Consequences of Workplace Ostracism: A Meta-Analytic Review

Workplace ostracism, which is regarded as “social death,” is rampant in organizations and has attracted significant research attention. We extend the understanding of workplace ostracism by conducting a meta-analysis of studies of the relationships between workplace ostracism and its consequences. We also explore the moderating effects of national culture (i.e., collectivism vs. individualism) and the mediating effects of organization-based self-esteem (OBSE). The results of a meta-analysis of 95 independent samples (N = 26,767) reveal that exposure to workplace ostracism is significantly related to individuals’ attitudes, well-beings, and behaviors. Moreover, the effects of workplace ostracism on belongingness, job satisfaction, emotional exhaustion, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) toward individuals (OCBI), organizational deviance, and interpersonal deviance are stronger in individualist contexts than in collectivist contexts. However, the relationships between workplace ostracism and organizational identification and OCB are stronger in collectivist contexts than in individualist contexts. Our meta-analytical structural equation modeling also provides evidence of the mediating effects of OBSE on the relationships between workplace ostracism and organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and job performance. The implications and limitations of our study and future research directions are also discussed.

Introduction

Workplace ostracism, defined as “the extent to which an individual perceives that he or she is ignored or excluded by others” in the workplace (Ferris et al., 2008, p. 1348), can have significant consequences for organizations and individuals (Howard et al., 2020). The consequences of workplace ostracism for victims have been widely researched in the management literature [for reviews, see Mao et al. (2018), Williams (2007), and Wu et al. (2011)]. An individual who is ostracized by another party (e.g., colleagues or supervisors) in a dyadic relationship may experience injury, loss, or misfortune (Aquino and Lamertz, 2004). Whether intentional or unconscious, ostracism is a form of punishment, leading the ostracized victims to feel pain and need-threatened (Williams, 2009). From the victims’ perspective, workplace ostracism is associated with reduced organizational identification (Wu et al., 2016) and organizational commitment (Ferris et al., 2008) and increased psychological distress (Yaakobi and Williams, 2016), turnover intentions (Fiset et al., 2017), and deviant behavior in the workplace (Ferris et al., 2008).

To date, there has been one published meta-analytic review of workplace ostracism, except for Howard et al. (2020). Although that meta-analysis of workplace ostracism tests the antecedents and outcomes of ostracism, it only examines the bivariate relation, ignoring the boundary condition of cultural values and the mediation mechanisms. Our meta-analysis offers some extensions. Our review provides a more accurate evaluation of the consequences of workplace ostracism; for example, we note that studies have not examined the different dimensions of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and deviance, such as OCB toward the organization (OCBO) or toward individuals (OCBI) (Eatough et al., 2011), or interpersonal deviance or organizational deviance (Bennett and Robinson, 2000). We divide the identified consequences of workplace ostracism into three categories: attitudes, well-beings, and behaviors.

To explore the boundary condition of workplace ostracism bivariate relations, we examine the moderating effect of cultural differences. There have been no systematic meta-analyses of workplace ostracism in relation to contextual factors such as culture. Research suggests that cultural factors can enhance our understanding of the consequences of workplace ostracism (Mao et al., 2018). As one dimension of Hofstede’s (1980) influential study on cultural difference, individualism-collectivism emphasizes “the relationship between individual and the collectivity in a given society” (Bochner and Hesketh, 1994, p. 236). These two cultural values are strongly linked to an individual’s beliefs and behavior and can thus influence the relationships between workers (Bochner and Hesketh, 1994). Hence, this study focuses on the moderating effects of individualism-collectivism (Hofstede, 2001). Although Mao et al. (2018) examine the implications of cultural values in their qualitative review, they call for studies to specifically examine the moderating role of cultural values in the relationships between workplace ostracism and its outcomes. Thus, our meta-analysis provides the first quantitative review of the moderating effects of cultural values on the relationships between workplace ostracism and its consequences.

To investigate the mechanism of workplace ostracism, this study uses meta-analytic structural equation modeling (MASEM). Howard et al. (2020) fail to examine a number of important consequences of workplace ostracism, such as organization-based self-esteem (OBSE), although prior studies have shown that workplace ostracism is negatively related to OBSE (Ferris et al., 2008, 2015; Chung and Yang, 2017). Moreover, Howard et al. (2020) focus on the bivariate relationships between workplace ostracism and its outcomes but ignore the mediating mechanisms. To advance our knowledge of how victims suffer workplace ostracism, our study examines the mediating role of OBSE, which is defined as “one’s belief about his or her self-worth and competence as an organizational member” (Bowling et al., 2010, p. 601). According to the self-consistency motivational theory (Korman, 1976), workplace ostracism damages one’s self-evaluation, which may yield negative outcomes on affect and behaviors. However, there are no studies of the mediating effect of OBSE and its specific outcomes (e.g., organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and job performance). Thus, we examine OBSE because individuals are motivated to maintain their self-esteem (Korman, 1976), and workplace ostracism induces negative effects by damaging workers’ self-evaluations (Ferris et al., 2015).

Our meta-analytic study makes three main contributions to the literature. First, we review more studies of the consequences of workplace ostracism than Howard et al. (2020), including more published empirical studies, and find stronger evidence of the destructive effects of workplace ostracism. Second, by examining the moderating effects of individualism-collectivism on the relationships between workplace ostracism and its consequences, we enrich our knowledge of the importance of cultural factors on this bivariate relation. We thus also answer the calls to consider the effects of culture values on the consequences of workplace ostracism. Third, we construct a meta-analytical structural equation model (MASEM) of workplace ostracism to examine the mediating effects of OBSE on the relationships between workplace ostracism and its consequences. This approach enables us to integrate some of the outcomes of workplace ostracism.

Theory and Hypotheses

Overall Framework

Consistent with previous meta-analyses of negative behaviors in the workplace (Greco et al., 2019; Howard et al., 2020), our meta-analysis combines three approaches. First, ostracism is a powerful threat to people’s need for belonging, self-esteem, shared understanding, and trust (Williams, 2007). When individuals feel ostracized, they may express different affective, attitudinal, and behavioral reactions (Zhang and Liao, 2015; Mao et al., 2018). Adopting the victims’ perspective (Aquino and Lamertz, 2004), we test the consequences of workplace ostracism by dividing all outcomes into three categories: attitudes, well-beings, and behaviors (see Figure 1). Second, ostracism does not lead to the same reactions across different cultures. To consider the specific consequences in a given culture and thus respond to the call to confirm that culture matters (Mao et al., 2018), we focus on individualism-collectivism as the moderator to examine how national culture influences the bivariate relation between workplace ostracism and its consequences. Third, we use our MASEM to examine the mediating effects of OBSE on the relationships between workplace ostracism and some of the consequences that we review. Specifically, we examine the mediating effect of OBSE on the relation between workplace ostracism and three main consequences: organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and job performance. Including all bivariate relations in the theoretical model is impossible due to “the absence of primary studies needed to complete a larger matrix of meta-analytically derived correlations between all possible pairs of variables included in structural model” (Lapierre et al., 2018, p. 390). Therefore, we consider three consequences that are relatively well studied constructs in the ostracism literature and are representative of the effect of workplace ostracism on attitudes, well-beings, and behaviors. According to the self-consistency motivational theory (Korman, 1976), OBSE motivates individuals who feel ostracized to pursue self-value, leading to higher organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and job performance.

FIGURE 1

Figure 1. Theoretical framework for outcomes of workplace ostracism.

