Ostracism
in
the
workplace:
‘Being
voted
off
the
island
’
Michael
Harvey,
Miriam
Moeller,
Timothy
Kiessling,
Marina
Dabic
“Theloneliestpeoplearethekindest.Thesaddest peo-plesmile thebrightest. Themostdamaged peopleare thewisest.Allbecausetheydonotwishtoseeanyone elsesufferthewaytheydo.”–—Anonymous
INTRODUCTION
Ashumans,weseemtobefascinated byostracism. Ostra-cismhasbeenpopularizedbytheentertainmentindustryas we watch numerous reality shows where in each episode someoneis“votedofftheisland”or“votedoutofthehouse” by peersandstrangers alike. Peopleare generally“voted off” because:theyarea weaklinkin teameffectiveness, they are disliked because of the way they interact with othersofhowtheyengagewiththegame,theyareathreat towinthegame(andthereforecausemetonotwin),orthey arenotpartofapowerfulin-groupandthereforeare cate-gorized as different from others in the collective group setting. The ostracizedindividual issubsequently deemed notworthyofbeingamemberofagroupandisfrequently socially ignored by others in the group or organization. These dynamics of ostracism are virtually no different in theworkplace.
Weobservethatthecauseofostracismbehavioris gen-erallynottohurttheostracizedpersonbuttoself-protect. Withthisinmindwearguethatostracismbehaviorcanbe deliberateandconscious,withapotentialcommitmentto punishothers.Onewayofdescribingostracismisasingleor repeated behavior that ignores or excludes others from socialinteractionsthattheywouldnormallyexpecttotake partin.Thisdifferentiatesostracismfrombullying,arelated constructbutwithadimensionofaggressionandelevating
selfby actively belittling others. It is worth nothing that ostracismalsodoesnothavetobepunitiveordeliberate,but canbeenactedobliviously.Obliviousostracismisgenerated forexamplewhenthewaiterinarestaurantapproachesa tableandfills/refillsglasseswithwater.Thereisachance thatnooneat that tableacknowledges thewaiter’s exis-tence.Thissituationisnotnecessarilyproblematicforthe waiter but as humans in the workplace we rely on our colleagues,superiors andsubordinates toprovide us with asenseofconnectionandacceptance.Alackofexperiencing thisconnectionsmakesitanuncomfortableworkingwithor forpeople whodonotvalue your presence.In thatsense ostracism is the denial of a positive experience. Neu-roscience researchhas shown that prolonged experiences ofostracism ergo the denialof a positive experiencecan inevitablyinfluence thebraintobelieveit isexperiencing physicalpain.
Ashumanbeings, wewillexperiencerejection by indi-vidualsand/or groups,it isaninevitable partoflife;but, while we may expect this in our personal lives, when it happensintheworkplace,itisconfusing,anditmayhave anextremelynegativeimpactontheperson’sphysicaland mental well-being and level of performance. Once again ostracism as such acknowledges a relationship between a physical and social pain reinforced by the individual’s responsestobeingostracizedandwhichismodified accord-ingto a need an individual is trying to fortify (i.e. some responsebehaviorintermsofapprovalandrevenge).
Ostracism is reflexively painful, depletes fundamental needs, and is highly resistant to variations in situational contextorindividualdifferences.Mostpeopleinthe work-placefeeltheyhavebeenostracized.Resultsdemonstrated that66%ofemployeesfelttheyhadbeen giventhesilent Availableonlineatwww.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
j our na l ho me pa ge :w ww . e l se v i e r . com / l oca t e / or gdy n
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2018.08.006
treatmentinthepastfiveyears,29%reportedthatothers hadlefttheroomwhentheyenteredand18%reportedthat theyhadbeen physicallyostracizedbybeingmovedtoan isolatedlocation.Researchon2000managers/employeesin theUnitedStatesrevealedthat67%admitteddeliberately notspeakingtoaperson,while75%indicatedthattheywere atleastonceatargetofthiskindofbehavior.
