The Effect of Nurses’ Perceptions of Mobbing on Burnout and Organizational Trust: The Moderating Role of Public Leadership Roles

The Effect of Nurses’ Perceptions of Mobbing on Burnout and Organizational Trust: The Moderating Role of Public Leadership Roles | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article The Effect of Nurses’ Perceptions of Mobbing on Burnout and Organizational Trust: The Moderating Role of Public Leadership Roles Adnan KARATAŞ This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7049123/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background: In contemporary healthcare settings, the high workload, emotional labor demands, and organizational stressors faced by nurses pose significant threats to their psychological well-being and the quality of care they provide. These stressors often precipitate adverse workplace behaviors, such as mobbing (i.e., psychological harassment in the workplace). The extant literature indicates that mobbing contributes to burnout syndrome among employees and undermines organizational trust. However, empirical evidence concerning the moderating effect of leadership roles on these relationships remains limited. Objective: This study seeks to investigate the impact of nurses’ perceptions of mobbing on their levels of burnout and organizational trust within public hospitals in Türkiye. Furthermore, it aims to elucidate the moderating effects of four fundamental public leadership roles—Accountability, Compliance with Rules, Political Loyalty, and Network Governance Leadership—on these relationships. Method: Adopting a cross-sectional and quantitative research design, data were collected via a structured survey administered to nurses employed in public hospitals across the TRA1 region of Türkiye (N = 501). The validity and reliability of the measurement scales were assessed using confirmatory factor analysis and Cronbach's alpha coefficients. The proposed hypotheses were tested through linear regression and moderation analyses. Findings: The results indicate that nurses’ perceptions of mobbing significantly diminish organizational trust while exacerbating burnout levels. Moreover, the leadership roles of Accountability and Network Governance were found to moderate these relationships by attenuating the detrimental effects of mobbing. Conversely, Compliance with Rules Leadership appeared to strengthen the negative impacts. Conclusion: These findings underscore the critical role of ethical, transparent, and collaborative leadership practices in safeguarding the psychosocial well-being of nursing personnel. To mitigate mobbing and reduce the risk of burnout, it is recommended that healthcare policies integrate robust leadership development initiatives and organizational justice mechanisms. Clinical trial number: Not applicable. Mobbing Burnout Organizational Trust Public Leadership Nursing Management Figures Figure 1 BACKGROUND Employee health and psychological well-being in the workplace are not merely individual needs but essential components of organizational efficiency, service quality, and sustainable performance. This is particularly critical in the healthcare sector, where employees are exposed to multidimensional psychosocial risks stemming from intense workloads, the demands of emotional labor, and persistent stressors. Within this context, mobbing—defined as psychological harassment in the workplace—has emerged as a pervasive phenomenon that depletes individuals’ emotional and physical resources and profoundly disrupts organizational functioning [ 1 , 2 ]. The concept of mobbing was first systematically conceptualized by Heinz Leymann [ 2 ], who described it as the prolonged and systematic psychological harassment of an individual by one or more perpetrators. Such harassing behaviors typically manifest in forms such as humiliation, the questioning of professional competence, social isolation, or direct exclusion [ 3 ]. A defining characteristic of mobbing, as highlighted in the literature, is its sustained nature and the resultant isolation and defenselessness of the victim within the workplace [ 1 ]. This process gradually erodes the individual’s self-esteem, self-efficacy, and access to social support. At the individual level, the most prevalent consequence of mobbing is burnout. Initially defined by Freudenberger [ 4 ] and further elaborated by Maslach and Jackson [ 5 ], burnout comprises three dimensions: emotional exhaustion, cynicism, and diminished personal accomplishment. Burnout arises from prolonged exposure to stress and the depletion of coping resources, thereby weakening psychological resilience and professional motivation [ 6 – 8 ]. Numerous empirical studies have demonstrated the direct impact of mobbing on emotional exhaustion and the erosion of personal accomplishment [ 9 – 12 ]. Zapf and Gross’s [ 3 ] longitudinal study underscores that chronic mobbing can culminate in psychological disorders. The Conservation of Resources (COR) Theory [ 13 ] provides a critical theoretical lens for understanding this relationship. According to COR Theory, individuals strive to acquire, protect, and enhance valued resources such as self-esteem, social support, and psychological safety. Mobbing directly and persistently threatens these resources; as they become depleted, emotional exhaustion intensifies, cynicism grows, and the sense of personal accomplishment deteriorates [ 14 , 15 ]. Similarly, the Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) Model [ 16 , 17 ] conceptualizes mobbing as a significant social demand which, when coupled with insufficient job resources such as social support, autonomy, or perceived fairness, rapidly precipitates burnout [ 18 ]. Inadequate organizational support mechanisms can exacerbate this process, rendering it chronic and further diminishing individual resilience. Beyond its psychological impact on individuals, mobbing also undermines employees’ trust in their organizations and managers. Organizational trust refers to employees’ positive expectations regarding the intentions and actions of others within the workplace, including managerial structures [ 19 ]. Elevated levels of organizational trust foster greater cooperation, organizational commitment, and citizenship behaviors [ 20 ]; however, this trust can erode rapidly when expectations of fairness and integrity are violated. The Psychological Contract Breach framework [ 21 , 22 ] and Organizational Justice Theory [ 23 – 25 ] offer important theoretical explanations for this dynamic. When mobbing violates fundamental expectations of fair treatment, respect, and dignity, the trust of both victims and bystanders in the organization is significantly undermined [ 26 , 27 ]. From the perspective of COR Theory, trust itself constitutes a vital social resource; its loss prompts individuals to adopt defensive behaviors to protect remaining resources [ 10 , 11 ]. In this context, leadership roles emerge as a decisive factor in shaping how mobbing experiences affect nurses. Leadership roles within public institutions differ notably from those in the private sector, reflecting complex dimensions such as accountability, legal compliance, political loyalty, and network governance [ 28 , 29 ]. Accountability Leadership can deter mobbing through the promotion of transparency and adherence to ethical principles [ 30 , 31 ]; however, if misused, it may also become a mechanism for scapegoating or silencing dissent [ 32 ]. Rule-Following Leadership can provide protection by ensuring clear and equitable procedures [ 33 ], yet overly rigid or bureaucratic practices may enable mobbing to manifest as “procedural violence” [ 34 ]. Political Loyalty Leadership may exacerbate the risk of mobbing, especially in contexts marked by favoritism and political patronage [ 35 ], and leaders may struggle to deploy this role effectively in preventing harassment [ 1 ]. Conversely, Network Governance Leadership holds promise for enhancing both organizational trust and employee resilience by fostering a culture of open communication and collaboration [ 36 , 37 ]. In sum, this robust theoretical foundation suggests that mobbing in high-stress work environments such as nursing should not be viewed merely as an interpersonal conflict but as a phenomenon intricately linked to organizational structures and leadership dynamics. Against this backdrop, the present study investigates the impact of nurses’ perceptions of mobbing on their levels of organizational trust and burnout within public hospitals in Türkiye, and examines whether public leadership roles moderate these relationships. The findings are expected to inform policy development aimed at reinforcing ethical leadership practices in healthcare institutions and safeguarding the psychosocial well-being of nursing professionals. METHODS Purpose and Model of the Research The primary objective of this study is to examine the impact of nurses’ perceptions of mobbing on their levels of organizational trust and burnout, and to analyze the moderating effects of public leadership roles within these relationships. More specifically, this research investigates how the leadership roles demonstrated by nurses’ managers shape the influence of mobbing perceptions on organizational trust and burnout syndrome. Within the theoretical framework, existing literature has consistently demonstrated that mobbing—conceptualized as psychological harassment in the workplace—induces elevated stress, emotional exhaustion, and burnout among employees, while simultaneously undermining their trust in the organization [ 1 , 2 ]. Organizational trust refers to the confidence employees have in the integrity and reliability of their managers and the institution as a whole, whereas burnout is commonly conceptualized through its sub-dimensions of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization (cynicism), and diminished personal accomplishment [ 5 ]. In this context, leadership roles—particularly ethical leadership behaviors, fair management practices, and the capacity to empower employees—are recognized as critical factors shaping employees’ organizational experiences [ 38 ]. While effective leadership can foster positive psychosocial outcomes, inadequate or unethical leadership practices may contribute to the prevalence of mobbing and exacerbate employee burnout. Therefore, it is posited that public leadership roles may moderate the relationship between nurses’ perceptions of mobbing and their levels of organizational trust and burnout—either mitigating or amplifying these effects. Grounded in this theoretical foundation, the following research hypotheses were formulated: H1: Nurses’ perceptions of mobbing have a significantly negative effect on organizational trust. H2: Nurses’ perceptions of mobbing have a significantly positive effect on burnout. The conceptual research model illustrating these hypothesized relationships is presented in Figure 1. Design of the Study This study adopts a descriptive, cross-sectional, and quantitative research design. It is structured with a prospective approach, aiming to elucidate the current situation by analyzing data collected within a defined timeframe. The cross-sectional nature of the design enables the assessment of participants’ views at a single point in time, providing a snapshot of prevailing perceptions and attitudes. The descriptive dimension reflects the study’s focus on identifying and interpreting existing relationships among variables without establishing causal inferences. The survey instrument administered to participants comprises four primary sections. The first section collects information on participants’ demographic characteristics, including age, gender, educational attainment, professional experience, and the type of institution in which they are employed. The subsequent three sections incorporate validated scales developed to measure the key constructs under investigation: perceptions of mobbing, organizational trust, and burnout levels. Each scale underwent confirmatory factor analysis and reliability testing to ensure their psychometric robustness. Through this design, the study quantitatively examines the relationships between nurses’ perceptions of mobbing and their levels of organizational trust and burnout. Furthermore, it assesses the moderating role of public leadership roles within these relationships. Details regarding the specific measurement instruments and the data collection procedures are elaborated in the subsequent section. Research Setting This study was conducted among nurses employed in public hospitals across Türkiye. The exclusive focus on public healthcare institutions is grounded in the premise that the structural and managerial differences between the public and private sectors may distinctly influence nurses’ perceptions of their work environment, thereby affecting the study’s key variables: mobbing, organizational trust, and burnout. Moreover, given that the primary focus of this research is to examine public leadership roles, it was deemed more appropriate to investigate the leadership practices of nurse managers operating within public institutions. The research encompasses nurses working in primary, secondary, and tertiary public healthcare facilities, which collectively represent the full spectrum of healthcare service delivery levels in Türkiye. This inclusive approach enables a more comprehensive analysis of nurses’ organizational experiences by considering the diverse working conditions across different service tiers. The field study was carried out between January 2025 and May 2025. Throughout the research process, the necessary legal and administrative approvals were obtained from the relevant provincial health directorates, which also facilitated communication and coordination with the participating public hospitals. Data collection was conducted with nurses who voluntarily agreed to participate in the study, in full compliance with confidentiality and ethical principles. Research Universe and Sampling The geographical scope of this study was defined as the TRA1 region, which corresponds to Türkiye’s Level 2 (NUTS-2) statistical classification according to the Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS) system developed by Eurostat, the Statistical Office of the European Union. The TRA1 region comprises the provinces of Erzurum, Erzincan, and Bayburt, and constitutes a significant area within the Eastern Anatolia Region, representing both regional healthcare services and the broader socioeconomic landscape. The relatively high number of primary, secondary, and tertiary public healthcare institutions within these provinces enabled the study to capture more comprehensive and representative data by including nurses working across various levels of service provision. In particular, Atatürk University Research Hospital and Erzurum City Hospital, both located in Erzurum, serve as major healthcare centers with the capacity to provide advanced medical services not only at the regional level but also nationwide. These institutions accept patients from different parts of Türkiye due to their extensive bed capacity, broad patient catchment areas, advanced medical infrastructure, and diverse fields of specialization. Therefore, they are regarded as representative in terms of the scale of healthcare services delivered and the diversity of their healthcare workforce. According to the most recent data from the Turkish Statistical Institute [ 39 ], approximately 8,785 nurses are employed in the TRA1 region. Based on this population, a minimum sample size of 369 nurses was calculated to be statistically sufficient to ensure a 95% confidence level with an acceptable margin of error [ 40 ]. However, the final sample exceeded this minimum threshold during the data collection phase, thereby enhancing the robustness and generalizability of the research findings. Data Collection Tools A comprehensive survey form comprising four distinct scales and five demographic variables was employed as the primary data collection instrument in this study. The questionnaire consists of five main sections, each designed to measure different aspects relevant to the research objectives. The survey form containing the scales used in this research and demographic characteristics has been provided as an attachment. The first section includes items intended to capture the participants’ basic demographic characteristics. This part aims to describe the sample profile by collecting information on age, gender, professional experience, employment status (e.g., permanent or contractual), and level of education. The second section utilizes the mobbing perception scale originally developed by Leymann [ 2 ] to assess the extent to which nurses perceive themselves as being exposed to mobbing in the workplace. This scale was adapted to the Turkish context by Öztürk et al. [ 41 ] for academic nurses, and further modifications were made to ensure its relevance and applicability to the current sample of clinical nurses. In the third section, the Organizational Trust Scale developed by Çalışkan [ 42 ] was employed to measure the participants’ levels of trust towards their organization, managers, and colleagues. This scale provides a comprehensive framework for evaluating the multidimensional nature of organizational trust within healthcare settings. The fourth section examines the Burnout Scales, which are widely regarded as the most valid and reliable tools for assessing burnout among nurses [ 43 – 45 ]. Various scales available in the literature include different subscales and characteristics [ 46 ]. The Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI) was employed in this study to measure participants’ levels of burnout. Originally developed by Kristensen et al. [ 45 ], the CBI has been widely recognized for its robust psychometric properties and its applicability across diverse occupational groups, including healthcare professionals. Furthermore, the CBI has been adapted and validated for use in the Turkish context, with studies showing that its Turkish versions yield