Workplace Ostracism and Attitudes

Workplace ostracism can cause the victim to experience pain and frustration, which may undermine his or her fundamental psychological needs and generate a sense of “social death” (Williams, 2007). When individuals perceive themselves as ostracized, they are likely to experience pain and have negative attitudes toward others and the organization (Mao et al., 2018). Workplace ostracism also signals separation from others and threatens the victim’s needs, undermining the victim’s sense of belonging (Williams, 2009). Moreover, workplace ostracism is often conducted in a silent and invisible manner, which undermines the victim’s sense of being valued as a member of the organization and reduces his or her organizational identification (Ferris et al., 2008; Wu et al., 2016). In addition, because workplace ostracism can deplete the victim’s personal resources, the victim may seek to protect his or her resources by reducing his or her organizational commitment or leaving the organization (Zheng et al., 2016). Thus, we propose the following hypothesis.

Hypothesis 1: Workplace ostracism is negatively related to positive attitudinal outcomes such as organizational identification (H1a) and organizational commitment (H1b) and positively related to negative employee attitudes such as turnover intentions (H1c).

Workplace Ostracism and Well-Beings

Workplace ostracism can have a strong effect on an individual’s sense of well-being. Well-being, which can range from a negative condition (e.g., misery) to a positive condition (e.g., elation), reflects an individual’s psychological state, which is a broad category that includes emotional responses, domain satisfactions, and global judgments of life satisfaction (Diener et al., 1999). In the workplace, ostracism is characterized by omission of inaction to socially engage another and the lack of social engagement with others (Robinson et al., 2013). When individuals experience reduced social interaction, it can lead them to feel they are like dead to others in the workplace, which undermines the sense of self-value they gain from the organization and makes them doubt themselves (Williams, 2009). Omission of inaction by another organizational member when it is socially appropriate to do so can also lead individuals to blame themselves for being ostracized (Robinson et al., 2013). Because being ostracized leads the victims to perceive themselves as unwelcome to others or the organization (Ferris et al., 2008), workplace ostracism can damage OBSE.

According to belongingness theory (Baumeister and Leary, 1995), individuals strive to be accepted and to gain a sense of belonging. Through omission of inaction, workplace ostracism serves as negative feedback and thus damages the victim’s sense of belonging. Moreover, workplace ostracism can bring social pain and generate negative effects such as decreased job satisfaction (Ferris et al., 2008; Robinson et al., 2013). Workplace ostracism can also require the victim to exert more effort in dealing with interpersonal demands, which can make the individual “feel drained and overwhelmed by their work” (Wilk and Moynihan, 2005, p. 917) and emotionally exhausted. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis.

Hypothesis 2: Workplace ostracism is negatively related to elements of a positive sense of well-being such as OBSE (H2a), belongingness (H2b), and job satisfaction (H2c) and positively related to elements of a negative sense of well-being such as emotional exhaustion (H2d).

Workplace Ostracism and Behaviors

Workplace ostracism can have either antisocial or prosocial behavioral implications (Mao et al., 2018). Although workplace ostracism can have beneficial consequences for individuals who regain acceptance (e.g., OCB), they still tend to be more socially susceptible and to have increased desires for conformity, compliance, and obedience (Carter-Sowell et al., 2008; Riva et al., 2014). Numerous studies have examined the detrimental consequences of workplace ostracism in relation to the victim’s psychological needs and behavior (Baumeister and Leary, 1995; Williams, 2007). Consistent with the “eye for an eye” mentality, workplace ostracism can trigger negative reciprocity, such that ostracism is linked to negative responses, including deviant behavior (Greco et al., 2019). Bennett and Robinson (2000) suggest that deviance can be directed toward either the organization (organizational deviance) or individuals (interpersonal deviance) based on qualitative (e.g., motives to commit crime) and quantitative distinctions (e.g., distinct clusters). Thus, ostracized individuals may engage in more interpersonal deviance, such as spreading rumors or being physically violent toward colleagues, when their sense of belonging has been undermined (Baumeister and Leary, 1995). Ostracized individuals may also engage in organizational deviance, such as by sabotaging equipment and littering the workplace environment, when they do not receive support from their organizations and feel that their identity in the workplace is threatened (Ferris et al., 2009). Moreover, the reciprocity norms of good-with-good and bad-with-bad suggest that ostracized individuals may repay the organization with less positive behavior, such as by reducing their job performance and OCB. Specifically, ostracized individuals are likely to reduce their OCBO if they perceive a loss of resources as a result of experiencing omission from the organization, whereas ostracized individuals are likely to reduce their OCBI if they fail to build and maintain good relationships with their coworkers (Eatough et al., 2011). Thus, we propose the following hypothesis.

Hypothesis 3: Workplace ostracism is positively related to negative behaviors such as organizational deviance (H3a) and interpersonal deviance (H3b) and is negatively related to individual positive behaviors such as job performance (H3c), OCB (H3d), OCBO (H3e), and OCBI (H3f).

Moderating Effects of Individualism-Collectivism

Individualism refers to the pursuit of individual interests (Waterman, 1984), whereas collectivism signifies a society-centered orientation and the pursuit of common interests, such as the “sharing of material benefits and non-material resources” (Hui and Triandis, 1986, p. 225). We propose that the relationships between workplace ostracism and its consequences are stronger in individualist than in collectivist cultures for two reasons. First, individuals with a strong sense of collectivism cherish their connections with the organization and interpersonal relationships, and are more tolerant of workplace ostracism even if they feel uncomfortable about being excluded. In contrast, individuals with a strong sense of individualism care more about themselves than their relationships, and they are extremely sensitive to others’ attitudes and how others treat them (Rockstuhl et al., 2012). Second, individuals with a strong sense of collectivism seek to maintain social harmony and identify with their organizations for moral reasons, whereas individuals with a strong sense of individualism are motivated by personal calculation and the utilitarian pursuit of their self-interests (Bochner and Hesketh, 1994). Hence, collectivist individuals tend to exercise self-restraint and to be more motivated to mitigate the negative effects of workplace ostracism on their attitudes, sense of well-beings, and behaviors (Yaakobi and Williams, 2016). In contrast, people in individualist cultures pursue equal treatment, and their personal relationships are more influenced by others’ reactions (Rockstuhl et al., 2012). Consequently, we propose the following hypotheses.

Hypothesis 4: The relationship between workplace ostracism and the victim’s attitudes is stronger in individualist cultures than in collectivist cultures.

Hypothesis 5: The relationship between workplace ostracism and the victim’s well-beings is stronger in individualist cultures than in collectivist cultures.

Hypothesis 6: The relationship between workplace ostracism and the victim’s behaviors is stronger in individualist cultures than collectivist cultures.

OBSE as a Mediator of the Relationship Between Workplace Ostracism and Outcomes

As a form of self-evaluation shaped by experience, OBSE has strong effects on individuals’ motivation, attitudes, and behaviors (Pierce et al., 1989). In their meta-analysis of OBSE, Bowling et al. (2010) report the relationships between OBSE and organizational commitment (r = 0.55), job satisfaction (r = 0.57), and in-role performance (r = 0.34). Workplace ostracism, as a “real” measure of interpersonal evaluation, is an expression of others’ thoughts about the victim through their behavior and can hurt the victim by destroying his or her sense of competence and need-satisfaction (Korman, 1976). Moreover, the low levels of OBSE observed following workplace ostracism lead individuals to evaluate themselves as “useless failures” (Ferris et al., 2015), inducing them to exhibit less organizational commitment, lower job satisfaction, and poorer job performance. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis.

Hypothesis 7: OBSE mediates the relationships between workplace ostracism and organizational commitment (7a), job satisfaction (7b), and job performance (7c).

