Workplace Ostracism

In this introductory chapter, we describe the early, social psychological roots of workplace ostracism research and the key papers that gave rise to the current body of work on this topic. We explain the various ways in which ostracism can manifest, including general feelings of being ignored or excluded, organizational shunning, out-of-the-loop ostracism, linguistic ostracism, and cyberostracism. Attention is given to the employee behaviors and characteristics that commonly give rise to ostracism by coworkers. We then review briefly the negative impacts of being ostracized on employee well-being, spillover to family life, organizational citizenship behaviors, unethical and counterproductive work behaviors, work performance, and job commitment. We conclude with a description of five key ways in which future research can improve upon the existing literature. These include more diverse outcome variables, greater use of experimentation, expanded operationalizations of ostracism, greater attention to cultural differences in reactions to ostracism, and a stronger focus on actual rather than self-report behaviors.

People spend most of their day interacting with others, whether it be with family, friends, or coworkers. Sometimes, these interactions can be aversive and involve various types of negative treatment (e.g., interpersonal rejection, bullying, and ostracism) which can cause negative physical and psychological outcomes, such as threats to one’s self-esteem and feelings of belonging. Within the workplace context, these types of negative social interactions take on additional importance because their negative effects can influence not just the individual employees targeted, but also the organization. Researchers focused on workplace mistreatment have begun considering ostracism and other forms of social exclusion within their larger framework. In this chapter, we review research on various forms of workplace mistreatment (e.g., incivility, abusive supervision) and draw connections with social exclusion literature. We also discuss other potentially relevant constructs that researchers should consider as they explore the topic of workplace mistreatment, such as sexual objectification, social burden, and ways in which organizations may create forms of structural exclusion. We close with suggestions for how researchers can further examine the validity of these constructs.

Researchers have predominantly examined the outcomes of workplace ostracism. A smaller stream focuses on the antecedents of workplace ostracism. Understanding the potential antecedents of workplace ostracism is the first step to prevent and control this subtle yet detrimental workplace aggressive behavior. In this chapter, we followed a triadic social process to examine the antecedents of workplace ostracism from the actor, the victim, and the work context’s perspectives. We summarized the individual, the relational, and the contextual antecedents of workplace ostracism. First, we examined individual characteristics that predict the experience of workplace ostracism. This includes the victim’s big-five personality traits, positive and negative affects, dark personality traits of psychopathy, narcissism, and paranoia, approach and avoidance tendencies, warmth and competence, and social abilities and skills. Second, we examined relational factors that predict workplace ostracism. From the victim’s perspective, we examined workplace mistreatments such as incivility and interpersonal conflicts as possible antecedents of workplace ostracism. From the actor’s perspective, we concluded that others’ bad interpersonal and work behaviors elicit workplace ostracism. Third, we examined context factors that could incubate workplace ostracism, such as corporative versus competitive goal interdependence, social interactions based on interdependence theory and game-theoretic models, non-traditional work environments, and language barriers.

Workplace ostracism has been shown to eventuate in negative physiological and psychological responses, taking a toll on employee occupational health. The literature has offered various theoretical lenses and perspectives in elucidating why and how being ostracized will translates into those unfavorable consequences, which is a hot topic dominating the workplace ostracism research. In this chapter, we summarize empirical findings and analyze theoretical underpinnings in order to obtain an enriched understanding of the effects of workplace ostracism on employee emotional, cognitive, and physiological outcomes. This chapter boils down into three parts corresponding to the three types of outcomes. In each section, we begin by presenting empirical results demonstrating the effect of workplace ostracism on the outcome, then elaborating the various theories and frameworks accounting for the effect, and finally sharing thoughts about directions for future research. Although we are unable and by no means intend to strive at exhausting the theories, we manage to cover the most important ones in this chapter. We hope this endeavor will contribute to a profound understanding of psychological and physiological responses to workplace ostracism.

This chapter reviews the literature about employees’ behavioral reactions to workplace ostracism that fall into the categories of prosocial organizational behaviors (organizational citizenship behaviors, helping, and proactive behaviors) and antisocial organizational behaviors (counterproductive work behaviors, workplace deviance, and social loafing). In general, workplace ostracism is negatively related to prosocial organizational behaviors and positively related to antisocial organizational behaviors. Important theoretical frameworks used in the literature have been identified: Social identity theory, sociometer theory, and conservation of resources theory were used for prosocial organizational behaviors, and need to belong theory, transactional stress model, social exchange theory, and self-verification theory were used for antisocial organizational behaviors. Several moderators and mediators were also identified. Examples for prosocial organizational behaviors include organizational factors (e.g., person-organization fit), social factors (e.g., social support), and variables related to psychological well-being (e.g., self-esteem), and examples for antisocial organizational behaviors include organizational factors (e.g., 360 feedback), social factors (e.g., high team identification), and individual differences (e.g., personality, self-esteem). Finally, we discuss potential directions for future studies in this line of research; examples include examining workplace ostracism from different sources, differentiation of targets for interpersonal prosocial/antisocial behaviors, and examining witnessed workplace ostracism as a moderator.