Humanshaveanevolvedsystemforautomatically detect-ingcuesofostracismandexclusion,howeveritappearsthat veryoften targets mayalsofailtoimmediately recognize thattheyarebeingvictimizedinitially. Ostracismis nota “oneoff”event(e.g.,notbeingallowedtoparticipateina meeting,notinvitedtolunchwheretheyarenormal parti-cipants, excluded from a firm function by error), but a continued exclusion from organizational formal and/or informal functions. Initially the individual may consider thefirstoccurrenceasunintentional,butastheostracizer’s behavior continues,people quickly identify that they are beingexcludedandwillfeelthenegativegrouppressure.
Regardlessof theformostracismbehaviortakeson, we observethatostracismhasongoingimpactfortheostracized individual,for instancethe reoccurringmemories ofwhen ostracizingbehaviortookplacetriggeredbyarandomevent,a recollectionofhowitmadethemfeeleachtimetheyseethe ostracizer,oranempatheticreactionwhentheyseeobserve othersinasimilarposition.Ostracismintheworkplaceishasa pronouncedimpactontheostracized,ostracizerand bystan-dersorwitnessestotheostracism.Inmostscenarioshowever, firmsmayormaynotobservetheactorseriesofacts.Despite suggestionsthatostracismcanbeaneffectivemeansof con-trolling contra normative behaviors, punishing deviance andto increasegroupcohesion,anyreoccurringorprolonged endur-anceorexecutionofostracismhasvirtuallynobenefittothe individual,ateamorthefirmcollectively.
Little research has articulated the issues concerning ostracism such as the different types of ostracism in the workplace, the impact on persons directly/indirectly involvedinostracism behavior,andtheoutcomesof ostra-cism in the workplace and its repercussions. From past research we have identified several fundamental gaps in theliterature: Whyis ostracism ofconcernto organiza-tions?How doesit impactindividuals andorganizations alike? What can be done to prevent/change ostracism behaviors?
Withthisinmind,thepaperproceedsasfollows:First,we willdiscussthefoundationofostracismanditssignificancein theworkplaceasexemplifiedbyreal-worldexamples. Sec-ond, we will discuss the impact on the individual who is ostracizedaswellaspossibleresponsestobeingostracized. Third,wewilldiscusstheimpactofostracismonthosedoing theostracizingandonthosewhoarewitnessesorbystanders totheostracismprocess.Finally,weofferanostracismfirm audittoidentifypossibleostracismcasesacrossthefirmand itsstakeholdersandsuggestaplanforcorrection.
OSTRACISM,
THE
FOUNDATION
OF
THE
CONCEPT
Examplesofostracismintheworkplaceare:whenpeoplefail toinviteyoutomeetingsofwhichyoushouldattend;yougo getacupofcoffeeinthecommunalkitchenandpeoplego
silentwhenyouapproach;yousitaloneinthelunchroom; peopleappeartobegivingyouthesilenttreatment;people refusetorespondtosalutationsinthehallway;upon atten-dancein ameeting allnames present arecalled butyour own;youareleftoutofconversationsordecisionsofwhich yourpositionshouldbeinvolved;someonewouldleaveevery time whenyou would entera room; any suggestions at a meetingyouwouldmakewouldbeinstantlydismissed with-out thought or just ignored; people’s eye contact with yourselfwaseithertoavoidcontactortoglare;otherswould whisperand talk quietlyamongst themselveswithout you included; your boss went to your subordinates regularly withoutgettingyouinvolvedintheloop;generalassistants wouldassisteveryone,butweretoobusytohelpyou.
Anexcellentdocumentedcaseillustrativeofostracismis alawyerforamajorlawfirminNewYorkwholostahuge expensivecasethatwasembarrassingtothefirm.Thefirm offered a promotion but asked the lawyer to relocate to another city to receive the promotion, which the lawyer unfortunatelyturneddown.Fromthereonout,thelawyer hada“feeling”thatthesocialatmospheretowardshimhad changed.Henceforth,thelawyerwasbeingexcludedfrom meetingsanddecisionsofwhichheshouldhavehadasaybut were not directedtowards him. Finally, the message was drilledhomewhenthefirmbasketballteamdidnotinvite himtoplayagainstanopposingfirm,wheninthepasthewas alwaysastarterfortheteamandwasconsideredoneofthe bestbasketballplayersinthefirm.