Materials and Methods

Literature Search and Inclusion Criteria

To study the relationships between workplace ostracism and the outcome variables in our meta-analysis, we first conducted a computerized search of several databases, including the Web of Science, PsycINFO, EBSCO, ProQuest Dissertations, and China National Knowledge Internet (CNKI), using “ostracism,” “exclusion,” “rejection,” and “isolation” as keywords. We obtained 132 articles from Web of Science, 64 articles from PsycINFO, 35 articles from EBSCO, eight articles from ProQuest Dissertations, and 97 articles from CNKI. In addition, we manually checked the reference lists of the reviews by Howard et al. (2020) and Mao et al. (2018) to ensure that we did not overlook any relevant study. To find unpublished studies, we also searched the Academy of Management 2009–2019 Annual Meeting and Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2016–2019 Annual Conference programs and called for unpublished or in-press manuscripts via e-mail. Five scholars responded to the emails and offered their manuscripts. The literature research procedure is shown as Figure 2.

FIGURE 2

Figure 2. The literature research procedure.

After these thorough searches, our inclusion criteria were as follows. First, the timeline was from 2008 to 2019. 2008 was chosen because the first scale for measuring workplace ostracism was developed and published in that year (Ferris et al., 2008). Second, we included the 10-item scale developed by Ferris et al. (2008) to measure workplace ostracism as an inclusion criterion. Third, each study needed to provide the statistical information required to compute an effect size, such as the product-moment correlation coefficient (r), Cronbach’s alpha (α), and sample size. Fourth, to enable us to examine the moderating role of collectivism-individualism, using samples from the countries in primary studies as a proxy of cultural value is the analytical technique in the meta-analysis procedure. Samples from the countries in primary studies are represent to correspond cultural values of individualism or collectivism based on data from the website¹. After excluding 33 overlapping articles and 229 ineligible articles, our sample consisted of 79 sources—38 sources in Chinese and 41 in English—discussing 95 studies. All primary empirical studies in meta-analysis are shown in the references marked with an (^∗) asterisk. The sample included one unpublished manuscript. To ensure that the data were coded correctly, two researchers independently coded and recorded the effect sizes and other necessary information about the focal relationships. The researchers checked their coding together and found that the consistency was over 95%. All of the authors discussed any discrepancies in the coding until consensus was reached.

Analyses

We used Hunter and Schmidt’s (2004) meta-analytic procedure to compute the results and calculated the product-moment correlation coefficient (r) for each study to show the effect size. We also corrected each correlation for unreliability in measurement by reporting the Cronbach’s alphas (α) of each study. We recorded the key indexes, such as the independent effect size (k), cumulative sample size (N), sample size weighted mean observed correlation ($\overline{r}$), mean true score correlation (ρ), standard deviation of the observed correlations (SD_{$\overline{r}$} standard deviation of the true score correlation (SD_ρ), 95% confidence interval, 80% credibility interval, and percentage of variation in the observed correlations attributable to sampling error and other factors (% acc). A 95% confidence interval excluding zero indicated that the corrected correlation was statistically significant. Moreover, a sufficiently large 80% credibility interval or an interval that included zero provided information about the possibility of moderators (Whitener, 1990; Yu et al., 2016). Furthermore, a percentage of variation less than 75% indicated the possibility of moderators (Hunter and Schmidt, 2004).

To test the moderating effects of collectivism-individualism, we recoded the sample locations as either Asia (including China, Korea, and Pakistan) or the Occident (including Netherlands, Canada, Cyprus, Spain, and the United States) to proxy for collectivism and individualism. Asia and the Occident represent typical regions with collectivist and individualist cultural orientations, respectively (Triandis and Gelfand, 1998). We calculated the separate meta-analytic effects for each relationship for each region. Using these results (i.e., the mean true score correlation and cumulative sample size of each subgroup), we also calculated the Q statistic between-group homogeneity coefficient, which we used to assess whether the effects were homogeneous or heterogeneous between groups. A significant Q statistic indicates heterogeneity, and the moderators can explain the source of the heterogeneity. Lastly, we calculated a measure of potential heterogeneity (Q), the p-value for the Q statistic, the standard deviation of the true effect size (T), and a measure of the proportion of dispersion that can be attributed to real differences in the effect sizes as opposed to within-study error (I²).

We also constructed a MASEM to test the theoretical (path) model presented in Figure 3. To evaluate the path model by using online software², we used the full-information MASEM method to account for the heterogeneity of the effect sizes (Yu et al., 2016). During the input procedure, we constructed and used the matrixes of ρ and SD_ρ. The correlations between workplace ostracism and its outcomes then provided the input matrix cell values. Additional values were collected from several meta-analyses, including Bowling et al. (2010), Judge et al. (2001), Mathieu and Zajac (1990), and Riketta (2002). Table 1 provides a matrix of the input values. We constructed the two required matrices, and the SEM was estimated for each bootstrapped matrix (Yu et al., 2016). This analysis generated the path model parameter estimates and SEM fit index values.

FIGURE 3

Figure 3. Results of full-information meta-analytic structural equation modeling test.

TABLE 1

Table 1. Input matrices for full-information meta-analysis structure equation modeling.

To examine the publication bias analyses of workplace ostracism consequences, we used R packages³, such as metafor, dmeta, and weightr. We reported fail-safe k, Egger’s test, random effects trim-and-fill method, and weight-function model analysis. Estimation of publication bias should meet the following requirements: the fail-safe k should be sufficiently large (N > 50); Egger’s test should be non-significant (p < 0.05); a random-effects trim-and-fill method with the missing mean (k > 3) suggests that publication bias is present; and the weight-function model with specified p-values intervals (p < 0.05 and p > 0.05) should be non-significant (Vevea and Hedges, 1995; Vevea and Woods, 2005; Vevea and Coburn, 2015).

Results

Main Effect

As shown in Table 2, workplace ostracism is significantly and negatively related to organizational identification (ρ = −0.372), organizational commitment (ρ = −0.281), OBSE (ρ = −0.337), belongingness (ρ = −0.293), job satisfaction (ρ = −0.377), job performance (ρ = −0.267), OCB (ρ = −0.256), OCBO (ρ = −0.282), and OCBI (ρ = −0.256), and positively related to turnover intentions (ρ = 0.303), emotional exhaustion (ρ = 0.428), organizational deviance (ρ = 0.610), and interpersonal deviance (ρ = 0.570). All of the 95% confidence intervals exclude 0. Thus, Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 are supported. In addition, the results of the 80% credibility interval and % acc indicate that except for OCBO, the relationships between workplace ostracism and its consequences may involve moderators.

TABLE 2

Table 2. Meta-analysis results of consequences of workplace ostracism.

Moderating Effects

As shown in Table 3, the between-group Q-statistics for all of the relationships except for those between workplace ostracism and organizational commitment, turnover intentions, OBSE, and job performance are significant. In terms of attitudinal outcomes, the results indicate that the relationship between workplace ostracism and organizational identification is significantly different (Q = 6.962, p < 0.01) and stronger in the collectivist culture subgroup (ρ_c = −0.385) than in the individualist culture subgroup (ρ_i = −0.230). The relationships between workplace ostracism and organizational commitment (Q = 3.115, ns) and turnover intentions (Q = 0.521, ns) are not significantly different. Thus, Hypothesis 4 is not supported.

TABLE 3

Table 3. The moderating effect of individualism-collectivism on workplace ostracism-consequence relationships.

Regarding the well-being outcomes, the relationships between workplace ostracism and belongingness (ρ_i = −0.506 vs. ρ_c = −0.189; Q = 47.628, p < 0.001), job satisfaction (ρ_i = −0.429 vs. ρ_c = −0.304; Q = 11.910, p < 0.01), and emotional exhaustion (ρ_i = 0.494 vs. ρ_c = 0.380; Q = 9.059, p < 0.01) are significantly different in the two subgroups and are stronger in the individualist culture subgroup than in the collectivist culture subgroup. However, the relationship between workplace ostracism and OBSE (Q = 0.929, ns) is not significantly different. Thus, Hypothesis 5 is partially supported.