reliable and valid measurements when administered to nursing populations in Türkiye [ 47 ]. The fifth and final section makes use of the Public Leadership Roles Scale, originally developed by Tummers and Knies [ 29 ] and adapted to the Turkish context by Karataş [ 48 ]. This scale measures the perceived leadership roles of managers working in public institutions, with a particular focus on service-oriented, ethical, and inclusive leadership practices. Items are rated using a 5-point Likert-type scale. To ensure the cultural and contextual suitability of these measurement tools, both linguistic and content adaptations were performed. Subsequently, the validity and reliability of each scale were re-examined within the scope of this study. Construct validity was evaluated using both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Reliability analyses were conducted by calculating Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients for each sub-dimension, all of which demonstrated acceptable levels of internal consistency. These procedures confirmed that the data collection instruments employed in this research are psychometrically robust and capable of providing valid and reliable measurements. Data Analyses The data collected within the scope of this study were analyzed using the SPSS 20 statistical package program. In the initial stage, the internal consistency of each scale was assessed by calculating Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients, while construct validity was examined through the application of Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). These analyses ensured that the measurement instruments were both reliable and valid for the study population. Descriptive statistical methods were utilized to present the frequency, percentage, mean, and standard deviation values of the participants’ demographic characteristics. To test the normality assumptions for the main study variables, skewness and kurtosis values were examined, complemented by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests. These tests supported the determination of appropriate inferential methods for hypothesis testing. To test the main hypotheses of the study, linear regression analyses were conducted to evaluate the direct effects of the independent variable (mobbing perception) on the dependent variables (organizational trust and burnout levels). Additionally, to investigate the moderating effects hypothesized in the research model, the PROCESS macro developed by Andrew Hayes was employed [ 49 ]. This macro is a robust statistical tool that facilitates the systematic execution of moderation analyses, including the creation of interaction terms and the interpretation of conditional effects. Its application provides significant insight into the complex interplay between variables within social, psychological, and organizational research contexts [ 50 ]. Following the approach proposed by Baron and Kenny [ 51 ], regression-based moderation analyses were performed to examine whether moderator variables exert a moderating influence on the relationships between the independent and dependent variables. To mitigate potential multicollinearity issues, all relevant variables were standardized prior to the creation of interaction terms [ 52 , 53 ]. The interaction terms were calculated as the product of each moderator variable and the independent variable. Subsequently, separate multiple linear regression analyses were conducted for each sub-hypothesis, testing the effects of the independent variable, the moderator variable, and the interaction term on the standardized dependent variable. A significant interaction term indicates that the presence of the moderator alters the strength or direction of the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. This comprehensive analytical framework enables not only the assessment of the direct relationships specified in the core hypotheses, but also an examination of the contextual conditions under which these relationships may vary. Consequently, the moderation analyses add theoretical depth to the study by allowing for a nuanced, multidimensional interpretation of the findings, ultimately enhancing the overall explanatory power of the research. Ethical Approval and Participation Permission All stages of this research were conducted in full compliance with the ethical principles outlined in the most current version of the Declaration of Helsinki. Throughout the study, particular attention was paid to upholding participants’ rights and maintaining the highest standards of scientific integrity. Prior to the commencement of data collection, the necessary ethical approval was obtained from the Atatürk University Social and Human Sciences Ethics Committee on November 25, 2024 (Approval Document No: E.88656144-000-2400387415). Participants were provided with detailed information regarding the purpose of the study, the procedures to be followed during data collection, potential risks, and the principles of confidentiality. It was clearly emphasized that participation was entirely voluntary and that participants could withdraw from the study at any point without providing any justification. No personally identifying information, contact details, or sensitive personal data were collected in the survey instrument; all responses were anonymized in accordance with the principle of confidentiality. Written informed consent was obtained from each participant prior to participation. For surveys conducted online via Google Forms, digital consent was duly obtained through the platform before participants could access the questionnaire. The sampling framework of the study consisted solely of nurses who voluntarily agreed to participate, and the researchers remained fully committed to upholding ethical responsibility and data protection standards at every stage of the research process. FINDINGS Characteristics of Participants The socio-demographic profile of the nurses who participated in this study is summarized in Table 1 . Among the participants, 62.1% were female, while 37.9% were male, indicating a predominantly female sample consistent with the gender distribution in the nursing profession. In terms of employment status, 56.1% of the nurses were employed as civil servants with professional job security, whereas 43.9% were employed under contractual arrangements. Regarding age distribution, the majority of participants were relatively young: 27.3% were between 18 and 25 years old, and 32.1% were between 26 and 35 years old. This demographic trend suggests that the sample mainly consisted of early-career nurses. Supporting this observation, 27.3% of the participants reported having between 0 to 5 years of professional experience, and 30.7% had 6 to 10 years, indicating that most respondents were in the initial stages of their nursing careers. Educationally, 43.1% of the participants held an associate degree, while 36.9% had attained a bachelor’s degree. This distribution reflects the varied educational backgrounds within the nursing workforce in the region under study (Table 1 ). These socio-demographic characteristics provide a contextual foundation for interpreting subsequent analyses regarding the effects of mobbing perceptions, burnout, organizational trust, and the moderating role of public leadership among this cohort of nurses. Table 1 Socio-demographic characteristics Socio-demographic information N % Gender Female Male 311 190 62,1 37,9 Employment Status Civil servant Contract employee 281 220 56,1 43,9 Age 18–25 26–35 35–45 46–55 56 and older 137 161 42 90 71 27,3 32,1 8,4 18,0 14,2 Experience 0–5 year 6–10 year 11–15 year 16–20 year 21 year and above 137 154 58 98 54 27,3 30,7 11,6 19,6 10,8 Education High school Associate’s degree Bachelor Master's degree PhD 38 216 185 44 18 7,6 43,1 36,9 8,8 3,6 Reliability, Validity, and Normality Tests of Scales Prior to hypothesis testing, the psychometric properties of the measurement instruments employed in this study were rigorously evaluated to ensure reliability and validity. Internal consistency reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients for each scale. All scales demonstrated satisfactory reliability, with Cronbach’s Alpha values exceeding the widely accepted threshold of 0.70, as recommended by Bryman and Cramer [ 54 ]. In addition, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was performed independently for each scale to examine their factorial structure. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy for all scales surpassed the minimum recommended value of 0.80 [ 55 ], indicating that the data were suitable for factor analysis. The results from the EFA, coupled with the internal consistency analyses, confirmed that all scales exhibited adequate construct validity and reliability, thus validating their use for subsequent analyses within the study. These findings are detailed in Table 2 , which presents the reliability coefficients alongside the factor loadings derived from the EFA conducted via SPSS. Table 2 Reliability and validity analyses Scales n x̄ Scale x̄ Std. Dev. α KMO Sig. ( p ) Tot.Var.% Bullying 27 3.33 90.11 33.45 .994 .995 .000 85.58 Organizational trust 17 2.87 48.84 20.12 .987 .991 .000 82.36 Burnout 22 3.16 6957 24.74 .987 .992 .000 79.14 Public leadership roles - Accountability 6 3.31 19.87 6.26 .959 .945 .000 83.04 - Rule-Following 4 2.54 10.18 2.94 .883 .841 .000 74.03 - Political Loyalty 5 2.85 14.25 7.00 .967 .926 .000 88.40 - Network Governance 6 3.01 18.04 8.21 .978 .951 .000 89.93 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted to further assess the construct validity and reliability of the scales employed in this study. These analyses were carried out using AMOS software, and a comprehensive evaluation of model fit indices was performed. The obtained values were compared against the threshold criteria commonly recommended in the literature. Results indicated that all fit indices—including CMIN/DF (χ²/df), RMR, GFI, AGFI, NFI, IFI, NNFI (TLI), CFI, RMSEA, AIC, BIC, and CAIC—fell within acceptable ranges, demonstrating good model fit (Byrne, 2016). This confirms that the scales exhibit adequate measurement validity. Additionally, the distributional properties of the data were examined to ensure the appropriateness of subsequent hypothesis testing. Skewness and kurtosis statistics were assessed, with values falling within the ± 1.5 range, as suggested by Tabachnick and Fidell [ 56 ]. This indicates that the data approximate a normal distribution sufficiently for the use of parametric tests. Collectively, these findings affirm that the scales used in this study possess satisfactory validity and reliability, and that the data meet the necessary assumptions for conducting hypothesis tests. Detailed results of these analyses are provided in Table 3 . Table 3 CFA analysis and skewness and kurtosis values Scales CMIN/DF GFI AGFI NFI IFI TLI CFI RSMA Skewness Kurtosis Bullying 1.195 .946 .937 .984 .997 .997 .997 .020 − .157 -1.168 Organizational trust 1.145 .968 .959 .989 .999 .998 .999 .017 − .006 -1.195 Burnout 1.341 .953 .943 .981 .995 .995 .995 .026 − .182 -1.130 Public leaders’ roles 1.119 .963 .954 .985 .998 .998 .998 .015 - Accountability − .232 -1.161 - Rule-Following − .055 − .692 - Political Loyalty .346 -1.132 - Network Governance − .056 -1.147 When the findings of the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), and reliability tests presented in Table 2 and Table 3 were evaluated collectively, it was determined that the validity and reliability levels of all scales used in the study met acceptable thresholds recommended in the literature. Specifically, the CFA model fit indices demonstrated a CMIN/DF value below 5 [ 57 ], an RMSEA value less than 0.08 [ 58 ], and goodness-of-fit indices such as CFI and GFI above 0.90 [ 59 ]. Moreover, Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients exceeded 0.70 across all sub-dimensions, indicating satisfactory internal consistency [ 60 ]. These results confirm that the measurement instruments validly and reliably capture the constructs under investigation, and the data satisfy the assumptions for parametric statistical analyses. Consequently, the forthcoming hypothesis testing is grounded on a robust measurement foundation. Tests of Main Hypotheses and Moderator Effects The results of the moderator effect analyses, which sought to elucidate the relationships proposed in the study’s main hypotheses and the variables therein, are comprehensively presented in Table 4 . These findings clarify the conditions under which leadership roles exert a moderating influence on the associations among mobbing perception, organizational trust, and burnout. Table 4 Hypothesis Test Results Model Summary ANOVA Coefficients Hip. R Adj.R 2 Std. Err. F p β Std. Err. t p H1 .929 .862 .439 3131.091 .000 − .887 .016 -55.956 .000*** H2 .916 .838 .452 2590.279 .000 .831 .016 50.895 .000*** H1 a .945 .893 .326 1394.824 .000 − .055 .024 -2.242 .025** H1 b .951 .905 .308 1584.335 .000 .127 .015 8.234 .000*** H1 c .945 .893 .327 1390.634 .000 .004 .031 .136 .892 H1 d .979 .958 .206 3757.130 .000 − .100 .016 -6.154 .000*** H2 a .949 .900 .316 1498.709 .000 − .403 .024 -17.033 .000*** H2 b .931 .866 .366 1073.772 .000 .167 .018 9.085 .000*** H2 c .916 .838 .402 864.552 .000 − .010 .038 − .272 .786 H2 d .941 .885 .339 1280.703 .000 − .333 .027 -12.431 .000*** *** ≤ 0.01: The regression is statistically significant at the 99% confidence level. **≤ 0.05: The regression is statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. According to the results presented in Table 4 , the perception of mobbing among nurses exerts a significant influence on both organizational trust and burnout levels. Specifically, the perception of mobbing negatively affects nurses' perception of organizational trust, while simultaneously contributing to an increase in their burnout levels. These findings confirm the primary hypotheses of the study. The perception of mobbing demonstrates a strong negative and statistically significant effect on organizational trust (β = -0.887, p < .001), indicating that as nurses experience higher levels of mobbing at work, their trust in the organization correspondingly declines. Conversely, mobbing perception is positively and significantly associated with burnout (β = 0.831, p < .001), suggesting that nurses subjected to mobbing are more likely to experience elevated burnout. Regarding the study’s moderator hypotheses, the influence of various public leadership roles on the intensity and direction of these primary effects is summarized as follows: H1 a : Accountability Leadership significantly moderates the relationship between mobbing perception and organizational trust (β = -0.055, p < .05). This suggests that in leadership environments characterized by high accountability, the detrimental impact of mobbing on organizational trust is relatively mitigated. H1 b : Rule-Following Leadership significantly moderates the relationship between mobbing and organizational trust (β = +0.127, p < .001). This finding indicates that a strict, rule-oriented leadership style may exacerbate the negative influence of mobbing on organizational trust. H1 c : Political Loyalty Leadership does not exert a statistically significant moderating effect on the relationship between mobbing and organizational trust (p > .05), implying that this leadership style does not alter the dynamics of the relationship. H1 d : Network Governance Leadership significantly moderates the negative effect of mobbing on organizational trust (β = -0.100, p < .001). This highlights that a collaborative, network-based governance approach can alleviate the adverse effects of mobbing on trust. H2 a : Accountability Leadership significantly moderates the impact of mobbing perception on burnout (β = +0.403, p < .001), indicating that strong accountability within leadership contexts weakens the effect of mobbing on increasing burnout levels. H2 b : Rule-Following Leadership also significantly moderates the relationship between mobbing and burnout (β = -0.167, p < .001), suggesting that a highly rule-bound leadership style may intensify the negative impact of mobbing on burnout. H2 c : Political Loyalty Leadership does not have a statistically significant moderating effect on the relationship between mobbing perception and burnout (p > .05). H2 d : Network Governance Leadership significantly moderates the effect of mobbing on burnout (β = +0.333, p < .001), implying that collaborative leadership practices based on network governance effectively reduce burnout levels among employees. In summary, these findings demonstrate that different public leadership roles differentially influence the relationship between mobbing perception and both organizational trust and burnout, altering these effects in varying directions and magnitudes. Consequently, public leadership roles should be regarded as critical moderating factors within the broader context of organizational behavior. DISCUSSION The primary aim of this study was to investigate the impact of nurses' perception of mobbing in public hospitals on their levels of burnout and organizational trust, as well as to examine the moderating role of various public leadership styles in these relationships. The findings largely corroborate existing literature while providing novel insights in several respects. The study demonstrated that nurses' experiences of mobbing in the workplace exert a significant negative effect on organizational trust. This outcome aligns with Rousseau’s [ 22 ] Psychological Contract Breach theory and Hobfoll’s [ 13 ] Conservation of Resources (COR) theory. Mobbing undermines fundamental employee resources—such as perceptions of justice, psychological trust, and social support—thereby eroding trust in the organization [ 21 , 61 ]. Consistent with prior research by Einarsen and Raknes [ 26 ] and Ayoko et al. [ 27 ], the results indicate that victims of mobbing lose trust not only in management but also in the entire organizational system, reinforcing the parallelism with