Ostracismisaformofsocialrejectionthatoccurswhenan individual is deliberately excludedfrom asocialrelationshipor socialinteraction.OstracismcomesfromtheancientGreek wordostrakismos.InancientGreece,ifsomeoneoffendedyou or behavedin amannerthat wasconsideredaggressiveor offensive, youwouldput theirnameona brokenpiece of potteryand place it in alarge container in apublic place.These piecesofpotterywereknownasostraca.Ifaperson’sname waswritten6000times,theentirecommunitywouldgivethat personthesilenttreatmentfortenyears.Althoughthefirst referencestoostracismseemtodatebackto488—487BCand thecontextofthesonofCharmusofCollytus,Hipparchus, being“ostracized”,andlatertoAristotleandhisconstitution ofAthens,wherehementionedthatostracismwasusedby Cleisthenes when he reformed the constitution of Athens followingtheexpulsionofHippias.
Ostracism is one of the most widely used forms and socially-entrencheddirectandobliviousexclusion,andsome seeitasmorehumanethancorporalpunishment,aswhen used in a time-out, but there is a deeper psychological impactthat needstobe takenseriously.Ostracism is one ofthemostubiquitousandpowerfulmeansofsocialcontrol. Thisresearchsuggeststhatostracismcanmeanignoringand excluding individualsandgroups. The fundamentalhuman needsthatarethreatenedwhensomeoneisostracizedare: our senseof connection or belongingness, the controlwe desirebetweenouractionsandoutcomeswhichmaybecome uncoupled when we are ostracized, self-esteem that is shaken by feelingsof shame, guilt, or inferiority,and the feelingthatwehavebecomea‘ghost’,observingwhatlife wouldbelikeifwedidnotexist.Thisresearchgoesonto investigatehowhumanscopewithbelongingnessneedsas wellasthreatsbothintheshort-termandthelong-term.In general,aftertheinitialpainandangerofbeingostracized,
individualsseektoregainorreestablishtheneedthatwas threatened.Forinstance,ifanindividual’ssenseof belong-ingisthreatened,theywillattempttorepairthe relation-shipwiththepersonwhohasostracizedthem,ortheywill seekotherstocreatenewrelationshipstorestoretheirsense of belonging. In the long-term, if theseneeds cannot be restored, individuals eventually give way to feelings of alienation,helplessness,depression,anddespair.
Ostracismcanlowercognitiveperformanceandlead indi-viduals toengage in a varietyof self-defeating behaviors. Whileitiseasytounderstandthenegativeimpactofostracism onindividualsin theworkplace,it can be moredamagingto the organization as those negative outcomes work their way through the organization creating job tension, emotional exhaustion, and a depressed mood at work. For instance, whenanindividualfeelsostracized orisolated,theyspend valuabletimetalkingtoothersaboutthosefeelings.Thiscan leadtopeople“takingsides”andthisleadstolowergroup cohesion.Themoraleoftheostracizedemployee(s)plummets and they begin todisengage from groupprocesses. If the ostracismcontinues,theneventuallyaself-fulfillingprophecy maybe created,in whichtheisolatedindividualbecomesalow functioning,lowvaluedemployee,whomaythenlegitimately be dismissed.Such a system may present a threat to the organization'slong-termsurvivalwhenemployeeproductivity isnotbasedoncapabilitybutrather,theirwillingnesstouse ostracismorbullyingtacticsonco-workers.Moreover, ostra-cism has been linked to aggression in the workplace and aggressioniscontrarytogroupcohesiveness.Theevidence suggeststhatdestinybeliefsmayberelatedtodestructive responsestoostracism.
Whentheneedforapositiveexperienceisthreatenedit canleadtolowerpsychologicalwell-beingandself-esteem, greateranxiety,symptomsofdepressionandnegative emo-tions.Ithasanegativeimpactonemployeeproductivity— employeesarelesslikelytogoaboveandbeyondwhenthey completeworktasksandarelesslikelytohelpcolleagues. Also,becauseostracismcanhinderemployees’ psychologi-cal well-being, employees tend to get run-down and depletedandareattheriskof engaginginmore counter-productive behaviors, like lashingoutat their colleagues. Worst ofall, employeesmayengagein whatis called the spiralofsilence.Thespiralofsilenceissynonymouswiththe ideathatspeaking-uporspeakingone’smindisunwiseunless other organizational members share such perceptions of thoughts.Putdifferently,thesilencecanbetakenliterally inthatemployeesbeginstowithholdopinionsandconcerns about organizational problem, therebycreating a culture where speaking-upis deemed unacceptable, even punish-ablebyostracismbehavior.Thisistosuggestthatif employ-ees experiences ostracism, they may actively withhold concernsaboutthistypeofworkplaceproblem.Such avoid-ancetospeakingoutprivatelyorpublicallymakesitdifficult tomanageostracisminaworkplacesetting.