Finally, in terms of the behavioral outcomes, the relationships between workplace ostracism and OCBI (ρ_i = −0.337 vs. ρ_c = −0.235; Q = 4.777, p < 0.05 s), organizational deviance (ρ_i = 0.753 vs. ρ_c = 0.452; Q = 525.845, p < 0.001), and interpersonal deviance (ρ_i = 0.669 vs. ρ_c = 0.480; Q = 131.749, p < 0.001) are significantly different and stronger in the individualist culture subgroup than in the collectivist culture subgroup. The relationship between workplace ostracism and OCB (ρ_i = −0.064 vs. ρ_c = −0.350; Q = 51.576, p < 0.001) is significantly different but stronger in the collectivist culture subgroup than in the individualist culture subgroup. However, the relationship between workplace ostracism and job performance (Q = 1.578, ns) is not significantly different in the collectivist and individualist culture subgroups. Thus, Hypothesis 6 is partially supported.

MASEM Analysis of Mediating Effects

The MASEM results indicate that the hypothesized model in which OBSE mediates the relationships between workplace ostracism and employees’ organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and job performance is largely generalizable across populations. Numerous fit indices were used to calculate the generalizability of the model. Specifically, the standardized root mean square residual value is smaller than 0.10 in 81.2% of the 500 bootstrapped iterations, and the comparative fit index value is 0.80 or above in 86% of the 500 bootstrapped iterations. The path coefficients and their 80% credibility intervals are shown in Figure 2. The path coefficient linking workplace ostracism with OBSE has a mean value of −0.319 [80% CV (−0.434, −0.207)]. The path coefficients linking OBSE to organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and job performance have mean values of 0.468 [80% CV (0.324, 0.598)], 0.447 [80% CV (0.326, 0.569)], and 0.277 [80% CV (0.037, 0.501)], respectively. The CV widths of all of the path coefficients are sufficiently large and credible. Thus, Hypothesis 7 is supported.

As shown in Table 4, estimation of publication bias should meet the requirements. The publication bias is concerning, our inspection indicated that it is not a big issue for our findings.

TABLE 4

Table 4. Publication bias analyses of workplace ostracism consequences.

Discussion

Adopting the victims’ perspective, our meta-analytical review tests the bivariate relations of workplace ostracism on attitudes, well-being, and behaviors using a version of the measure developed by Ferris et al. (2008). Our findings largely support the theoretical model shown in Figure 1 based on our review of empirical studies. Specifically, we find that 13 pairs of bivariate relations are significant. This meta-analysis clarifies the moderating effect of individualism-collectivism, as the findings are partially supportive of these boundary conditions. We further synthesize the MASEM to highlight the mediating effects of OBSE on the relationship between workplace ostracism and some specific consequences (i.e., organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and job performance).

Theoretical Implications

Our meta-analysis of the literature has three main theoretical implications. First, in our tests of the psychometric corrections, we systemically evaluate the frameworks on workplace ostracism and its consequences, including more studies (k = 95 studies of the consequences of workplace ostracism) than Howard et al. (2020) (k = 93 studies of the antecedents and consequences of workplace ostracism). We also use a fine-grained approach to test OCB and deviance targeted at organizations or individuals, offering evidence that workplace ostracism significantly affects organizations and individuals.

Second, we test the moderating effects of individualism-collectivism on the relationships between workplace ostracism and its outcomes, and thus respond to the call of Mao et al. (2018) to examine workplace ostracism across different cultural contexts. Our findings suggest that national cultures play an important role in determining the boundary conditions of workplace ostracism and its consequences. The individualism-collectivism divide is one of the most salient factors affecting the workplace environments in which individuals are embedded (Wong and Cheng, 2020). We generate three findings that show the complex cultural values of individualism-collectivism. First, consistent with our hypotheses, we find that the relationships between workplace ostracism and belongingness, job satisfaction, emotional exhaustion, OCBI, organizational deviance, and interpersonal deviance are stronger in individualist contexts than in collectivist contexts. On this basis, we propose that people with a strong sense of individualism are more sensitive to how others treat them (Rockstuhl et al., 2012). Second, contrary to our hypothesis, we find that the relationships between workplace ostracism and organizational identification and OCB are stronger for individuals with a strong sense of collectivism. Drawing on social identity theory, Wu et al. (2016) suggest that collectivism may strengthen the relationship between workplace ostracism and organizational identification, but they do not find a significant relationship. Our meta-analyses show that collectivism is indeed a moderator. This finding suggests that scholars should consider the outcome variables when examining the moderating role of culture (Lian et al., 2012). Third, our findings do not support the moderating effects of individualism-collectivism on organizational commitment, turnover intentions, OBSE, or job performance. That is, the correlations between workplace ostracism and these four variables are not significantly different between individualist and collectivist cultures. However, individualism-collectivism is represented by regional divisions and is not directly measured as a moderator in our analyses. This potential measurement error may have contributed to the finding that the hypothesized moderating effect is insignificant.

Third, we offer important empirical evidence of the mediating effects of OBSE on the relationships between workplace ostracism and organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and job performance using MASEM, demonstrating its superiority for theoretical models and analytical techniques. Meta-analytic research has shed light on the mediating effects of OBSE on self-esteem and work-related consequences (Bowling et al., 2010). Our research extends the predictors of OBSE by regarding workplace ostracism as an antecedent and adds to the mistreatment and OBSE literature by examining samples from heterogeneous populations. Our meta-analysis also improves the methodology that Howard et al. (2020) use to test the mediating effects of OBSE. Consequently, we have enriched the ostracism research by positioning OBSE as a mediator in our model. Our findings explain how workplace ostracism has destructive effects on victims’ job attitudes and performance. As OBSE provides a theoretical foundation for explaining how mistreatment affects behavior (Ferris et al., 2015), our findings could inspire researchers to focus on the mediating role of OBSE in the mistreatment literature.

Practical Implications

Workplace ostracism brings pain and hurt to individuals (Williams, 2009). Thus, we must work to reduce the negative effects of workplace ostracism because of its undesirable consequences in relation to individuals’ attitudes, well-beings, and behaviors. Organizations should seek to establish and maintain a friendly atmosphere that offers a sense of belonging to employees, minimize workplace ostracism by creating a zero-tolerance culture, and provide training programs on how to avoid ostracism (Wu et al., 2012). Most importantly, organizations should pay more attention to OBSE and change the work environment when OBSE mediates the relationship between workplace ostracism and its consequences (Bowling et al., 2010). In addition, individuals should increase their awareness of workplace ostracism to prevent themselves from being ostracized. If workplace ostracism has badly affected an individual’s sense of well-being, they should seek help from the right person (e.g., other warm-hearted supervisors or colleagues) or the organizational department (Kwan et al., 2018).

Limitations

The quality of the primary studies can affect the quality of a meta-analysis. Our study has two noteworthy limitations. First, our meta-analytical model could not test for causality, as it examines cross-sectional data from the sample studies. Cross-sectional data tend to have measurement bias, and strong tests require multiple sources and manipulation of the variables (Bono and McNamara, 2011). For example, a longitudinal design might offer a clear explanation of whether workplace ostracism precedes belongingness, whether belongingness precedes workplace ostracism, or whether they reciprocally influence each other. Second, the small number of cross-cultural samples included in the meta-analysis (k = 2 studies) may have led to organizational identification, organizational commitment, OBSE, and OCBO being falsely associated with individualism (Hunter and Schmidt, 2004). Third, the meta-analysis only considers English and Chinese publications, and does not include publications in other languages. Future meta-analysis of workplace ostracism may broaden the sample of publications to include more languages (e.g., Spanish, French). Finally, although we focus on the well-established dimension of individualism-collectivism, the Hofstede’s cultural dimensions may not account for some observed differences as a result of the cultural dimension of individualism, such as GDP, political ideology, economic conditions and so on. Using the national-level Hofstede’s cultural values may capture less variance than individual-level cultural values, which might trigger questions of accuracy. Thus, we believe that our findings of moderating effect of individualism-collectivism may be conservative. Future research could further explore moderating effects of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions by using a more specific cultural values perspective.