our findings. Furthermore, the study revealed a significant positive association between the perception of mobbing and burnout among nurses. This supports earlier findings documented by Leymann [ 2 ], Zapf and Gross [ 3 ], and Einarsen et al. [ 1 ]. The Job Demands-Resources Model [ 17 ] and COR theory [ 13 ] both predict that mobbing depletes employees’ psychological resources, contributing to emotional exhaustion, cynicism, and diminished personal accomplishment. The strong effect of mobbing on burnout observed here aligns closely with the burnout dimensions outlined by Maslach and Jackson [ 5 ]. A key contribution of this study lies in identifying the moderating effects of public leadership roles on the relationships between mobbing, burnout, and organizational trust. Notably, Accountability Leadership and Network Governance Leadership were found to significantly attenuate the negative impacts of mobbing on both organizational trust and burnout. These findings are consistent with literature emphasizing leadership characteristics such as transparency, ethical behavior, and accountability as protective factors for employee well-being [ 31 , 62 ]. Accountable leadership fosters a sense of organizational justice by actively preventing the concealment of mobbing incidents, while network governance facilitates open communication and collaboration, thereby mitigating burnout [ 36 ]. Conversely, the Rule-Following Leadership role was shown to exacerbate the adverse effects of mobbing on organizational trust and burnout. This aligns with the concept of “procedural violence” described by Hoel and Salin [ 34 ], wherein rigid adherence to bureaucratic procedures hinders victims' access to grievance mechanisms or enables the misuse of rules, undermining procedural justice and intensifying employees’ distrust and burnout [ 24 , 25 ]. Interestingly, the Political Loyalty Leadership role did not exhibit a statistically significant moderating effect. Although prior studies suggest that this leadership style may provoke mobbing through mechanisms such as political alignment, favoritism, and suppression of dissent [ 35 , 63 ], its impact appears limited in the context of nursing—a more technical and service-oriented profession—or may be minimal within this sample. In conclusion, this study strongly substantiates that workplace mobbing undermines organizational trust and elevates burnout among nurses. Moreover, it highlights how distinct public leadership roles can either mitigate or amplify these detrimental effects. The integration of theoretical frameworks—including Resource Conservation Theory, the Job Demands-Resources Model, Psychological Contract Breach, and Organizational Justice Theory—provides a robust foundation for interpreting these results. Taken together, the findings advocate for the promotion of ethical, accountable, and collaborative leadership styles within public institutions as essential strategies to prevent mobbing and alleviate employee burnout. Accordingly, this study offers a valuable and original contribution to the fields of organizational behavior and public administration. Limitations Despite being carefully designed and executed to uphold methodological rigor, this study is subject to certain limitations common to empirical research. It is important to emphasize, however, that these limitations do not compromise the validity or reliability of the findings; rather, they reflect the study’s grounding within specific contexts and conditions. Firstly, the data were collected exclusively from nurses employed in public hospitals within a particular region of Türkiye. This sampling frame restricts the direct generalizability of the findings to other professional groups or sectors. Nonetheless, focusing on a high-stress, high-demand profession such as nursing provides valuable insights into the dynamics between mobbing, organizational trust, and burnout within a particularly vulnerable population. Secondly, the cross-sectional design of the study limits the ability to establish definitive causal relationships among the examined variables. Data collected at a single point in time may capture participant perceptions that are specific to that particular temporal context. Therefore, the results should be interpreted within these contextual constraints. Thirdly, data collection relied on self-report survey instruments, which may be influenced by perceptual biases, social desirability effects, or recall inaccuracies. Notwithstanding, rigorous validity and reliability assessments of the employed scales substantially mitigate these potential biases. Finally, while the study conceptualizes public leadership roles along four dimensions, it does not address how leadership behaviors may vary across different organizational or cultural settings. Future research employing larger and more diverse samples is warranted to explore these variations more comprehensively. In summary, the strong theoretical framework, comprehensive sample composition, and robust measurement instruments employed in this study uphold the scientific integrity of the findings. Nonetheless, augmenting the research with longitudinal designs or qualitative methodologies, particularly in varied geographic contexts, would further enrich and substantiate the results. CONCLUSION This study has made a significant contribution to the literature by elucidating the impact of nurses’ perception of mobbing within public hospitals in Türkiye on their burnout levels and organizational trust. The principal findings indicate that mobbing behaviors substantially diminish nurses' trust in their organizations while simultaneously increasing their burnout levels. These results underscore the detrimental effects of psychological harassment on nurses’ personal motivation and organizational commitment, particularly within the context of the increasing complexity and workload pressures characteristic of healthcare services. Moreover, the identification of the moderating role of public leadership styles represents a novel contribution to the field. The findings reveal that leadership approaches emphasizing accountability and network governance can mitigate the adverse effects of mobbing, whereas leadership characterized by rigid adherence to rules tends to exacerbate these negative outcomes. These results align with established theories of organizational justice, psychological contract violation, and resource conservation, which have been extensively discussed in the literature. The study highlights that workplace mobbing should be regarded not as a mere interpersonal conflict but as a structural and managerial issue. Addressing mobbing is essential not only for safeguarding employee well-being at the individual level but also for sustaining workforce productivity at the organizational level. Within this framework, effective leadership styles emerge as crucial preventive mechanisms against mobbing. In conclusion, the findings emphasize the vital role of ethical, inclusive leadership practices in protecting employees’ psychosocial health. This insight is pertinent both to the nursing profession and, more broadly, to public administration. The evidence strongly supports the adoption of human-centered governance approaches within healthcare institutions to foster healthier work environments. Implications for Nursing and Health Policy The findings of this study provide concrete recommendations aimed at enhancing the sustainability of the nursing profession, reducing staff turnover, and ensuring high-quality patient care. Firstly, healthcare institution management must implement robust policies and procedures designed to prevent mobbing behaviors institutionally. Transparent complaint mechanisms, protection for victims, and accountability for perpetrators are critical components of this strategy. Leadership development programs should incorporate elements of accountability, network governance, and ethical leadership, encouraging nurse managers to adopt inclusive and supportive management approaches, especially in crisis contexts. Such leadership styles have been demonstrated to strengthen organizational trust and reduce burnout risk. At the health policy level, establishing regular psychosocial health monitoring systems within public hospitals—and ensuring that data derived from these systems is communicated to policymakers—will help uncover and address hidden issues such as mobbing. Nursing professional organizations and unions should develop targeted training programs to educate and empower nurses regarding mobbing and burnout, alongside collaborative policy advocacy to resolve these challenges. Finally, strengthening nurses' self-care strategies, coping skills, and psychological resilience is essential. Organizational support mechanisms, including psychological counseling and group supervision, should be institutionalized to provide ongoing assistance. Collectively, these recommendations will foster healthier work environments for nurses, minimize burnout risks, and enhance trust in healthcare organizations—critical factors not only for employee well-being but also for the quality of patient care and the sustainability of health systems. Declarations Acknowledgements The author would like to express sincere gratitude to all the nurses who voluntarily participated in this study and generously shared their time and insights. Author Contributions A.K. was responsible for the conceptualization, methodology design, software implementation, formal analysis, data curation, validation, investigation, and preparation of the original draft. A.K. also carried out the review and editing of the manuscript and was solely responsible for all stages of data management, validation, analysis, and final revisions. Funding This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Data Availability The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Ethical Approval This study was conducted in full accordance with the ethical principles outlined in the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical approval was obtained from the Atatürk University Social and Human Sciences Ethics Committee (Approval Document No: E.88656144-000-2400387415). Consent to Participate All participants were fully informed about the aims, methods, and potential risks of the study and provided written informed consent prior to participation. Consent for Publication Not applicable. Conflict of Interest The author declares that there is no conflict of interest. References Einarsen SV, Hoel H, Zapf D, Cooper CL. Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace: Theory, Research and Practice. Boca Raton: CRC; 2020. Leymann H. The content and development of mobbing at work. Eur J Work Organizational Psychol. 1996;5(2):165–84. Zapf D, Gross C. Conflict escalation and coping with workplace bullying: A replication and extension. Eur J Work Organizational Psychol. 2001;10(4):497–522. Freudenberger HJ. Staff burn-out. J Soc Issues. 1974;30(1):159–65. Maslach C, Jackson SE. The measurement of experienced burnout. J Organizational Behav. 1981;2(2):99–113. Maslach C, Leiter MP. Burnout: A brief history and how to improve your life. In: Encyclopedia of Stress. Volume 2 , edn. Edited by Fink G; 2016: 368–371. Maslach C, Leiter MP. Understanding the burnout experience: Recent research and its implications for psychiatry. World Psychiatry. 2016;15(2):103–11. Schaufeli WB, Buunk BP. Burnout: An overview of 25 years of research and theorizing. In: The Handbook of Work and Health Psychology. Volume 2 , edn. Edited by Schabracq MJ, Winnubst JAM, Cooper CL: John Wiley & Sons; 2003: 383–425. Björkqvist K, Österman K, Hjelt-Bäck M. Aggression among university employees. Aggressive Behav. 1994;20(3):173–84. Laschinger HKS. Job and career satisfaction and turnover intentions of newly graduated nurses. J Nurs Adm Manag. 2012;20(4):472–84. Laschinger HKS, Wong CA, Grau AL. The influence of authentic leadership on newly graduated nurses’ experiences of workplace bullying, burnout and retention outcomes: A cross-sectional study. Int J Nurs Stud. 2012;49(10):1266–76. Yıldırım D. Bullying among nurses and its effects. Int Nurs Rev. 2009;56(4):504–11. Hobfoll SE. Conservation of resources: a new attempt at conceptualizing stress. Am Psychol. 1989;44(3):513. Moreno-Jimenez B, Rodríguez-Munoz A, Pastor JC, Sanz-Vergel AI, Garrosa E. The moderating effects of psychological detachment and thoughts of revenge in workplace bullying. Pers Indiv Differ. 2009;46(3):359–64. Notelaers G, De Witte H, Einarsen S. A job characteristics approach to explain workplace bullying. Eur J Work Organizational Psychol. 2010;19(4):487–504. Demerouti E, Bakker AB, De Jonge J, Janssen PP, Schaufeli WB. Burnout and engagement at work as a function of demands and control. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2001;27(4):279–86. Bakker AB, Demerouti E. The job demands-resources model: State of the art. J Managerial Psychol. 2007;22(3):309–28. Hauge LJ, Skogstad A, Einarsen S. The relative impact of workplace bullying as a social stressor at work. Scand J Psychol. 2010;51(5):426–33. Mayer RC, Davis JH, Schoorman FD. An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad Manage Rev. 1995;20(3):709–34. Dirks KT, Ferrin DL. Trust in leadership: meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. J Appl Psychol. 2002;87(4):611–28. Robinson SL. Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Adm Sci Q. 1996;41(4):574–99. Rousseau DM. Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Empl Responsibilities Rights J. 1989;2:121–39. Colquitt JA. On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a measure. J Appl Psychol. 2001;86(3):386–400. Colquitt JA, Conlon DE, Wesson MJ, Porter CO, Ng KY. Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. J Appl Psychol. 2001;86(3):425–45. Greenberg J. A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Acad Manage Rev. 1987;12(1):9–22. Einarsen S, Raknes BI. Harassment in the workplace and the victimization of men. Violence Vict. 1997;12(3):247–63. Ayoko OB, Callan VJ, Hartel CE. Workplace conflict, bullying, and counterproductive behaviors. Int J Organizational Anal. 2003;11(4):283–301. Tummers L, Knies E. Leadership and meaningful work in the public sector. Public Adm Rev. 2013;73(6):859–68. Tummers L, Knies E. Measuring public leadership: Developing scales for four key public leadership roles. Public Adm. 2016;94(2):433–51. Bovens M. Two concepts of accountability: Accountability as a virtue and as a mechanism. West Eur Politics. 2010;33(5):946–67. Lewis D. The contents of whistleblowing/confidential reporting procedures in the UK: Some lessons from empirical research. Empl Relations. 2006;28(1):76–86. D'Cruz P, Noronha E. The exit coping response to workplace bullying: The contribution of inclusivist and exclusivist HRM strategies. Empl Relations. 2010;32(2):102–20. Salin D. The prevention of workplace bullying as a question of human resource management: Measures adopted and underlying organizational factors. Scand J Manag. 2008;24(3):221–31. Hoel H, Salin D. Organisational antecedents of workplace bullying. In: Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace. edn. Edited by Einarsen S, Hoel H, Cooper C. London: CRC Press; 2002: 221–236. Vigoda-Gadot E. Leadership style, organizational politics, and employees' performance: An empirical examination of two competing models. Personnel Rev. 2007;36(5):661–83. Provan KG, Kenis P. Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness. J Public Adm Res Theor. 2008;18(2):229–52. Sorensen E, Torfing J. Enhancing collaborative innovation in the public sector. Adm Soc. 2011;43(8):842–68. Van Wart M. Administrative leadership theory: A reassessment after 10 years. Public Adm. 2013;91(3):521–43. Sağlık personeli sayılarının. illere göre dağılımı [ https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/DownloadIstatistikselTablo?p=hC6vWNXlZi0Rxl 0Nf96PYW4Urjd1CZESuhKCDOD9T8u1wyoEgCozsgvL8CUe0Nhr]. Creative Research Systems This Sample. Size Calculator [ https://www.calculator.net/sample-size-calculator.html] Ozturk H, Sokmen S, Yılmaz F, Cilingir D. Measuring mobbing experiences of academic nurses: Development of a mobbing scale. J Am Acad Nurse Pract. 2008;20(9):435–42. Çalışkan A. Örgütsel güven: Bir ölçek geliştirme çalışması. Antalya Bilim Üniversitesi Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. 2021;2(1):42–59. Maslach C, Jackson SE, Leiter MP. Maslach burnout inventory. In: Evaluating Stress: A Book of Resources. edn. Edited by Zalaquett CP, Wood RJ. London: Scarecrow Education; 1997: 191–218. Shirom A, Melamed S. A comparison of the construct validity of two burnout measures in two groups of professionals. Int J Stress Manage. 2006;13(2):176–200. Kristensen TS, Borritz M, Villadsen E, Christensen KB. The Copenhagen Burnout Inventory: A new tool for the assessment of burnout. Work Stress. 2005;19(3):192–207. Khatatbeh H, Pakai A, Al-Dwaikat T, Onchonga D, Amer F, Premusz V, Olah A. Nurses’ burnout and quality of life: A systematic review and critical analysis of measures used. Nurs Open. 2022;9(3):1564–74. İnce B, Yılmaz S. Ebelerin aidiyet, merhamet ve tükenmişlik düzeylerinin belirlenmesi. Selçuk Sağlık Dergisi. 2024;5(2):199–217. Karataş A. Kamu liderliği rollerinin kamu personelinin sanal kaytarma davranışları üzerindeki etkisi: TRA1 bölgesinde bir araştırma. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi. 2020;3(38):134–64. The PROCESS macro for SPSS, SAS. and R [ https://www.afhayes.com/spss-sas-and-r-macros-and-code.html] Karataş A. The effect of COVID-19 anxiety and awareness on smoking urges: The moderator effect of demographic factors. J Subst Use. 2023;28(6):995–1003. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Personal Soc Psychol. 1986;51(6):1173. Frazier PA, Tix AP, Barron KE. Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. J Couns Psychol. 2004;51(1):115–34. Shieh G. On the misconception of multicollinearity in detection of moderating effects: Multicollinearity is not always detrimental. Multivar Behav Res. 2010;45(3):483–507. Bryman A, Cramer D. Quantitative data analysis with IBM SPSS 17, 18 & 19: A guide for social scientists. Volume 1. United Kingdom: Routledge; 2012. Pallant J. SPSS kullanma kılavuzu: SPSS ile adım adım veri analizi. Volume 2. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık; 2017. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Pearson; 2013. Kline RB. Assessing statistical aspects of test fairness with structural equation modelling. In: Fairness issues in educational assessment. edn. Edited by Karami H. London: Routledge; 2018: 116–134. Cudeck R. Exploratory factor analysis. In: Handbook of applied multivariate statistics and mathematical modeling. edn. Edited by Tinsley HEA, Brown SD: Academic Press; 2000: 265–296. Hu Lt, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct equation modeling: multidisciplinary J. 1999;6(1):1–55. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994. Parzefall M-R, Salin DM. Perceptions of and reactions to workplace bullying: A social exchange perspective. Hum Relat. 2010;63(6):761–80. Van der Wal Z, De Graff D, Lasthuizen K. Whats Valued Most? A comparative empirical study on the differences and similarities between the organizational values of the public and private sector. Public Adm. 2008;86(2):465–82. Vveinhardt J, Bendaraviciene R. How do nepotism and favouritism affect organisational climate? Front Psychol. 2022;12:710140. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files SurveyForm.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7049123","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":492615132,"identity":"e9c7a02e-cc02-409f-9599-bf7341203044","order_by":0,"name":"Adnan KARATAŞ","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Atatürk University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Adnan","middleName":"","lastName":"KARATAŞ","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-07-04 19:08:04","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":false,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false,"humanSubjectConsent":false,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7049123/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7049123/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":88020666,"identity":"53d27f1e-00c8-497a-8890-ef2337d0cfe0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-31 13:51:01","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":100098,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eResearch Model\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7049123/v1/031f468531d0c49caa6e62a7.png"},{"id":101711524,"identity":"34f9adf3-4bb8-4c41-b374-0fbaf504270b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-02 22:09:19","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1015703,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7049123/v1/08982b16-3172-4e78-ab0a-fc34c651d63b.pdf"},{"id":88020669,"identity":"ae7afb0d-c732-4779-8ba3-a3a7a9d8a764","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-31 13:51:01","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":80879,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"SurveyForm.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7049123/v1/3daaaa2abc237c357d0e9362.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eThe Effect of Nurses’ Perceptions of Mobbing on Burnout and Organizational Trust: The Moderating Role of Public Leadership Roles\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"BACKGROUND","content":"\u003cp\u003eEmployee health and psychological well-being in the workplace are not merely individual needs but essential components of organizational efficiency, service quality, and sustainable performance. This is particularly critical in the healthcare sector, where employees are exposed to multidimensional psychosocial risks stemming from intense workloads, the demands of emotional labor, and persistent stressors. Within this context, mobbing—defined as psychological harassment in the workplace—has emerged as a pervasive phenomenon that depletes individuals’ emotional and physical resources and profoundly disrupts organizational functioning [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe concept of mobbing was first systematically conceptualized by Heinz Leymann [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e], who described it as the prolonged and systematic psychological harassment of an individual by one or more perpetrators. Such harassing behaviors typically manifest in forms such as humiliation, the questioning of professional competence, social isolation, or direct exclusion [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]. A defining characteristic of mobbing, as highlighted in the literature, is its sustained nature and the resultant isolation and defenselessness of the victim within the workplace [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]. This process gradually erodes the individual’s self-esteem, self-efficacy, and access to social support. At the individual level, the most prevalent consequence of mobbing is burnout. Initially defined by Freudenberger [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e] and further elaborated by Maslach and Jackson [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e], burnout comprises three dimensions: emotional exhaustion, cynicism, and diminished personal accomplishment. Burnout arises from prolonged exposure to stress and the depletion of coping resources, thereby weakening psychological resilience and professional motivation [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR7\" citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e–\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e]. Numerous empirical studies have demonstrated the direct impact of mobbing on emotional exhaustion and the erosion of personal accomplishment [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR10 CR11\" citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e–\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e]. Zapf and Gross’s [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e] longitudinal study underscores that chronic mobbing can culminate in psychological disorders.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Conservation of Resources (COR) Theory [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e] provides a critical theoretical lens for understanding this relationship. According to COR Theory, individuals strive to acquire, protect, and enhance valued resources such as self-esteem, social support, and psychological safety. Mobbing directly and persistently threatens these resources; as they become depleted, emotional exhaustion intensifies, cynicism grows, and the sense of personal accomplishment deteriorates [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e]. Similarly, the Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) Model [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e] conceptualizes mobbing as a significant social demand which, when coupled with insufficient job resources such as social support, autonomy, or perceived fairness, rapidly precipitates burnout [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e]. Inadequate organizational support mechanisms can exacerbate this process, rendering it chronic and further diminishing individual resilience.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBeyond its psychological impact on individuals, mobbing also undermines employees’ trust in their organizations and managers. Organizational trust refers to employees’ positive expectations regarding the intentions and actions of others within the workplace, including managerial structures [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e]. Elevated levels of organizational trust foster greater cooperation, organizational commitment, and citizenship behaviors [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e]; however, this trust can erode rapidly when expectations of fairness and integrity are violated. The Psychological Contract Breach framework [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e] and Organizational Justice Theory [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR24\" citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e–\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e] offer important theoretical explanations for this dynamic. When mobbing violates fundamental expectations of fair treatment, respect, and dignity, the trust of both victims and bystanders in the organization is significantly undermined [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e]. From the perspective of COR Theory, trust itself constitutes a vital social resource; its loss prompts individuals to adopt defensive behaviors to protect remaining resources [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn this context, leadership roles emerge as a decisive factor in shaping how mobbing experiences affect nurses. Leadership roles within public institutions differ notably from those in the private sector, reflecting complex dimensions such as accountability, legal compliance, political loyalty, and network governance [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e]. Accountability Leadership can deter mobbing through the promotion of transparency and adherence to ethical principles [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e]; however, if misused, it may also become a mechanism for scapegoating or silencing dissent [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e]. Rule-Following Leadership can provide protection by ensuring clear and equitable procedures [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e], yet overly rigid or bureaucratic practices may enable mobbing to manifest as “procedural violence” [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e]. Political Loyalty Leadership may exacerbate the risk of mobbing, especially in contexts marked by favoritism and political patronage [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e], and leaders may struggle to deploy this role effectively in preventing harassment [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]. Conversely, Network Governance Leadership holds promise for enhancing both organizational trust and employee resilience by fostering a culture of open communication and collaboration [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn sum, this robust theoretical foundation suggests that mobbing in high-stress work environments such as nursing should not be viewed merely as an interpersonal conflict but as a phenomenon intricately linked to organizational structures and leadership dynamics. Against this backdrop, the present study investigates the impact of nurses’ perceptions of mobbing on their levels of organizational trust and burnout within public hospitals in Türkiye, and examines whether public leadership roles moderate these relationships. The findings are expected to inform policy development aimed at reinforcing ethical leadership practices in healthcare institutions and safeguarding the psychosocial well-being of nursing professionals.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"METHODS","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePurpose and Model of the Research\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe primary objective of this study is to examine the impact of nurses\u0026rsquo; perceptions of mobbing on their levels of organizational trust and burnout, and to analyze the moderating effects of public leadership roles within these relationships. More specifically, this research investigates how the leadership roles demonstrated by nurses\u0026rsquo; managers shape the influence of mobbing perceptions on organizational trust and burnout syndrome.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWithin the theoretical framework, existing literature has consistently demonstrated that mobbing\u0026mdash;conceptualized as psychological harassment in the workplace\u0026mdash;induces elevated stress, emotional exhaustion, and burnout among employees, while simultaneously undermining their trust in the organization [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]. Organizational trust refers to the confidence employees have in the integrity and reliability of their managers and the institution as a whole, whereas burnout is commonly conceptualized through its sub-dimensions of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization (cynicism), and diminished personal accomplishment [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn this context, leadership roles\u0026mdash;particularly ethical leadership behaviors, fair management practices, and the capacity to empower employees\u0026mdash;are recognized as critical factors shaping employees\u0026rsquo; organizational experiences [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e]. While effective leadership can foster positive psychosocial outcomes, inadequate or unethical leadership practices may contribute to the prevalence of mobbing and exacerbate employee burnout. Therefore, it is posited that public leadership roles may moderate the relationship between nurses\u0026rsquo; perceptions of mobbing and their levels of organizational trust and burnout\u0026mdash;either mitigating or amplifying these effects.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGrounded in this theoretical foundation, the following research hypotheses were formulated:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH1:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003eNurses\u0026rsquo; perceptions of mobbing have a significantly negative effect on organizational trust.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH2:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003eNurses\u0026rsquo; perceptions of mobbing have a significantly positive effect on burnout.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe conceptual research model illustrating these hypothesized relationships is presented in Figure 1.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDesign of the Study\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study adopts a descriptive, cross-sectional, and quantitative research design. It is structured with a prospective approach, aiming to elucidate the current situation by analyzing data collected within a defined timeframe. The cross-sectional nature of the design enables the assessment of participants\u0026rsquo; views at a single point in time, providing a snapshot of prevailing perceptions and attitudes. The descriptive dimension reflects the study\u0026rsquo;s focus on identifying and interpreting existing relationships among variables without establishing causal inferences.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe survey instrument administered to participants comprises four primary sections. The first section collects information on participants\u0026rsquo; demographic characteristics, including age, gender, educational attainment, professional experience, and the type of institution in which they are employed. The subsequent three sections incorporate validated scales developed to measure the key constructs under investigation: perceptions of mobbing, organizational trust, and burnout levels. Each scale underwent confirmatory factor analysis and reliability testing to ensure their psychometric robustness.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThrough this design, the study quantitatively examines the relationships between nurses\u0026rsquo; perceptions of mobbing and their levels of organizational trust and burnout. Furthermore, it assesses the moderating role of public leadership roles within these relationships. Details regarding the specific measurement instruments and the data collection procedures are elaborated in the subsequent section.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResearch Setting\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was conducted among nurses employed in public hospitals across T\u0026uuml;rkiye. The exclusive focus on public healthcare institutions is grounded in the premise that the structural and managerial differences between the public and private sectors may distinctly influence nurses\u0026rsquo; perceptions of their work environment, thereby affecting the study\u0026rsquo;s key variables: mobbing, organizational trust, and burnout. Moreover, given that the primary focus of this research is to examine public leadership roles, it was deemed more appropriate to investigate the leadership practices of nurse managers operating within public institutions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe research encompasses nurses working in primary, secondary, and tertiary public healthcare facilities, which collectively represent the full spectrum of healthcare service delivery levels in T\u0026uuml;rkiye. This inclusive approach enables a more comprehensive analysis of nurses\u0026rsquo; organizational experiences by considering the diverse working conditions across different service tiers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe field study was carried out between January 2025 and May 2025. Throughout the research process, the necessary legal and administrative approvals were obtained from the relevant provincial health directorates, which also facilitated communication and coordination with the participating public hospitals. Data collection was conducted with nurses who voluntarily agreed to participate in the study, in full compliance with confidentiality and ethical principles.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResearch Universe and Sampling\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe geographical scope of this study was defined as the TRA1 region, which corresponds to T\u0026uuml;rkiye\u0026rsquo;s Level 2 (NUTS-2) statistical classification according to the Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS) system developed by Eurostat, the Statistical Office of the European Union. The TRA1 region comprises the provinces of Erzurum, Erzincan, and Bayburt, and constitutes a significant area within the Eastern Anatolia Region, representing both regional healthcare services and the broader socioeconomic landscape.