TYPES
OF
OSTRACISM
FOUND
IN
THE
WORKPLACE
Ostracismbehaviortendstohavemanyfeaturesdiscussed throughoutthispaper.Wealsonotethatostracismbehavior caninfluencemultipleentitiesatonce,theostracized,the
ostracizer, and the (at times innocent) bystanders/wit-nesses.Eachentitydeservesattentionsinceeachisapiece ofthepuzzleoftheostracismprocess.Fig.1displaysthese typesandindividualsimpactedbytheostracismprocess.
Therearethreemain formsofostracism basedonhow visible the ostracism is. These three types include: (1.) physicalostracism;(2.)socialostracism,andmorerecently, (3.)cyber-ostracism.Physicalostracism involves removing oneselforothersfromthesocialsituation.Otherformsof physicalostracismincludeexpulsion,exile,solitary confine-ment,eventheclassic“time-out”sessionsusedbyparents to discipline children (e.g., physical isolation/barriers to free interaction). The level of ostracism may range from separating oneself from others to merely reducing the amountoftimespentwithcertainindividuals.Social exclu-sionisanotionofbeingexcluded,aloneorisolatedwithor without explicit declarations of dislike, while rejection referstoadeclarationbyanindividualoragroupwhodoes notwant tointeract with the individual.Social exclusion hereinimpliesabroaderterm,asitincorporatesacondition inwhichanindividualisdeniedsocialcontact.Forexample, ChinahasalonghistoryofostracizingHIV/Aidspatients,to thepointwhereHIV-positivepeoplehavefaced discrimina-tionintheChinesejobmarketforyears.Similarly,foreigners withthisviruswerebannedfromobtainingvisasuntil2010. Socialostracism ismoredifficult toaddress becauseof thelackofknowledgethatitisoccurring.Inaddition,social ostracism is considered by many to bemore painful than physicalostracism.Physicalostracismisdirectwhilesocial ostracism is often confusing as in social ostracism one is continuallyreminded of thepunishment. It is evenworse thansolitaryconfinementorevendeath,sincethepersonis remindedcontinuallyoftheactiveandtotalrejectionthatis takingplace. Socialostracism involvesan emotional with-drawalandmayrangefrommerelyremovingeyecontactor nottalkingorlisteningtosomeonetoapplyingthe“silent treatment”orgivingsomeonethe“coldshoulder”or even “freezing someone out”. In social ostracism, people are treatedasiftheywere“invisible”.Manyco-workerspractice this type of ostracism as a post-conflict behavior. The commonlyused“timeout”canbeboth physicalostracism
(dissociatingoneselffromworkinginthesamecommittees) andsocial ostracism(reducingattentionsuchas nolonger partofthe‘lunchbunch’,notbeinginvitedwiththeteamfor drinksafterwork).
Bothphysicalpainandsocialpainthreatenbasichuman psychologicalneeds,albeitdifferently.Researchers manipu-latedphysicalpainviaacold-pressertaskandsocialpainvia anostracismmanipulationandfoundthatbothphysicalpain andsocialpaindecreasedparticipants’psychologicalneed satisfaction,butsocialpainthreateneditthemost.Inthe virtualrealm,anewformofostracismhasbeguntooccur, and that is cyber-ostracism. More than 5000 managers/ employeesparticipatedin astudy usinga computergame toshow howjust two or three minutes of ostracism can producelingeringnegativefeelings.Howcanitbethatsuch abriefexperience,evenwhenbeingignoredandexcluded bystrangers withwhomtheindividualwillneverhaveany face-to-faceinteraction,canhave suchapowerfuleffect? Cyber-ostracisminvolves notincludingsomeone one-mail lists,ignoringtheminchatroomsandotherformsof com-munication(i.e.,posted letters,multiuserdomains). Both in-personandonlineostracismputspeopleatrisk,asonline experiences of ostracism may be as meaningful as those experiencedinperson.Table1offersalistofgeneralsocial, physicalandcyberostracismexamples.Thelistisnotmeant tobe exhaustive but serves as an instrument tobegin to identifythesetypesofbehaviorsforthepurposeoflateron assessingtheextenttowhicheachofthemoccurs.