Future Research Directions

In addition to assessing the causality and broadening the sample size, out study points to several directions for future research. First, the consequences of workplace ostracism are not limited to the workplace, as workplace ostracism can have spillover effects on the family (Liu et al., 2013). However, the limited samples on work-family interface variables means that we could not examine this factor in our meta-analysis of workplace ostracism. It is often difficult to segment the work and family domains, which suggests that a new direction is needed to explore the effects of workplace ostracism on the family. We encourage future researchers to conduct meta-analytic research on how workplace ostracism impacts the work-family interface when sufficient studies become available.

Second, the perpetrator and the victim may have different views of workplace ostracism (Yang and Treadway, 2018). In this study, we focus on the victims’ perceptions of workplace ostracism. We call for future meta-analyses to consider the sources of the ratings (i.e., by self or by other) of perceived ostracism and their potential moderating effects on the relationships between workplace ostracism and its consequences.

Third, future research should consider other moderators, such as personality. For example, research has shown that a proactive personality moderates the relationship between workplace ostracism and counterproductive work behavior (Zhao et al., 2013). Thus, the moderating effects of personality should be tested when the sample sizes of the studies meet the standards for meta-analysis.

Finally, we encourage future researchers to test other mediators of the relationships between workplace ostracism and its outcomes such as emotions (e.g., anger, anxiety), as these variables may help to explain the mediating mechanism between workplace ostracism and its outcomes (Ferris et al., 2016).

Conclusion

Using an adapted version of the measure developed by Ferris et al. (2008), we construct a meta-analytical model to test the effects of workplace ostracism on the attitudes, well-beings, and behaviors of the victim. We also examine the moderating effects of collectivism-individualism on the relationships between workplace ostracism and its consequences. In addition, we use MASEM to test the mediating effects of OBSE on the relationships between workplace ostracism and its outcomes. We hope that our meta-analysis provides clear directions for future research on workplace ostracism and will encourage more researchers to examine workplace ostracism.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Author Contributions

ML and HK were responsible for idea generation. ML and XX conducted material preparation, data collection, and analysis. ML wrote the first draft. HK and XX revised the manuscript. All authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript and read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71672108).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.641302/full#supplementary-material

Footnotes

1. ^ https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/
2. ^ https://mgmt.shinyapps.io/masem/
3. ^ https://bookdown.org/MathiasHarrer/Doing_Meta_Analysis_in_R/

References

All references included in meta-analysis are marked with an (*) asterisk.

Aquino, K., and Lamertz, K. (2004). A relational model of workplace victimization: social roles and patterns of victimization in dyadic relationships. J. Appl. Psychol. 89, 1023–1034. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1023

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Balliet, D., and Ferris, D. L. (2013). Ostracism and prosocial behavior: a social dilemma perspective. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 120, 298–308. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.04.004

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Baumeister, R. F., and Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychol. Bull. 117, 497–529. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bennett, R. J., and Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. J. Appl. Psychol. 85, 349–360. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.349

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bochner, S., and Hesketh, B. (1994). Power distance, individualism/collectivism, and job-related attitudes in a culturally diverse work group. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 25, 233–257. doi: 10.1177/0022022194252005

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bono, J. E., and McNamara, G. (2011). From the editors: publishing in AMJ–part 2: research design. Acad. Manage. J. 54, 657–660. doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2011.64869103

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bowling, N. A., Eschleman, K. J., Wang, Q., Kirkendall, C., and Alarcon, G. (2010). A meta-analysis of the predictors and consequences of organization-based self-esteem. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 83, 601–626. doi: 10.1348/096317909X454382

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Carter-Sowell, A. R., Chen, Z., and Williams, K. D. (2008). Ostracism increases social susceptibility. Soc. Influ 3, 143–153. doi: 10.1080/15534510802204868

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

^∗Chung, Y. W. (2015). The mediating effects of organizational conflict on the relationships between workplace ostracism with in-role behavior and organizational citizenship behavior. Int. J. Confl. Manage. 26, 366–385. doi: 10.1108/Ijcma-01-2014-0001

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

^∗Chung, Y. W. (2017). The role of person–organization fit and perceived organizational support in the relationship between workplace ostracism and behavioral outcomes. Int. J. Confl. Manage. 26, 370–381. doi: 10.1177/0312896215611190

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

^∗Chung, Y. W. (2018). Workplace ostracism and workplace behaviors: a moderated mediation model of perceived stress and psychological empowerment. Anxiety Stress Coping 31, 304–317. doi: 10.1080/10615806.2018.1424835

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

^∗Chung, Y. W., and Kim, T. (2017). Impact of using social network services on workplace ostracism, job satisfaction, and innovative behaviour. Behav. Inform. Technol. 36, 1235–1243. doi: 10.1080/0144929x.2017.1369568

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

^∗Chung, Y. W., and Yang, J. Y. (2017). The mediating effects of organization-based self-esteem for the relationship between workplace ostracism and workplace behaviors. Balt. J. Manag. 12, 255–270. doi: 10.1108/Bjm-06-2016-0130

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

^∗De Clercq, D., Haq, I. U., and Azeem, M. U. (2019). Workplace ostracism and job performance: roles of self-efficacy and job level. Pers. Rev. 48, 184–203. doi: 10.1108/pr-02-2017-0039

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., and Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: three decades of progress. Psychol. Bull. 125, 276–302. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

^∗Du, P. (2012). Research On Workplace Ostracism And Its Impact On Job Performance: Moderating Effect Of Job Satisfaction. [Ph.D. thesis]. Jinan: Shandong University.

Google Scholar

Eatough, E. M., Chang, C. H., Miloslavic, S. A., and Johnson, R. E. (2011). Relationships of role stressors with organizational citizenship behavior: a meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 96, 619–632. doi: 10.1037/a0021887

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

^∗Eickholt, M. S., and Goodboy, A. K. (2017). Investment model predictions of workplace ostracism on K–12 teachers’ commitment to their schools and the profession of teaching. J. Workplace. Behav. He. 32, 139–157. doi: 10.1080/15555240.2017.1332483

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

^∗Fan, Y. J. (2018). The Relationship Between Workplace Ostracism And Behavior Choice: The Moderation Effect Of Proactive Personality. [Ph.D. thesis]. Harbin: Harbin Institute of Technology.

Google Scholar

^∗Ferris, D. L., Brown, D. J., Berry, J. W., and Lian, H. (2008). The development and validation of the workplace ostracism scale. J. Appl. Psychol. 93, 1348–1366. doi: 10.1037/a0012743

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ferris, D. L., Brown, D. J., and Heller, D. (2009). Organizational supports and organizational deviance: the mediating role of organization-based self-esteem. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 108, 279–286. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.09.001

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

^∗Ferris, D. L., Lian, H., Brown, D. J., and Morrison, R. (2015). Ostracism, self-esteem, and job performance: when do we self-verify and when do we self-enhance? Acad. Manage. J. 58, 279–297. doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.0347

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

^∗Ferris, D. L., Yan, M., Lim, V. K. G., Chen, Y. Y., and Fatimah, S. (2016). An approach-avoidance framework of workplace aggression. Acad. Manage. J. 59, 1777–1800. doi: 10.5465/amj.2014.0221

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

^∗Fiset, J., Al Hajj, R., and Vongas, J. G. (2017). Workplace ostracism seen through the lens of power. Front. Psychol. 1528:158. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01528

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

^∗Gan, Y. X., Song, A. L., and Jia, R. X. (2015). The study on the relationship between workplace ostracism and turnover intention in the financial services industry. China Labor 9, 103–107.