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe relatively high number of primary, secondary, and tertiary public healthcare institutions within these provinces enabled the study to capture more comprehensive and representative data by including nurses working across various levels of service provision. In particular, Atat\u0026uuml;rk University Research Hospital and Erzurum City Hospital, both located in Erzurum, serve as major healthcare centers with the capacity to provide advanced medical services not only at the regional level but also nationwide. These institutions accept patients from different parts of T\u0026uuml;rkiye due to their extensive bed capacity, broad patient catchment areas, advanced medical infrastructure, and diverse fields of specialization. Therefore, they are regarded as representative in terms of the scale of healthcare services delivered and the diversity of their healthcare workforce.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAccording to the most recent data from the Turkish Statistical Institute [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e], approximately 8,785 nurses are employed in the TRA1 region. Based on this population, a minimum sample size of 369 nurses was calculated to be statistically sufficient to ensure a 95% confidence level with an acceptable margin of error [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e]. However, the final sample exceeded this minimum threshold during the data collection phase, thereby enhancing the robustness and generalizability of the research findings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Collection Tools\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA comprehensive survey form comprising four distinct scales and five demographic variables was employed as the primary data collection instrument in this study. The questionnaire consists of five main sections, each designed to measure different aspects relevant to the research objectives. The survey form containing the scales used in this research and demographic characteristics has been provided as an attachment.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe first section includes items intended to capture the participants\u0026rsquo; basic demographic characteristics. This part aims to describe the sample profile by collecting information on age, gender, professional experience, employment status (e.g., permanent or contractual), and level of education.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe second section utilizes the mobbing perception scale originally developed by Leymann [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e] to assess the extent to which nurses perceive themselves as being exposed to mobbing in the workplace. This scale was adapted to the Turkish context by \u0026Ouml;zt\u0026uuml;rk et al. [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e] for academic nurses, and further modifications were made to ensure its relevance and applicability to the current sample of clinical nurses.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the third section, the Organizational Trust Scale developed by \u0026Ccedil;alışkan [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e] was employed to measure the participants\u0026rsquo; levels of trust towards their organization, managers, and colleagues. This scale provides a comprehensive framework for evaluating the multidimensional nature of organizational trust within healthcare settings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe fourth section examines the Burnout Scales, which are widely regarded as the most valid and reliable tools for assessing burnout among nurses [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e]. Various scales available in the literature include different subscales and characteristics [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e]. The Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI) was employed in this study to measure participants\u0026rsquo; levels of burnout. Originally developed by Kristensen et al. [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e], the CBI has been widely recognized for its robust psychometric properties and its applicability across diverse occupational groups, including healthcare professionals. Furthermore, the CBI has been adapted and validated for use in the Turkish context, with studies showing that its Turkish versions yield reliable and valid measurements when administered to nursing populations in T\u0026uuml;rkiye [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe fifth and final section makes use of the Public Leadership Roles Scale, originally developed by Tummers and Knies [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e] and adapted to the Turkish context by Karataş [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e]. This scale measures the perceived leadership roles of managers working in public institutions, with a particular focus on service-oriented, ethical, and inclusive leadership practices. Items are rated using a 5-point Likert-type scale.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo ensure the cultural and contextual suitability of these measurement tools, both linguistic and content adaptations were performed. Subsequently, the validity and reliability of each scale were re-examined within the scope of this study. Construct validity was evaluated using both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Reliability analyses were conducted by calculating Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s Alpha coefficients for each sub-dimension, all of which demonstrated acceptable levels of internal consistency. These procedures confirmed that the data collection instruments employed in this research are psychometrically robust and capable of providing valid and reliable measurements.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Analyses\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe data collected within the scope of this study were analyzed using the SPSS 20 statistical package program. In the initial stage, the internal consistency of each scale was assessed by calculating Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s Alpha coefficients, while construct validity was examined through the application of Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). These analyses ensured that the measurement instruments were both reliable and valid for the study population.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDescriptive statistical methods were utilized to present the frequency, percentage, mean, and standard deviation values of the participants\u0026rsquo; demographic characteristics. To test the normality assumptions for the main study variables, skewness and kurtosis values were examined, complemented by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests. These tests supported the determination of appropriate inferential methods for hypothesis testing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo test the main hypotheses of the study, linear regression analyses were conducted to evaluate the direct effects of the independent variable (mobbing perception) on the dependent variables (organizational trust and burnout levels). Additionally, to investigate the moderating effects hypothesized in the research model, the PROCESS macro developed by Andrew Hayes was employed [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e]. This macro is a robust statistical tool that facilitates the systematic execution of moderation analyses, including the creation of interaction terms and the interpretation of conditional effects. Its application provides significant insight into the complex interplay between variables within social, psychological, and organizational research contexts [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFollowing the approach proposed by Baron and Kenny [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e], regression-based moderation analyses were performed to examine whether moderator variables exert a moderating influence on the relationships between the independent and dependent variables. To mitigate potential multicollinearity issues, all relevant variables were standardized prior to the creation of interaction terms [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e]. The interaction terms were calculated as the product of each moderator variable and the independent variable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSubsequently, separate multiple linear regression analyses were conducted for each sub-hypothesis, testing the effects of the independent variable, the moderator variable, and the interaction term on the standardized dependent variable. A significant interaction term indicates that the presence of the moderator alters the strength or direction of the relationship between the independent and dependent variables.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis comprehensive analytical framework enables not only the assessment of the direct relationships specified in the core hypotheses, but also an examination of the contextual conditions under which these relationships may vary. Consequently, the moderation analyses add theoretical depth to the study by allowing for a nuanced, multidimensional interpretation of the findings, ultimately enhancing the overall explanatory power of the research.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical Approval and Participation Permission\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll stages of this research were conducted in full compliance with the ethical principles outlined in the most current version of the Declaration of Helsinki. Throughout the study, particular attention was paid to upholding participants\u0026rsquo; rights and maintaining the highest standards of scientific integrity. Prior to the commencement of data collection, the necessary ethical approval was obtained from the Atat\u0026uuml;rk University Social and Human Sciences Ethics Committee on November 25, 2024 (Approval Document No: E.88656144-000-2400387415).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants were provided with detailed information regarding the purpose of the study, the procedures to be followed during data collection, potential risks, and the principles of confidentiality. It was clearly emphasized that participation was entirely voluntary and that participants could withdraw from the study at any point without providing any justification. No personally identifying information, contact details, or sensitive personal data were collected in the survey instrument; all responses were anonymized in accordance with the principle of confidentiality.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWritten informed consent was obtained from each participant prior to participation. For surveys conducted online via Google Forms, digital consent was duly obtained through the platform before participants could access the questionnaire. The sampling framework of the study consisted solely of nurses who voluntarily agreed to participate, and the researchers remained fully committed to upholding ethical responsibility and data protection standards at every stage of the research process.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"FINDINGS","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCharacteristics of Participants\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe socio-demographic profile of the nurses who participated in this study is summarized in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. Among the participants, 62.1% were female, while 37.9% were male, indicating a predominantly female sample consistent with the gender distribution in the nursing profession. In terms of employment status, 56.1% of the nurses were employed as civil servants with professional job security, whereas 43.9% were employed under contractual arrangements.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRegarding age distribution, the majority of participants were relatively young: 27.3% were between 18 and 25 years old, and 32.1% were between 26 and 35 years old. This demographic trend suggests that the sample mainly consisted of early-career nurses. Supporting this observation, 27.3% of the participants reported having between 0 to 5 years of professional experience, and 30.7% had 6 to 10 years, indicating that most respondents were in the initial stages of their nursing careers.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEducationally, 43.1% of the participants held an associate degree, while 36.9% had attained a bachelor’s degree. This distribution reflects the varied educational backgrounds within the nursing workforce in the region under study (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). These socio-demographic characteristics provide a contextual foundation for interpreting subsequent analyses regarding the effects of mobbing perceptions, burnout, organizational trust, and the moderating role of public leadership among this cohort of nurses.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSocio-demographic characteristics\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSocio-demographic information\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFemale\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMale\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e311\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e190\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e62,1\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e37,9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEmployment Status\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCivil servant\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eContract employee\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e281\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e220\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e56,1\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e43,9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAge\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e18–25\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e26–35\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e35–45\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e46–55\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e56 and older\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e137\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e161\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e42\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e90\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e71\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e27,3\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e32,1\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e8,4\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e18,0\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e14,2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExperience\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e0–5 year\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e6–10 year\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e11–15 year\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e16–20 year\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e21 year and above\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e137\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e154\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e58\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e98\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e54\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e27,3\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e30,7\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e11,6\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e19,6\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e10,8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEducation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHigh school\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAssociate’s degree\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBachelor\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMaster's degree\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePhD\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e38\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e216\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e185\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e44\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7,6\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e43,1\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e36,9\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e8,8\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e3,6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eReliability, Validity, and Normality Tests of Scales\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePrior to hypothesis testing, the psychometric properties of the measurement instruments employed in this study were rigorously evaluated to ensure reliability and validity. Internal consistency reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients for each scale. All scales demonstrated satisfactory reliability, with Cronbach’s Alpha values exceeding the widely accepted threshold of 0.70, as recommended by Bryman and Cramer [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e54\u003c/span\u003e]. In addition, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was performed independently for each scale to examine their factorial structure. