. Within the framework of this hypothesis, it is of benefit to note the results of previous studies, revealing that BS and depression are separate concepts. Koutsimani et al. [
92] conducted a meta-analysis where they examined the studies on “burnout and depression” and “burnout and anxiety” links, published between 2007 and 2019. Consequently, their findings “revealed no conclusive overlaps between burnout and depression and burnout and anxiety, indicating that they are different and robust constructs.” Iacovides et al. [
93] found in their study that a person suffering from depression cannot also suffer from BS simultaneously. Other studies in the literature can also be found on the distinction between BS and depression [
21,
94]. Many existing studies in the literature on the relationship between BS and depression reveal a positive link between them. Bianchi and Laurent [
95] conducted a study with 54 human resources employees and used eye-tracking technology for their research. They found positive links between BS and depression. Shirom and Ezrachi [
96] also conducted a study with 704 senior army officers, where they observed positive relations between participants’ levels of BS and depression. In a study conducted by Upadyaya et al. [
97] where 1.415 employees were observed for two years within the context of occupational health, employees were found to reveal positive links between BS levels and depression. Meier and Kim [
98] utilized meta-regression analyses in their study where they examined the relations between BS and depression. A total of 46.191 individuals participated in the study, while the authors focused on 69 studies. All examined studies identified positive correlations between BS and depression (overall effect size 0.492).
Hypothesis 3 concerns the positive effect of OT on depression, while Hypothesis 4 concerns the moderator role of BS on the effect OT has on depression. Consequent to the analyses, both hypotheses were observed to be supported. Anjum and Ming [
99] point out that depression is one of the consequences of OT. In addition, Carlock [
83] concluded in their study that respondents actually suffer from depression due to the toxic workplace conditions, despite having the motivation to succeed in their jobs, highlighting the relationship between OT and depression. Conducted by Rasool et al. [
49] in Chinese bank employees, another study concluded that OT causes depression, while this negatively influences employees’ levels of productivity, leading to traumatic consequences for employees. Wang et al. [
13] conducted a study with employees of renewable energy project-based companies, and concluded that OT causes depression, which becomes an important source of stress for the employees of such an organization. Besides being a serious implication of OT, stress is a key factor underlying BS, as highlighted by Maslach et al. [
20]. BS is even viewed as the ultimate consequence of work-related chronic stress [
21]. Furthermore, when results of studies examining the relations between BS and depression are reviewed, BS appears to be identified as a factor that causes depression [
100]. For example, consequent to the study conducted by Demir [
35] on teachers, BS was found to affect depression positively. The same study also notes that leader–member interaction reduces teachers’ stress and depression levels by reducing their levels of BS. Woo Kyeong [
46] conducted a study with cyber-university students in Korea and identified positive relations between BS and depression. However, the study also argues that self-compassion mitigates the effect BS has on depression. In another study, carried out by Bakker et al. [
100], it was underlined that BS and depression are separate, yet interrelated concepts. In the same study, Bakker et al. [
100] stated that “burnout is a work-related phenomenon whereas depression is more pervasive and context-free in nature”. In this context, the stress that employees experience is observed to lead to depression, which may spread throughout their lives. In line with this evaluation, Bender and Farvolden [
101] underline that depression is an important reason underlying employees’ exposure to severe stress. In this context, this finding shows that BS plays a mediator role in the relationship between OT and depression, which is in line with the findings of previous studies in the literature.
Hypothesis 5 posits that occupational self-efficacy plays a moderator role on the effect burnout has on depression, while Hypothesis 6 posits that occupational self-efficacy plays a moderator role on the indirect effect organizational toxicity has on depression through burnout. According to these findings, the effect BS has on depression changes as per employees’ OSE levels. In this context, it was determined that the effect of the burnout levels of employees, who find themselves adequate in occupational terms, on depression is lower than that of those who do not find themselves as such. In other words, high levels of occupational self-efficacy play a reductive and buffering role on the effect burnout has on depression. Shoji et al. [
52] conducted a study with the meta-analysis method where they found that OSE acts as a preventative factor against the negativities stemming from burnout. In another study, conducted with 80 physicians, Aftab et al. [
53] concluded that physicians with higher levels of OSE are less affected by burnout. Yang [
102] also concluded, in a study which was conducted with 268 nurses working at a teaching hospital, that nurses with low levels of OSE are more affected by burnout. Findings acquired in this study reveal the moderator role of OSE in the relationship between BS and depression. On the other hand, depression is known to be closely related to poor self-efficacy [
103]. This way, while improving OSE is a factor that reduces the effects of BS on one hand, it is evaluated as a reductive factor for depression. In this context, Hypotheses 5 and 6 reveal similar findings to those in previous studies that can be found in the literature.
We believe that the results of this study can be explained within the context of COR theory. According to COR, employees with poor personal resources are expected to lose some of their resources that may negatively influence their psychological well-being [
82]. Thus, employees with lower levels of OSE levels are affected more by BS and depression, stemming from OT, which can be explained within the context of COR theory.
While the study contributes significantly to a gap in the literature, specifically in terms of the discipline of tourism and organizational toxicity, it still has certain limitations, as is the case in all research endeavors. One of the most important limitations of the study is that it is a cross-sectional study. Additionally, scales used to collect data are in the form of self-reports, which may be deemed as another limitation. Moreover, data were collected only from respondents who work at five-star hotels in a particular region and in a particular season. In this context, the findings of the study are limited in terms of representing only the data from the season and employees in the relevant region. Within the framework of these limitations, some recommendations can be made for future studies. Adopting a longitudinal study approach for future research endeavors might contribute to acquiring stronger findings. On the other hand, utilizing up-to-date methods such as neuro-imaging and laboratory techniques for specifically the burnout variable in such studies may yield more objective results. To that end, measuring employees’ occupational self-efficacy levels through experimental methods may also bring about a whole new depth. Furthermore, working with larger-scale samples in future studies would help to generalize findings for larger masses.