Google Scholar

^∗Gebhardt, S. T. (2016). The Moderating Effects Of Harmony Enhancement And Disintegration A Voidance On The Relationship Between Workplace Ostracism And Outcomes. [Ph.D. thesis]. Hempstead, NY: Hofstra University.

Google Scholar

^∗Gkorezis, P., Panagiotou, M., and Theodorou, M. (2016). Workplace ostracism and employee silence in nursing: the mediating role of organizational identification. J. Adv. Nurs. 72, 2381–2388. doi: 10.1111/jan.12992

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Greco, L. M., Whitson, J. A., O’boyle, E. H., Wang, C. S., and Kim, J. (2019). An eye for an eye? A meta-analysis of negative reciprocity in organizations. J. Appl. Psychol. 104, 1117–1143. doi: 10.1037/apl0000396

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

^∗Haq, I. U. (2014). “Workplace ostracism and job outcomes: moderating effects of psychological capital,” in Human Capital without Borders: Knowledge and Learning for Quality of Life; Proceedings of the Management, Knowledge and Learning International Conference, Celje, 1309–1323.

Google Scholar

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International Difference In Work Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Google Scholar

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, And Organizations Across Nations, 2nd Edn. London: Sage.

Google Scholar

Howard, M. C., Cogswell, J. E., and Smith, M. B. (2020). The antecedents and outcomes of workplace ostracism: a meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 105, 577–596. doi: 10.1037/apl0000453

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

^∗Huang, X. Y., Wang, X. Z., Zhao, H., Jin, L., and Yan, H. F. (2015). The influence of psychological capital on psychiatric nurses’ workplace ostracism and job performance. J. Nurs. Admin. 15, 460–462.

Google Scholar

Huertas-Valdivia, I., Braojos, J., and Lloréns-Montes, F. J. (2019). Counteracting workplace ostracism in hospitality with psychological empowerment. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 76, 240–251. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.05.013

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hui, C. H., and Triandis, H. C. (1986). Individualism-collectivism:a study of cross-cultural researchers. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 17, 225–248. doi: 10.1177/0022002186017002006

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hunter, J. E., and Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error And Bias In Research Findings, 2nd Edn. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Google Scholar

^∗Jahanzeb, S., and Fatima, T. (2018). How workplace ostracism influences interpersonal deviance: the mediating role of defensive silence and emotional exhaustion. J. Bus. Psychol. 33, 779–791. doi: 10.1007/s10869-017-9525-6

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

^∗Jahanzeb, S., Fatima, T., and Malik, M. A. R. (2018). Supervisor ostracism and defensive silence: a differential needs approach. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 27, 430–440. doi: 10.1080/1359432x.2018.1465411

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

^∗Jia, B., and Zhou, F. (2014). Workplace ostracism and employees’ silent behaviors: the mediating effect of organizational identification. J. Shenyang Norm. Univ. 38, 83–85.

Google Scholar

^∗Jia, R. X. (2013). The Study On The Relationship Between Workplace Ostracism And Turnover Intention—Emotional Exhaustion And Dependent Self-Construal. [Ph.D. thesis]. Chengdu: Southwestern University of Finance and Economics.

Google Scholar

Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., and Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction-job performance relationship: a qualitative and quantitative review. Psychol. Bull. 127, 376–407. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.127.3.376

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

^∗Kim, Y., Cohen, T. R., and Panter, A. (2015). The Reciprocal Relationship. Available online at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2638429 (accessed July 31, 2015).

Google Scholar

^∗Koay, K. Y. (2018). Workplace ostracism and cyberloafing: a moderated–mediation model. Internet Res. 28, 1122–1141. doi: 10.1108/intr-07-2017-0268

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Korman, A. K. (1976). Hypothesis of work behavior revisited and an extension. Acad. Manage. Rev. 1, 50–63. doi: 10.5465/amr.1976.4408762

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kwan, H. K., Zhang, X., Liu, J., and Lee, C. (2018). Workplace ostracism and employee creativity: an integrative approach incorporating pragmatic and engagement roles. J. Appl. Psychol. 103, 1358–1366. doi: 10.1037/apl0000320

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lapierre, L. M., Li, Y., Kwan, H. K., Greenhaus, J. H., Direnzo, M. S., and Shao, P. (2018). A meta-analysis of the antecedents of work–family enrichment. J. Organ. Behav. 39, 385–401. doi: 10.1002/job.2234

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

^∗Li, D., and Chang, M. X. (2018). How workplace ostracism influences job performance? The effects of emotional exhaustion and emotional intelligence. Hum. Resour. Dev. China 35, 64–74.

Google Scholar

^∗Li, R. (2010). Effect of workplace ostracism on employees’ contextual performance: mediating roles of organizational identification and job involvement. J. Manag. Sci. 23, 23–31.

Google Scholar

^∗Li, R. (2014). The Effect Of Workplace Ostracism On Employee’s Workplace Deviance—Negative Emotion As The Mediator Variable. [Ph. D. thesis]. Xiamen: Xiamen University.

Google Scholar

^∗Li, X. C., Zhao, M., and Wang, H. (2014). Workplace ostracism and employees’ knowledge sharing: the effect of organizational identification and interdependent self-construal. Library Res. 19, 96–100.

Google Scholar

^∗Li, X. Y., Dang, G. L., Gao, A., and Gao, D. (2018). The effect of differential leadership on turnover intention: the role of proactive personality and workplace ostracism. Psychol. Res. 11, 444–451.

Google Scholar

^∗Li, Y. J. (2018). A confirmatory study on the influence of workplace ostracism on employee’s turnover intention. J. Harbin Univ. Commer. 161, 121–128.

Google Scholar

Lian, H. W., Ferris, D. L., and Brown, D. J. (2012). Does power distance exacerbate or mitigate the effects of abusive supervision? It depends on the outcome. J. Appl. Psychol. 97, 107–123. doi: 10.1037/a0024610

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

^∗Liu, J. (2018a). Research On The Influence Of Workplace Exclusion On Job Satisfaction Of Sem Employees: The Mediating Role Of Organizational Identity And Psychological Security. [Ph.D. thesis]. Changsha: Xiangtan University.

Google Scholar

Liu, J., Kwan, H. K., Lee, C., and Hui, C. (2013). Work-to-family spillover effects of workplace ostracism: the role of work-home segmentation preferences. Hum. Resour. Manage. 52, 75–93. doi: 10.1002/hrm.21513

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

^∗Liu, J. Q., and Zong, F. Q. (2019). Workplace ostracism and employee voice behavior: intermediary role of organization-based self-esteem and regulation role of proactive personality. J. Capital Univ. Econ. Bus. 21, 65–73.

Google Scholar

^∗Liu, Q. Y. (2018b). The Influence Of Workplace Ostracism On Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Based On The Moderating Role Of Zhong-Yong Thinking Style. [Ph.D. thesis]. Dalian: Dongbei University of Finance and Economics.

Google Scholar

^∗Liu, T. (2011). Effect of Workplace Ostracism On Employees’ Counterproductive Work Behavior. [Ph.D. thesis]. Wuhan: Huazhong University of Science and Technology.

Google Scholar

^∗Liu, X. Y., Liu, J., Xu, J., and Wu, R. (2015). The effect of workplace ostracism on proactive behavior: the self-verification theory perspective. Acta Psychol. Sin. 47, 826–836.