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy for all scales surpassed the minimum recommended value of 0.80 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e55\u003c/span\u003e], indicating that the data were suitable for factor analysis. The results from the EFA, coupled with the internal consistency analyses, confirmed that all scales exhibited adequate construct validity and reliability, thus validating their use for subsequent analyses within the study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese findings are detailed in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, which presents the reliability coefficients alongside the factor loadings derived from the EFA conducted via SPSS.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eReliability and validity analyses\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eScales\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003en\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ex̄\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eScale x̄\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStd. Dev.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eα\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eKMO\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSig. (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTot.Var.%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBullying\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e27\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.33\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e90.11\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e33.45\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.994\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.995\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e85.58\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOrganizational trust\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e17\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.87\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e48.84\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e20.12\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.987\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.991\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e82.36\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBurnout\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e22\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.16\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6957\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e24.74\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.987\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.992\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e79.14\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePublic leadership roles\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e- Accountability\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.31\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e19.87\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6.26\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.959\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.945\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e83.04\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e- Rule-Following\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.54\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10.18\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.94\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.883\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.841\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e74.03\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e- Political Loyalty\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.85\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e14.25\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7.00\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.967\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.926\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e88.40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e- Network Governance\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.01\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e18.04\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8.21\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.978\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.951\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e89.93\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eConfirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted to further assess the construct validity and reliability of the scales employed in this study. These analyses were carried out using AMOS software, and a comprehensive evaluation of model fit indices was performed. The obtained values were compared against the threshold criteria commonly recommended in the literature. Results indicated that all fit indices—including CMIN/DF (χ²/df), RMR, GFI, AGFI, NFI, IFI, NNFI (TLI), CFI, RMSEA, AIC, BIC, and CAIC—fell within acceptable ranges, demonstrating good model fit (Byrne, 2016). This confirms that the scales exhibit adequate measurement validity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAdditionally, the distributional properties of the data were examined to ensure the appropriateness of subsequent hypothesis testing. Skewness and kurtosis statistics were assessed, with values falling within the ± 1.5 range, as suggested by Tabachnick and Fidell [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e56\u003c/span\u003e]. This indicates that the data approximate a normal distribution sufficiently for the use of parametric tests.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCollectively, these findings affirm that the scales used in this study possess satisfactory validity and reliability, and that the data meet the necessary assumptions for conducting hypothesis tests. Detailed results of these analyses are provided in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c10\" colnum=\"10\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c11\" colnum=\"11\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCFA analysis and skewness and kurtosis values\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"11\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eScales\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCMIN/DF\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGFI\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAGFI\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNFI\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIFI\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTLI\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCFI\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRSMA\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSkewness\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eKurtosis\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBullying\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.195\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.946\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.937\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.984\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.997\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.997\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.997\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.020\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e− .157\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-1.168\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOrganizational trust\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.145\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.968\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.959\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.989\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.999\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.998\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.999\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.017\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e− .006\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-1.195\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBurnout\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.341\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.953\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.943\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.981\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.995\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.995\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.995\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.026\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e− .182\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-1.130\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePublic leaders’ roles\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.119\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.963\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.954\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.985\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.998\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.998\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.998\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.015\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e- Accountability\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e− .232\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-1.161\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e- Rule-Following\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e− .055\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e− .692\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e- Political Loyalty\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.346\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-1.132\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e- Network Governance\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e− .056\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-1.147\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhen the findings of the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), and reliability tests presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e and Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e were evaluated collectively, it was determined that the validity and reliability levels of all scales used in the study met acceptable thresholds recommended in the literature. Specifically, the CFA model fit indices demonstrated a CMIN/DF value below 5 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e57\u003c/span\u003e], an RMSEA value less than 0.08 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e58\u003c/span\u003e], and goodness-of-fit indices such as CFI and GFI above 0.90 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e59\u003c/span\u003e]. Moreover, Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients exceeded 0.70 across all sub-dimensions, indicating satisfactory internal consistency [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e60\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese results confirm that the measurement instruments validly and reliably capture the constructs under investigation, and the data satisfy the assumptions for parametric statistical analyses. Consequently, the forthcoming hypothesis testing is grounded on a robust measurement foundation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTests of Main Hypotheses and Moderator Effects\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe results of the moderator effect analyses, which sought to elucidate the relationships proposed in the study’s main hypotheses and the variables therein, are comprehensively presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e. These findings clarify the conditions under which leadership roles exert a moderating influence on the associations among mobbing perception, organizational trust, and burnout.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c10\" colnum=\"10\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHypothesis Test Results\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"10\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eModel Summary\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eANOVA\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCoefficients\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHip.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eR\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAdj.R\u003c/b\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003e2\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eStd. Err.\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eF\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ep\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eβ\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eStd. Err.\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003et\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ep\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eH1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.929\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.862\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.439\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3131.091\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e− .887\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.016\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-55.956\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.000***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eH2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.916\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.838\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.452\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2590.279\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.831\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.016\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e50.895\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.000***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eH1\u003csub\u003ea\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.945\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.893\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.326\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1394.824\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e− .055\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.024\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-2.242\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.025**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eH1\u003csub\u003eb\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.951\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.905\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.308\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1584.335\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.127\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.015\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8.234\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.000***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eH1\u003csub\u003ec\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.945\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.893\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.327\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1390.634\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.004\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.031\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.136\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.892\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eH1\u003csub\u003ed\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.979\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.958\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.206\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3757.130\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e− .100\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.016\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-6.154\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.000***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eH2\u003csub\u003ea\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.949\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.900\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.316\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1498.709\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e− .403\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.024\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-17.033\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.000***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eH2\u003csub\u003eb\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.931\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.866\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.366\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1073.772\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.167\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.018\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9.085\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.000***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eH2\u003csub\u003ec\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.916\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.838\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.402\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e864.552\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e− .010\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.038\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e− .272\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.786\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eH2\u003csub\u003ed\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.941\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.885\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.339\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1280.703\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e− .333\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.027\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-12.431\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.000***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e***\u003c/b\u003e≤ 0.01: The regression is statistically significant at the 99% confidence level.