Arguably,ostracismmakeitselfvisiblethroughanumber of features. It may be active ostracism as displayed in incidentsofaggressiveexclusionfromgroup/organizational functions/activities or passive ostracism which is demon-stratedbyignoringa personorgiving apersonthe“silent treatment”orthe“coldshoulder”.Activeostracism there-forediffersfrompassiveostracisminthatthetermactive definesbehaviorsas(physically,socially,orina cyber-con-text) barring an individual from social interactions (e.g., exclusionsonemail,movingtheirofficetoanotherbuilding) while passive is defined as not reacting when they (i.e., ostracized individuals) attempt to interact (e.g., not responding toemail, ignoring them when they come toa meeting). Both forms can take onreactive and proactive features,meaningostracism canoccur inretrospective of
event(asinreactive)orostracismcanpreemptanevent(as inproactive).Exhibit1offersanumberofresponses(termed ‘posture’)exhibitedbytheorganizationandemployeesalike relative to howthey experience ostracism. The different responses are likely triggered by the form and extent of ostracismexperienced.
Inextricablylinked,themotivesbehindactiveandpassive ostracisms types are multi-fold, these can be intentional (punitive), oblivious (non-punitive), defensive and pre-scribed. Forexample, ostracismmaybeintentional (e.g., to punish someone for violation of a social norm). The “scarlet letter” is an example of intentional ostracism. A womanwhoallegedlyhadanaffairwasforcedtowearared Aasapunishmentforwhatshehaddone.Thepurposewasto publiclyshamethewomananddiscourageothersfrom asso-ciatingwithher.Inbusinessanexamplewouldbehavingyour office moved out of the department, a new title that is obviously a demotion, or being asked to move to a new location. Ostracism may be defensive when one ignores othersin anticipation ofbeing rejectedsuchas notbeing invitedtobepartoftheteamtoresolveanissuewhereby youcould/shouldbeanintegralcontributor.
AnotherrecentexampleisthatofPresidentofRussia,Mr. Putin, who has seen personal ostracism considering the Ukrainecrisis.TheRussianleaderleftearlyfromaG20 meet-inginAustraliainNovember2014,afterfacingstiffcriticism fromotherworldleadersofMoscow’sroleinthecrisis.Finally, ostracismmaybe prescribedwhen oneisnot expectedto acknowledgethepresenceofothers(e.g.,lackofeyecontact, sharingaseatonabus).Forexample,JudyCurry,aGeorgia Techatmosphericscientist,hasexperiencedostracismfrom thecommunityaroundher.Becausesherepeatedlyclashed withformercolleaguesaftershepubliclydoubtedtheextent of globalwarming and criticized theway mainstream scientists operate, she is uncertain whether anyone in academia or elsewherewilleverwanttoemployher.
IMPACT
OF
THE
OSTRACISM
ON
THE
INDIVIDUAL
Ostracism is reflexively painful, depletes fundamental needs, and is highly resistant to variations in situational
Table1 Examplesofostracismintheworkplace
Physicalostracism Socialostracism Cyberostracism
Silenttreatmentfroma
colleague.
Conversationsendwhenyou
approach.
Noonewillgotolunchwithyou.
Yourofficeismovedforno
reason.
Peopleleavetheroomwhenyou
enter.
Peopleglareatyou.
Yournameisleftoffinan
attendancecallatmeetings.
Youaretransferredtoalower
paidjob.
Youarenotinvitedtolunch.
Meetingsoccurwithoutyour
knowledge.
Keydecisionsaremadewithoutyour
input.
Peoplewhisperbehindyourback.
Assistantsaretoobusytohelpyou.
Yourbossbypassesyouandgoes
directlytoyouremployees.