Google Scholar

^∗Luo, J. L., Hua, C. H., and Zhu, Y. (2015). Workplace ostracism and counterproductive work behavior: a study on the effects of job burnout and locus of control. East China Econ. Manag. 29, 10–14.

Google Scholar

^∗Lyu, Y., and Zhu, H. (2019). The predictive effects of workplace ostracism on employee attitudes: a job embeddedness perspective. J. Bus. Ethics 158, 1083–1095. doi: 10.1007/s10551-017-3741-x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

^∗Mahfooz, Z., Arshad, A., Nisar, Q. A., Ikram, M., and Azeem, M. (2017). Does workplace incivility & workplace ostracism influence the employees’ turnover intentions? Mediating role of burnout and job stress & moderating role of psychological capital. Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. 7, 398–413. doi: 10.6007/IJARBSS/v7-i8/3244

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mao, Y., Liu, Y., Jiang, C., and Zhang, I. D. (2018). Why am I ostracized and how would I react? — A review of workplace ostracism research. Asia. Pac. J. Manag. 35, 745–767. doi: 10.1007/s10490-017-9538-8

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mathieu, J. E., and Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychol. Bull. 108, 171–194.

Google Scholar

^∗Mok, A., and De Cremer, D. (2015). The bonding effect of money in the workplace: priming money weakens the negative relationship between ostracism and prosocial behaviour. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psy. 25, 272–286. doi: 10.1080/1359432x.2015.1051038

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

^∗O’Brien, et al. (2018). “Withdraw or work harder? Proactive behavior in the ostracized employee,” in Paper Presented at Annual Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP).

Google Scholar

^∗O’Reilly, J., Robinson, S. L., Berdahl, J. L., and Banki, S. (2015). Is negative attention better than no attention? The comparative effects of ostracism and harassment at work. Organ. Sci. 26, 774–793. doi: 10.1287/orsc.2014.0900

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Over, H., and Uskul, A. K. (2016). Culture moderates children’s responses to ostracism situations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 110, 710–724. doi: 10.1037/pspi0000050

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

^∗Peng, A. C., and Zeng, W. (2017). Workplace ostracism and deviant and helping behaviors: the moderating role of 360 degree feedback. J. Organ. Behav. 38, 833–855. doi: 10.1002/job.2169

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., and Dunham, R. B. (1989). Organization-based self-esteem: Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Acad. Manage. J. 32, 622–648. doi: 10.5465/256437

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

^∗Ramsey, A. T. (2012). Minding The Interpersonal Gap At Work: Role Of Mindfulness On Workplace Ostracism in Employees. [Ph.D. dissertation]. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University.

Google Scholar

^∗Rao, J. R. (2018). Workplace Exclusion, Organization Self-Esteem, Turnover Intention Related Studies—Based On Resilience. [Ph.D. thesis]. Haikou: Hainan University.

Google Scholar

Riketta, M. (2002). Attitudinal organizational commitment and job performance: a meta-analysis. J. Organ. Behav. 23, 257–266. doi: 10.1002/job.141

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Riva, P., Williams, K. D., Torstrick, A. M., and Montali, L. (2014). Orders to shoot (a camera): effects of ostracism on obedience. J. Soc. Psychol. 154, 208–216. doi: 10.1080/00224545.2014.883354

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Robinson, S. L., O’reilly, J., and Wang, W. (2013). Invisible at work:an integrated model of workplace ostracism. J. Manage. 39, 203–231. doi: 10.1177/0149206312466141

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Rockstuhl, T., Dulebohn, J. H., Ang, S., and Shore, L. M. (2012). Leader-member exchange (LMX) and culture: a meta-analysis of correlates of LMX across 23 countries. J. Appl. Psychol. 97, 1097–1130. doi: 10.1037/a0029978

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Scott, K. L., and Duffy, M. K. (2015). “Antecedents of workplace ostracism: NEW directions in research and intervention,” in Mistreatment in Organizations, eds P. L. Perrewé, J. R. Halbesleben, and C. C. Rosen (Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing), 137–165.

Google Scholar

Scott, K. L., Restubog, S. L., and Zagenczyk, T. J. (2013). A social exchange-based model of the antecedents of workplace exclusion. J. Appl. Psychol. 98, 37–48. doi: 10.1037/a0030135

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

^∗Scott, K. L., Tams, S., Schippers, M. C., and Lee, K. (2015). Opening the black box: why and when workplace exclusion affects social reconnection behaviour, health, and attitudes. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psy. 24, 239–255. doi: 10.1080/1359432x.2014.894978

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

^∗Scott, K. L., Zagenczyk, T. J., Schippers, M., Purvis, R. L., and Cruz, K. S. (2014). Co-worker exclusion and employee outcomes: an investigation of the moderating roles of perceived organizational and social support. J. Manage. Stud. 51, 1235–1256. doi: 10.1111/joms.12099

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

^∗Shen, H. (2014). Research on Mechanism Of Effect Of Workplace Ostracism On The Employees’ Intention of Knowledge Sharing. [Ph.D. thesis]. Shanghai: East China University of Science and Technology.

Google Scholar

^∗Tang, Y. M. (2017). Workplace Ostracism And Turnover Intention: The Roles Of Job Insecurity And General Self-Efficacy, [Ph.D. thesis]. Kaifeng: Henan University.

Google Scholar

Taylor, S. E. (1991). Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative events: the mobilization-minimization hypothesis. Psychol. Bull. 110, 67–85. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.108.2.171

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

^∗Thau, S., Derfler-Rozin, R., Pitesa, M., Mitchell, M. S., and Pillutla, M. M. (2015). Unethical for the sake of the group: risk of social exclusion and pro-group unethical behavior. J. Appl. Psychol. 100, 98–113. doi: 10.1037/a0036708

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Triandis, H. C., and Gelfand, M. J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 74, 118–128. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.118

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Vevea, J. L., and Coburn, K. M. (2015). Maximum-likelihood methods for meta-analysis: a tutorial using R. Group. Process. Intergroup. Relat. 18, 329–347. doi: 10.1177/1368430214558311

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Vevea, J. L., and Hedges, L. V. (1995). A general linear-model for estimating effect size in the presence of publication bias. Psychometrika 60, 419–435. doi: 10.1007/Bf02294384

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Vevea, J. L., and Woods, C. M. (2005). Publication bias in research synthesis: sensitivity analysis using a priori weight functions. Psychol. Methods 10, 428–443. doi: 10.1037/1082-989x.10.4.428

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Viechtbauer, W., and Cheung, M. W. (2010). Outlier and influence diagnostics for meta-analysis. Res. Synth. Methods 1, 112–125. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.11

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

^∗Wang, M. (2017). A Study On The Influence Factors And Results Of Workplace Ostracism. [Ph.D. thesis]. Harbin: Harbin Institute of T3echnology.

Google Scholar

^∗Wang, R., Lu, Z. R., and Jiang, J. (2013). Workplace ostracism and employees’ in-role behavior and extra-role behaviors: the mediating effect of belonging need. J. Psychol. Sci. 36, 1176–1180.

Google Scholar

Waterman, A. S. (1984). The Psychology of Individualism. New York, NY: Praeger.

Google Scholar

Whitener, E. M. (1990). Confusion of confidence intervals and credibility intervals in meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 75, 315–321. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.75.3.315

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wilk, S. L., and Moynihan, L. M. (2005). Display rule “regulators”: the relationship between supervisors and worker emotional exhaustion. J. Appl. Psychol. 90, 917–927. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.917

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 58, 425–452. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085641

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Williams, K. D. (2009). “Ostracism: a temporal need-threat model,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, ed. M. P. Zanna (San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press), 275–314.