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e**≤ 0.05: The regression is statistically significant at the 95% confidence level.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAccording to the results presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, the perception of mobbing among nurses exerts a significant influence on both organizational trust and burnout levels. Specifically, the perception of mobbing negatively affects nurses' perception of organizational trust, while simultaneously contributing to an increase in their burnout levels. These findings confirm the primary hypotheses of the study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe perception of mobbing demonstrates a strong negative and statistically significant effect on organizational trust (β = -0.887, p \u0026lt; .001), indicating that as nurses experience higher levels of mobbing at work, their trust in the organization correspondingly declines. Conversely, mobbing perception is positively and significantly associated with burnout (β = 0.831, p \u0026lt; .001), suggesting that nurses subjected to mobbing are more likely to experience elevated burnout.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRegarding the study’s moderator hypotheses, the influence of various public leadership roles on the intensity and direction of these primary effects is summarized as follows:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eH1\u003csub\u003ea\u003c/sub\u003e: Accountability Leadership significantly moderates the relationship between mobbing perception and organizational trust (β = -0.055, p \u0026lt; .05). This suggests that in leadership environments characterized by high accountability, the detrimental impact of mobbing on organizational trust is relatively mitigated.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eH1\u003csub\u003eb\u003c/sub\u003e: Rule-Following Leadership significantly moderates the relationship between mobbing and organizational trust (β = +0.127, p \u0026lt; .001). This finding indicates that a strict, rule-oriented leadership style may exacerbate the negative influence of mobbing on organizational trust.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eH1\u003csub\u003ec\u003c/sub\u003e: Political Loyalty Leadership does not exert a statistically significant moderating effect on the relationship between mobbing and organizational trust (p \u0026gt; .05), implying that this leadership style does not alter the dynamics of the relationship.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eH1\u003csub\u003ed\u003c/sub\u003e: Network Governance Leadership significantly moderates the negative effect of mobbing on organizational trust (β = -0.100, p \u0026lt; .001). This highlights that a collaborative, network-based governance approach can alleviate the adverse effects of mobbing on trust.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eH2\u003csub\u003ea\u003c/sub\u003e: Accountability Leadership significantly moderates the impact of mobbing perception on burnout (β = +0.403, p \u0026lt; .001), indicating that strong accountability within leadership contexts weakens the effect of mobbing on increasing burnout levels.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eH2\u003csub\u003eb\u003c/sub\u003e: Rule-Following Leadership also significantly moderates the relationship between mobbing and burnout (β = -0.167, p \u0026lt; .001), suggesting that a highly rule-bound leadership style may intensify the negative impact of mobbing on burnout.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eH2\u003csub\u003ec\u003c/sub\u003e: Political Loyalty Leadership does not have a statistically significant moderating effect on the relationship between mobbing perception and burnout (p \u0026gt; .05).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eH2\u003csub\u003ed\u003c/sub\u003e: Network Governance Leadership significantly moderates the effect of mobbing on burnout (β = +0.333, p \u0026lt; .001), implying that collaborative leadership practices based on network governance effectively reduce burnout levels among employees.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn summary, these findings demonstrate that different public leadership roles differentially influence the relationship between mobbing perception and both organizational trust and burnout, altering these effects in varying directions and magnitudes. Consequently, public leadership roles should be regarded as critical moderating factors within the broader context of organizational behavior.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"DISCUSSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe primary aim of this study was to investigate the impact of nurses' perception of mobbing in public hospitals on their levels of burnout and organizational trust, as well as to examine the moderating role of various public leadership styles in these relationships. The findings largely corroborate existing literature while providing novel insights in several respects.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe study demonstrated that nurses' experiences of mobbing in the workplace exert a significant negative effect on organizational trust. This outcome aligns with Rousseau\u0026rsquo;s [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e] Psychological Contract Breach theory and Hobfoll\u0026rsquo;s [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e] Conservation of Resources (COR) theory. Mobbing undermines fundamental employee resources\u0026mdash;such as perceptions of justice, psychological trust, and social support\u0026mdash;thereby eroding trust in the organization [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e61\u003c/span\u003e]. Consistent with prior research by Einarsen and Raknes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e] and Ayoko et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e], the results indicate that victims of mobbing lose trust not only in management but also in the entire organizational system, reinforcing the parallelism with our findings.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, the study revealed a significant positive association between the perception of mobbing and burnout among nurses. This supports earlier findings documented by Leymann [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e], Zapf and Gross [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e], and Einarsen et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]. The Job Demands-Resources Model [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e] and COR theory [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e] both predict that mobbing depletes employees\u0026rsquo; psychological resources, contributing to emotional exhaustion, cynicism, and diminished personal accomplishment. The strong effect of mobbing on burnout observed here aligns closely with the burnout dimensions outlined by Maslach and Jackson [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA key contribution of this study lies in identifying the moderating effects of public leadership roles on the relationships between mobbing, burnout, and organizational trust. Notably, Accountability Leadership and Network Governance Leadership were found to significantly attenuate the negative impacts of mobbing on both organizational trust and burnout. These findings are consistent with literature emphasizing leadership characteristics such as transparency, ethical behavior, and accountability as protective factors for employee well-being [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e62\u003c/span\u003e]. Accountable leadership fosters a sense of organizational justice by actively preventing the concealment of mobbing incidents, while network governance facilitates open communication and collaboration, thereby mitigating burnout [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eConversely, the Rule-Following Leadership role was shown to exacerbate the adverse effects of mobbing on organizational trust and burnout. This aligns with the concept of \u0026ldquo;procedural violence\u0026rdquo; described by Hoel and Salin [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e], wherein rigid adherence to bureaucratic procedures hinders victims' access to grievance mechanisms or enables the misuse of rules, undermining procedural justice and intensifying employees\u0026rsquo; distrust and burnout [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eInterestingly, the Political Loyalty Leadership role did not exhibit a statistically significant moderating effect. Although prior studies suggest that this leadership style may provoke mobbing through mechanisms such as political alignment, favoritism, and suppression of dissent [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e63\u003c/span\u003e], its impact appears limited in the context of nursing\u0026mdash;a more technical and service-oriented profession\u0026mdash;or may be minimal within this sample.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn conclusion, this study strongly substantiates that workplace mobbing undermines organizational trust and elevates burnout among nurses. Moreover, it highlights how distinct public leadership roles can either mitigate or amplify these detrimental effects. The integration of theoretical frameworks\u0026mdash;including Resource Conservation Theory, the Job Demands-Resources Model, Psychological Contract Breach, and Organizational Justice Theory\u0026mdash;provides a robust foundation for interpreting these results. Taken together, the findings advocate for the promotion of ethical, accountable, and collaborative leadership styles within public institutions as essential strategies to prevent mobbing and alleviate employee burnout. Accordingly, this study offers a valuable and original contribution to the fields of organizational behavior and public administration.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eLimitations\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDespite being carefully designed and executed to uphold methodological rigor, this study is subject to certain limitations common to empirical research. It is important to emphasize, however, that these limitations do not compromise the validity or reliability of the findings; rather, they reflect the study\u0026rsquo;s grounding within specific contexts and conditions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFirstly, the data were collected exclusively from nurses employed in public hospitals within a particular region of T\u0026uuml;rkiye. This sampling frame restricts the direct generalizability of the findings to other professional groups or sectors. Nonetheless, focusing on a high-stress, high-demand profession such as nursing provides valuable insights into the dynamics between mobbing, organizational trust, and burnout within a particularly vulnerable population.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSecondly, the cross-sectional design of the study limits the ability to establish definitive causal relationships among the examined variables. Data collected at a single point in time may capture participant perceptions that are specific to that particular temporal context. Therefore, the results should be interpreted within these contextual constraints.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThirdly, data collection relied on self-report survey instruments, which may be influenced by perceptual biases, social desirability effects, or recall inaccuracies. Notwithstanding, rigorous validity and reliability assessments of the employed scales substantially mitigate these potential biases.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFinally, while the study conceptualizes public leadership roles along four dimensions, it does not address how leadership behaviors may vary across different organizational or cultural settings. Future research employing larger and more diverse samples is warranted to explore these variations more comprehensively.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn summary, the strong theoretical framework, comprehensive sample composition, and robust measurement instruments employed in this study uphold the scientific integrity of the findings. Nonetheless, augmenting the research with longitudinal designs or qualitative methodologies, particularly in varied geographic contexts, would further enrich and substantiate the results.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"CONCLUSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study has made a significant contribution to the literature by elucidating the impact of nurses\u0026rsquo; perception of mobbing within public hospitals in T\u0026uuml;rkiye on their burnout levels and organizational trust. The principal findings indicate that mobbing behaviors substantially diminish nurses' trust in their organizations while simultaneously increasing their burnout levels. These results underscore the detrimental effects of psychological harassment on nurses\u0026rsquo; personal motivation and organizational commitment, particularly within the context of the increasing complexity and workload pressures characteristic of healthcare services.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMoreover, the identification of the moderating role of public leadership styles represents a novel contribution to the field. The findings reveal that leadership approaches emphasizing accountability and network governance can mitigate the adverse effects of mobbing, whereas leadership characterized by rigid adherence to rules tends to exacerbate these negative outcomes. These results align with established theories of organizational justice, psychological contract violation, and resource conservation, which have been extensively discussed in the literature.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe study highlights that workplace mobbing should be regarded not as a mere interpersonal conflict but as a structural and managerial issue. Addressing mobbing is essential not only for safeguarding employee well-being at the individual level but also for sustaining workforce productivity at the organizational level. Within this framework, effective leadership styles emerge as crucial preventive mechanisms against mobbing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn conclusion, the findings emphasize the vital role of ethical, inclusive leadership practices in protecting employees\u0026rsquo; psychosocial health. This insight is pertinent both to the nursing profession and, more broadly, to public administration. The evidence strongly supports the adoption of human-centered governance approaches within healthcare institutions to foster healthier work environments.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eImplications for Nursing and Health Policy\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe findings of this study provide concrete recommendations aimed at enhancing the sustainability of the nursing profession, reducing staff turnover, and ensuring high-quality patient care. Firstly, healthcare institution management must implement robust policies and procedures designed to prevent mobbing behaviors institutionally. Transparent complaint mechanisms, protection for victims, and accountability for perpetrators are critical components of this strategy.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLeadership development programs should incorporate elements of accountability, network governance, and ethical leadership, encouraging nurse managers to adopt inclusive and supportive management approaches, especially in crisis contexts. Such leadership styles have been demonstrated to strengthen organizational trust and reduce burnout risk.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAt the health policy level, establishing regular psychosocial health monitoring systems within public hospitals\u0026mdash;and ensuring that data derived from these systems is communicated to policymakers\u0026mdash;will help uncover and address hidden issues such as mobbing. Nursing professional organizations and unions should develop targeted training programs to educate and empower nurses regarding mobbing and burnout, alongside collaborative policy advocacy to resolve these challenges.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFinally, strengthening nurses' self-care strategies, coping skills, and psychological resilience is essential. Organizational support mechanisms, including psychological counseling and group supervision, should be institutionalized to provide ongoing assistance. Collectively, these recommendations will foster healthier work environments for nurses, minimize burnout risks, and enhance trust in healthcare organizations\u0026mdash;critical factors not only for employee well-being but also for the quality of patient care and the sustainability of health systems.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe author would like to express sincere gratitude to all the nurses who voluntarily participated in this study and generously shared their time and insights.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor Contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA.K. was responsible for the conceptualization, methodology design, software implementation, formal analysis, data curation, validation, investigation, and preparation of the original draft. A.K. also carried out the review and editing of the manuscript and was solely responsible for all stages of data management, validation, analysis, and final revisions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Availability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical Approval\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was conducted in full accordance with the ethical principles outlined in the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical approval was obtained from the Atat\u0026uuml;rk University Social and Human Sciences Ethics Committee (Approval Document No: E.88656144-000-2400387415).