Toxic workplaces have detrimental effects on worker performance. Workplace ostracism is a painful experience and for some, a toxic social stressor. This chapter integrates theoretically grounded findings addressing the implications of workplace ostracism on performance-related outcomes, including effort, job performance, creativity/innovation, and job withdrawal behaviors. For example, some people experiencing high rates of ostracism not only have difficulty persisting at their work tasks and performing their assigned roles, but they also decrease their effort on work tasks. Other individuals cope with ostracism by increasing prosocial behaviors, which reveals the complexity of the ostracism-performance relationship. Similarly, those experiencing ostracism sometimes demonstrate greater creativity and at other times demonstrate decreased creativity. Various boundary conditions, including environmental factors (e.g., social support, culture) and personal factors (e.g., self-esteem), appear to influence when or how workplace ostracism relates to these performance-related outcomes. Furthermore, boundary conditions notwithstanding, people experiencing workplace ostracism have a greater tendency to withdraw from their organizations and report higher intention to leave than those who do not experience workplace ostracism. In the case of withdrawal, certain types of social support and personality often intensify the relationship between ostracism and withdrawal, rather than mitigate it. The chapter concludes with recommendations for future research.

The U.S. labor force is diverse in terms of employees’ racial/ethnic identities and countries of origin. The growing race/ethnicity- and nationality-based diversity in the workplace has had different outcomes. On the one hand, racial/ethnic minorities and immigrants contribute to wide-ranging and diverse workplaces. On the other hand, past and present prejudices sustain an environment that marginalizes minoritized workers. Perceived ostracism produces a negative interpersonal experience for which the consequences and ambiguous motives have been broadly and frequently studied. In this chapter, we provide an overview of perceived ostracism patterns among members of minority groups. First, we describe the demographic profile of the U.S. labor force. Second, we review equal employment laws and company policies that may impact how minority employees experience mistreatment. Third, we describe research on experiences of workplace ostracism, focusing on minority and immigrant workers. In specific, we examine buffers to the harmful effects of workplace ostracism, including cultural identity salience, social support, and individual differences in harmony enhancement. Furthermore, we offer suggestions to organizations to reduce the incidence of ostracism of racial/ethnic minority and foreign-born employees. We conclude by discussing ostracism and COVID-19 and directions for future research.

This chapter examines the impacts of gender, age, LGBTQ status, and disability status on the experience of and reactions to ostracism in organizational settings. The chapter begins with a brief discussion of the implication of workplace diversity. We then provide a general overview of the theoretical foundation—social categorization theory—as an overarching framework to explain why minority employees may be the target of ostracism and may perceive and react differently to ostracism. The chapter then shifts to the literature review of gender differences in ostracism and consequences of ostracism against men and women. We then discuss the potential age differences in the experience of ostracism and consequences of ostracism against older people. We also review the research on ostracism among LGBTQ employees and its consequences against them. Finally, we discuss the research on disability status and ostracism, as well as consequences of ostracism against employees with disabilities. The chapter concludes with a consideration of a number of interventions that may prevent ostracism toward these minority employees, as well as important directions for future research to improve our understanding of ostracism among minority employees.

This chapter provides an overview of research methods to study workplace ostracism. It begins with a content analysis of 95 published workplace ostracism studies showing that the most often used designs are longitudinal/time-lagged (44%), cross-sectional (27%), and multiple data source (26%). Ostracism is most often measured with survey methods using the Workplace Ostracism Scale. The discussion continues with research design issues in the study of potential antecedents and consequences of workplace ostracism. The manipulationist view of causality from philosophy of science is directly relevant as it identifies potential causal processes that underlie the effects of an X variable on a Y variable. The distinguishing feature is the focus on an intervention, whether created or observed by the researcher, that is used to manipulate X in hopes of affecting Y. Three conditions are necessary to infer causality: That change in X is only due to the intervention, the intervention acts through X and not directly on Y, and there are no other causes of Y that are related to the intervention. Various designs are discussed including cross-sectional, longitudinal, and multi-source, as well as designs that directly address the study of process, specifically, intervention studies, retrospective event histories, and qualitative studies.