Google Scholar

Wong, K. F. E., and Cheng, C. (2020). The turnover intention–behaviour link: a culture-moderated meta-analysis. J. Manage. Stud. 57, 1174–1216. doi: 10.1111/joms.12520

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

^∗Wu, C.-H., Liu, J., Kwan, H. K., and Lee, C. (2016). Why and when workplace ostracism inhibits organizational citizenship behaviors: an organizational identification perspective. J. Appl. Psychol. 101, 362–378. doi: 10.1037/apl0000063

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wu, L.-Z., Ferris, D. L., Kwan, H. K., Chiang, F., Snap9e, E., and Liang, L. H. (2015). Breaking (or making) the silence: how goal interdependence and social skill predict being ostracized. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 131, 51–66. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2015.08.001

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

^∗Wu, L. Z., Liu, J., and Hui, C. (2010). Workplace ostracism and organizational citizenship behavior: The roles of organizational identification and collectivism. Nankai Bus. Rev. 13, 36–44.

Google Scholar

Wu, L. Z., Wei, L., and Hui, C. (2011). Dispositional antecedents and consequences of workplace ostracism: an empirical examination. Front. Bus. Res. China 5:23–44. doi: 10.1007/s11782-011-0119-2

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

^∗Wu, L. Z., Yim, F. H., Kwan, H. K., and Zhang, X. M. (2012). Coping with workplace ostracism: the roles of ingratiation and political skill in employee psychological distress. J. Manage. Stud. 49, 178–199. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2011.01017.x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

^∗Wu, W., Wang, H., and Lu, L. (2018). Will my own perception be enough? Chin. Manag. Stud. 12, 202–221. doi: 10.1108/cms-04-2017-0109

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

^∗Wu, Y. (2017). The Relationship Between Workplace Ostracism And Job Performance: The Intermediary Role Of Achievement Motivation. [Ph.D. thesis]. Tianjin: Tianjin Normal University.

Google Scholar

^∗Xiao, X. X. (2014). Empirical Study On The Relationship Between Workplace Ostracism, Organizational Commitment And Organizational Citizenship Behavior. [Ph.D. thesis]. Nanchang: Jiangxi University of Finance and Economics.

Google Scholar

^∗Xie, J., and Yan, M. (2016). Active coping or avoidance? The effect of proactive personality on the relationship between workplace ostracism and organizational citizenship behavior. Acta Psychol. Sin. 48, 1314–1325.

Google Scholar

Xu, E., Huang, X., and Robinson, S. L. (2017). When self-view is at stake: responses to ostracism through the lens of self-verification theory. J. Manage. 43, 2281–2302. doi: 10.1177/0149206314567779

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Yaakobi, E., and Williams, K. D. (2016). Recalling an attachment event moderates distress after ostracism. Eur. J. Pers. 30, 258–273. doi: 10.1002/per.2050

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

^∗Yan, J. (2015). Workplace Exclusion And Counterproductive Work Behaviors: Exploring The Effect Of Workplace Ethic. [Ph.D. thesis]. Taiyuan: Shanxi University.

Google Scholar

^∗Yan, Y. L., Zhou, E. H., and Liu, T. (2014a). Workplace ostracism and employees’ counterproductive work behavior: effects of state self-control and psychological capital. Sci. Res. Manag. 35, 82–90.

Google Scholar

^∗Yan, Y. L., Zhou, E. H., Long, L. R., and Ji, Y. (2014b). The influence of workplace ostracism on counterproductive work behavior: the mediating effect of state self-control. Soc. Behav. Personal. 42, 881–890. doi: 10.2224/sbp.2014.42.6.881

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

^∗Yang, D. (2016a). The Impact Of Workplace Ostracism Of Turnover Intention: The Mediating Role of Job insecurity. [Ph.D. thesis]. Nanjing: Nanjing Agricultural University.

Google Scholar

^∗Yang, J. (2016b). An Empirical Research On The Relationship Among Workplace Ostracism, Counterproductive Work Behavior And Job Performance. [Ph.D. thesis]. Chongqing: Chongqing University.

Google Scholar

Yang, J., and Treadway, D. C. (2018). A social influence interpretation of workplace ostracism and counterproductive work behavior. J. Bus. Ethics 148, 879–891. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2912-x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

^∗Yang, Q., and Wei, H. (2018). The impact of ethical leadership on organizational citizenship behavior. Leadersh. Org. Dev. J. 39, 100–113. doi: 10.1108/lodj-12-2016-0313

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

^∗Yi, K., and Liu, Y. R. (2013). Workplace ostracism and turnover intention: The roles of organizational identification and career resilience. Soft Sci. 27, 121–127.

Google Scholar

Yu, J. J., Downes, P. E., Carter, K. M., and O’boyle, E. H. (2016). The problem of effect size heterogeneity in meta-analytic structural equation modeling. J. Appl. Psychol. 101, 1457–1473. doi: 10.1037/apl0000141

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

^∗Yu, W., and Zhang, P. (2016). Chaxu climate and employees’ indifference: the role of workplace ostracism and OBSE. J. Central Univ. Finance Econ. 10, 122–128.

Google Scholar

^∗Zeng, Y. (2017). Effect Of Workplace Ostracism On New Generation Employees’ Counterproductive Work Behavior — A Case Study Of Large Department Stores In Chongqing. [Ph.D. thesis]. Chongqing: Southwest University.

Google Scholar

^∗Zhang, G. P. (2016). The influencing mechanism of workplace ostracism on unethical pro-organization behavior. J. Manag. Sci. 29, 104–114.

Google Scholar

^∗Zhang, H. R., Li, Q., and Lu, R. (2015). The impact of workplace ostracism on turnover intention of new-generation migrant workers: the moderating effect of psychological capital. East China Econ. Manag. 29, 152–158.

Google Scholar

^∗Zhang, R., Ye, C., and Ferreira-Meyers, K. (2017). Linking workplace ostracism to interpersonal citizenship behavior: a moderated mediation model of work-to-family conflict and rumination. Int. J. Stress. Manage. 24, 293–320. doi: 10.1037/str0000056

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zhang, Y., and Liao, Z. (2015). Consequences of abusive supervision: a meta-analytic review. Asia. Pac. J. Manag. 32, 959–987. doi: 10.1007/s10490-015-9425-0

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

^∗Zhao, H., Peng, Z., and Sheard, G. (2013). Workplace ostracism and hospitality employees’ counterproductive work behaviors: the joint moderating effects of proactive personality and political skill. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 33, 219–227. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.08.006

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

^∗Zheng, X. M., Yang, J., Ngo, H. Y., Liu, X. Y., and Jiao, W. J. (2016). Workplace ostracism and its negative outcomes psychological capital as a moderator. J. Pers. Psychol. 15, 143–151. doi: 10.1027/1866-5888/a000147

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

^∗Zhong, S. Q. (2017). Research Of The Effect Of Workplace Ostracism On New Generation Employees’ Turnover Intention. [Ph.D. thesis]. Nanchang: Jiangxi Normal University.

Google Scholar

^∗Zhou, X., Cheng, B., and Guo, G. X. (2018). Workplace ostracism and proactive customer service performance: A moderated-mediation model based on the conservation of resources theory. Econ. Manag. 6, 38–52.

Google Scholar

^∗Zhu, H., Lyu, Y. J., Deng, X. C., and Ye, Y. J. (2017). Workplace ostracism and proactive customer service performance: a conservation of resources perspective. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 64, 62–72. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.04.004

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

^∗Zong, B. Q. (2018). Workplace Ostracism And Employee Voice Behavior: The Intermediary Role Of Organizational Based Self-Esteem And Regulation Role Of Proactive Personality. [Ph.D. thesis]. Changsha: Xiangtan University.

Google Scholar