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to Participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll participants were fully informed about the aims, methods, and potential risks of the study and provided written informed consent prior to participation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for Publication\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConflict of Interest\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe author declares that there is no conflict of interest.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEinarsen SV, Hoel H, Zapf D, Cooper CL. Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace: Theory, Research and Practice. Boca Raton: CRC; 2020.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLeymann H. The content and development of mobbing at work. Eur J Work Organizational Psychol. 1996;5(2):165\u0026ndash;84.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZapf D, Gross C. Conflict escalation and coping with workplace bullying: A replication and extension. Eur J Work Organizational Psychol. 2001;10(4):497\u0026ndash;522.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFreudenberger HJ. Staff burn-out. J Soc Issues. 1974;30(1):159\u0026ndash;65.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMaslach C, Jackson SE. The measurement of experienced burnout. J Organizational Behav. 1981;2(2):99\u0026ndash;113.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMaslach C, Leiter MP. Burnout: A brief history and how to improve your life. In: \u003cem\u003eEncyclopedia of Stress. Volume 2\u003c/em\u003e, edn. Edited by Fink G; 2016: 368\u0026ndash;371.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMaslach C, Leiter MP. Understanding the burnout experience: Recent research and its implications for psychiatry. World Psychiatry. 2016;15(2):103\u0026ndash;11.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchaufeli WB, Buunk BP. Burnout: An overview of 25 years of research and theorizing. In: \u003cem\u003eThe Handbook of Work and Health Psychology. Volume 2\u003c/em\u003e, edn. Edited by Schabracq MJ, Winnubst JAM, Cooper CL: John Wiley \u0026amp; Sons; 2003: 383\u0026ndash;425.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBj\u0026ouml;rkqvist K, \u0026Ouml;sterman K, Hjelt-B\u0026auml;ck M. Aggression among university employees. Aggressive Behav. 1994;20(3):173\u0026ndash;84.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLaschinger HKS. Job and career satisfaction and turnover intentions of newly graduated nurses. J Nurs Adm Manag. 2012;20(4):472\u0026ndash;84.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLaschinger HKS, Wong CA, Grau AL. The influence of authentic leadership on newly graduated nurses\u0026rsquo; experiences of workplace bullying, burnout and retention outcomes: A cross-sectional study. Int J Nurs Stud. 2012;49(10):1266\u0026ndash;76.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYıldırım D. Bullying among nurses and its effects. Int Nurs Rev. 2009;56(4):504\u0026ndash;11.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHobfoll SE. Conservation of resources: a new attempt at conceptualizing stress. Am Psychol. 1989;44(3):513.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMoreno-Jimenez B, Rodr\u0026iacute;guez-Munoz A, Pastor JC, Sanz-Vergel AI, Garrosa E. The moderating effects of psychological detachment and thoughts of revenge in workplace bullying. Pers Indiv Differ. 2009;46(3):359\u0026ndash;64.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNotelaers G, De Witte H, Einarsen S. A job characteristics approach to explain workplace bullying. Eur J Work Organizational Psychol. 2010;19(4):487\u0026ndash;504.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDemerouti E, Bakker AB, De Jonge J, Janssen PP, Schaufeli WB. Burnout and engagement at work as a function of demands and control. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2001;27(4):279\u0026ndash;86.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBakker AB, Demerouti E. The job demands-resources model: State of the art. J Managerial Psychol. 2007;22(3):309\u0026ndash;28.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHauge LJ, Skogstad A, Einarsen S. The relative impact of workplace bullying as a social stressor at work. Scand J Psychol. 2010;51(5):426\u0026ndash;33.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMayer RC, Davis JH, Schoorman FD. An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad Manage Rev. 1995;20(3):709\u0026ndash;34.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDirks KT, Ferrin DL. Trust in leadership: meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. J Appl Psychol. 2002;87(4):611\u0026ndash;28.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRobinson SL. Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Adm Sci Q. 1996;41(4):574\u0026ndash;99.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRousseau DM. Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Empl Responsibilities Rights J. 1989;2:121\u0026ndash;39.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eColquitt JA. On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a measure. J Appl Psychol. 2001;86(3):386\u0026ndash;400.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eColquitt JA, Conlon DE, Wesson MJ, Porter CO, Ng KY. Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. J Appl Psychol. 2001;86(3):425\u0026ndash;45.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGreenberg J. A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Acad Manage Rev. 1987;12(1):9\u0026ndash;22.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEinarsen S, Raknes BI. Harassment in the workplace and the victimization of men. Violence Vict. 1997;12(3):247\u0026ndash;63.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAyoko OB, Callan VJ, Hartel CE. Workplace conflict, bullying, and counterproductive behaviors. Int J Organizational Anal. 2003;11(4):283\u0026ndash;301.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTummers L, Knies E. Leadership and meaningful work in the public sector. Public Adm Rev. 2013;73(6):859\u0026ndash;68.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTummers L, Knies E. Measuring public leadership: Developing scales for four key public leadership roles. Public Adm. 2016;94(2):433\u0026ndash;51.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBovens M. Two concepts of accountability: Accountability as a virtue and as a mechanism. West Eur Politics. 2010;33(5):946\u0026ndash;67.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLewis D. The contents of whistleblowing/confidential reporting procedures in the UK: Some lessons from empirical research. Empl Relations. 2006;28(1):76\u0026ndash;86.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eD'Cruz P, Noronha E. The exit coping response to workplace bullying: The contribution of inclusivist and exclusivist HRM strategies. Empl Relations. 2010;32(2):102\u0026ndash;20.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSalin D. The prevention of workplace bullying as a question of human resource management: Measures adopted and underlying organizational factors. Scand J Manag. 2008;24(3):221\u0026ndash;31.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHoel H, Salin D. Organisational antecedents of workplace bullying. In: \u003cem\u003eBullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace.\u003c/em\u003e edn. Edited by Einarsen S, Hoel H, Cooper C. London: CRC Press; 2002: 221\u0026ndash;236.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVigoda-Gadot E. Leadership style, organizational politics, and employees' performance: An empirical examination of two competing models. Personnel Rev. 2007;36(5):661\u0026ndash;83.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eProvan KG, Kenis P. Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness. J Public Adm Res Theor. 2008;18(2):229\u0026ndash;52.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSorensen E, Torfing J. Enhancing collaborative innovation in the public sector. Adm Soc. 2011;43(8):842\u0026ndash;68.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVan Wart M. Administrative leadership theory: A reassessment after 10 years. Public Adm. 2013;91(3):521\u0026ndash;43.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSağlık personeli sayılarının. illere g\u0026ouml;re dağılımı [\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/DownloadIstatistikselTablo?p=hC6vWNXlZi0Rxl\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/DownloadIstatistikselTablo?p=hC6vWNXlZi0Rxl\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e0Nf96PYW4Urjd1CZESuhKCDOD9T8u1wyoEgCozsgvL8CUe0Nhr].\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCreative Research Systems This Sample. Size Calculator [\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.calculator.net/sample-size-calculator.html]\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.calculator.net/sample-size-calculator.html]\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOzturk H, Sokmen S, Yılmaz F, Cilingir D. Measuring mobbing experiences of academic nurses: Development of a mobbing scale. J Am Acad Nurse Pract. 2008;20(9):435\u0026ndash;42.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u0026Ccedil;alışkan A. \u0026Ouml;rg\u0026uuml;tsel g\u0026uuml;ven: Bir \u0026ouml;l\u0026ccedil;ek geliştirme \u0026ccedil;alışması. Antalya Bilim \u0026Uuml;niversitesi Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. 2021;2(1):42\u0026ndash;59.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMaslach C, Jackson SE, Leiter MP. Maslach burnout inventory. In: \u003cem\u003eEvaluating Stress: A Book of Resources.\u003c/em\u003e edn. Edited by Zalaquett CP, Wood RJ. London: Scarecrow Education; 1997: 191\u0026ndash;218.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShirom A, Melamed S. A comparison of the construct validity of two burnout measures in two groups of professionals. Int J Stress Manage. 2006;13(2):176\u0026ndash;200.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKristensen TS, Borritz M, Villadsen E, Christensen KB. The Copenhagen Burnout Inventory: A new tool for the assessment of burnout. Work Stress. 2005;19(3):192\u0026ndash;207.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKhatatbeh H, Pakai A, Al-Dwaikat T, Onchonga D, Amer F, Premusz V, Olah A. Nurses\u0026rsquo; burnout and quality of life: A systematic review and critical analysis of measures used. Nurs Open. 2022;9(3):1564\u0026ndash;74.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eİnce B, Yılmaz S. Ebelerin aidiyet, merhamet ve t\u0026uuml;kenmişlik d\u0026uuml;zeylerinin belirlenmesi. Sel\u0026ccedil;uk Sağlık Dergisi. 2024;5(2):199\u0026ndash;217.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKarataş A. Kamu liderliği rollerinin kamu personelinin sanal kaytarma davranışları \u0026uuml;zerindeki etkisi: TRA1 b\u0026ouml;lgesinde bir araştırma. S\u0026uuml;leyman Demirel \u0026Uuml;niversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstit\u0026uuml;s\u0026uuml; Dergisi. 2020;3(38):134\u0026ndash;64.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe PROCESS macro for SPSS, SAS. and R [\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.afhayes.com/spss-sas-and-r-macros-and-code.html]\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.afhayes.com/spss-sas-and-r-macros-and-code.html]\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKarataş A. The effect of COVID-19 anxiety and awareness on smoking urges: The moderator effect of demographic factors. J Subst Use. 2023;28(6):995\u0026ndash;1003.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBaron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator\u0026ndash;mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Personal Soc Psychol. 1986;51(6):1173.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFrazier PA, Tix AP, Barron KE. Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. J Couns Psychol. 2004;51(1):115\u0026ndash;34.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShieh G. On the misconception of multicollinearity in detection of moderating effects: Multicollinearity is not always detrimental. Multivar Behav Res. 2010;45(3):483\u0026ndash;507.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBryman A, Cramer D. Quantitative data analysis with IBM SPSS 17, 18 \u0026amp; 19: A guide for social scientists. Volume 1. United Kingdom: Routledge; 2012.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePallant J. SPSS kullanma kılavuzu: SPSS ile adım adım veri analizi. Volume 2. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık; 2017.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Pearson; 2013.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKline RB. Assessing statistical aspects of test fairness with structural equation modelling. In: \u003cem\u003eFairness issues in educational assessment.\u003c/em\u003e edn. Edited by Karami H. London: Routledge; 2018: 116\u0026ndash;134.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCudeck R. Exploratory factor analysis. In: \u003cem\u003eHandbook of applied multivariate statistics and mathematical modeling.\u003c/em\u003e edn. Edited by Tinsley HEA, Brown SD: Academic Press; 2000: 265\u0026ndash;296.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHu Lt, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct equation modeling: multidisciplinary J. 1999;6(1):1\u0026ndash;55.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eParzefall M-R, Salin DM. Perceptions of and reactions to workplace bullying: A social exchange perspective. Hum Relat. 2010;63(6):761\u0026ndash;80.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVan der Wal Z, De Graff D, Lasthuizen K. Whats Valued Most? A comparative empirical study on the differences and similarities between the organizational values of the public and private sector. Public Adm. 2008;86(2):465\u0026ndash;82.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVveinhardt J, Bendaraviciene R. How do nepotism and favouritism affect organisational climate? Front Psychol. 2022;12:710140.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Mobbing, Burnout, Organizational Trust, Public Leadership, Nursing Management","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7049123/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7049123/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBackground:\u003c/strong\u003e In contemporary healthcare settings, the high workload, emotional labor demands, and organizational stressors faced by nurses pose significant threats to their psychological well-being and the quality of care they provide. These stressors often precipitate adverse workplace behaviors, such as mobbing (i.e., psychological harassment in the workplace). The extant literature indicates that mobbing contributes to burnout syndrome among employees and undermines organizational trust. However, empirical evidence concerning the moderating effect of leadership roles on these relationships remains limited.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eObjective:\u003c/strong\u003e This study seeks to investigate the impact of nurses’ perceptions of mobbing on their levels of burnout and organizational trust within public hospitals in Türkiye. Furthermore, it aims to elucidate the moderating effects of four fundamental public leadership roles—Accountability, Compliance with Rules, Political Loyalty, and Network Governance Leadership—on these relationships.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMethod:\u003c/strong\u003e Adopting a cross-sectional and quantitative research design, data were collected via a structured survey administered to nurses employed in public hospitals across the TRA1 region of Türkiye (N = 501). The validity and reliability of the measurement scales were assessed using confirmatory factor analysis and Cronbach's alpha coefficients. The proposed hypotheses were tested through linear regression and moderation analyses.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFindings:\u003c/strong\u003e The results indicate that nurses’ perceptions of mobbing significantly diminish organizational trust while exacerbating burnout levels. Moreover, the leadership roles of Accountability and Network Governance were found to moderate these relationships by attenuating the detrimental effects of mobbing. Conversely, Compliance with Rules Leadership appeared to strengthen the negative impacts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConclusion:\u003c/strong\u003e These findings underscore the critical role of ethical, transparent, and collaborative leadership practices in safeguarding the psychosocial well-being of nursing personnel. To mitigate mobbing and reduce the risk of burnout, it is recommended that healthcare policies integrate robust leadership development initiatives and organizational justice mechanisms.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClinical trial number: \u003c/strong\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"The Effect of Nurses’ Perceptions of Mobbing on Burnout and Organizational Trust: The Moderating Role of Public Leadership Roles","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-07-31 13:50:57","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7049123/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"ac10cac7-16bc-498e-b14d-0db2471572a3","owner":[],"postedDate":"July 31st, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-02-02T22:09:05+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-07-31 13:50:57","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7049123","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7049123","identity":"rs-7049123","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}