Yourideasaredismissedimmediately.
Yougetblamedbyassociationfor
others’mistakes.
Yourrequestsforsocialmedia
connectionisignored.
Peopledonotrespondtoyouremails.
Youreceive‘dislikes’foryour
commentsfromyourcolleagues.
Youaredeletedfromfriendslist.
Youarenotincludedingroupslist.
Yourpasswordsareregularlyresetor
deletedbyadministration.
Youarenotincludedinlearningthe
contextorindividualdifferences.Foranindividualtoremain partofthegroup,peoplewillconformtotheopinionofmost oftheirpeers.Itcanbearguedfroman evolutionary per-spectivethatthedetectionofostracismevolvedthrougha signal,afeelingofpain.Ontheotherhand,individualsreact differentlytoostracismdependingonthevaryinglevelsof self-esteem, rejection sensitivity, narcissism, and attach-mentstyle.ThevictimofostracismiscastintoaCatch-22 position, where legitimate complaints are viewed with a mixtureofsuspicionandderision.Individualsreacttofight, tend-and-befriend,freezeandflighttheostracizinggroups. Reactionsareledbydivergingmotivessuchasadesiretobe re-included,antisocialandaggressivebehavior,orattempts tofleethesituation.
Theexpectationofafutureacceptancebyanostracizing groupseemstobeakeypredictorofanostracizedindividual copingwithrejection.Ifanostracizedindividualhaspositive expectationsittendstodrawhim/herclosertothe ostraciz-ing group of people. This behavior can be observed in individuals withhigh self-esteem. Conversely, peoplewho tendtohavealowself-esteemdistancethemselvesfromthe ostracizinggroup.Lowself-esteemindividualsostracizeasa defensemechanismagainstcriticismorrejection,whilehigh self-esteemonesuseittoterminaterelationships.
Peopleclassifythemselvesbasedontheirmembershipin certain social categories and define themselves based on membershipinthosegroups.Intheworkplace,employees identifythemselvesasapartofthefirm,butalsototheir work group, their department, their union, their lunch group, their age group, and so on. When membership in thesegroupsisthreatenedbytheprocessofostracismand thepossiblelossoftheirsharedidentitywiththesegroups, theimpactontheindividualcanbedevastatinganddifficult toreverse.
People’s immediate reactions are quite similar across different forms of rejection in terms of negative affect and lowered self-esteem. Following these immediate responses, people’s reactions are influenced by the type
and severity of the rejection experience. Three types of distinct motives wereidentified as being pro-social, anti-social, and socially avoidant behavioral responses. Beha-vioralresponses toostracism attempttofortify relational needs(belonging, self-esteem, sharedunderstanding, and trust) which lead to pro-social thoughts and behaviors. Ingrationisapsycho-socialtechniqueaimedatinfluencing toincrease theirattractivenessin theeyesofothers, fre-quently accompanied by corporal signs seeking affection, empathyandapproval.Anothertacticistofortifyefficacy/ existenceneedsofcontrolandrecognitionthatmaybedealt withthroughantisocialthoughtsandbehaviors.Thesemay beexemplifiedbycomplimentingandflatteringthe integra-tor.Chronicexposuretoostracismappearstodepletecoping resources,resultingindepressionandhelplessness.
In-groupsareviewedassocialgroupsinwhichmembers engenderfeelingsofloyaltyandrespecttowardsothergroup members, mostly based on membership in the group. Humanshaveevolvedempathicsystemstonegotiatetheir environment successfully. Examples of in-groups include families, culture, religion, and so on. In the workplace membership of in-groups is based on work groups, trade unionsetc.asdiscussedabove.Membersofin-groupsextend benefitstoothergroupmembers,oftenprovidingprivileges thataredeniedtopersonsoutsidethegroup.Juxtaposedare out-groups, which are social groups towards which non-members hold strong negative feelings. Members of in-groupsusuallyhaveabelongingnessbiastowardsmembers oftheirgroupwhileactivelydisassociatingthemselvesfrom membersofout-groups.
Ithasbeenproposedthatmembersofcohesivein-groups tend,throughadesiretoreduceconflictoravoid embarrass-ment,tomakesub-optimaldecisions,orgroup-think. Indi-vidualmembersofin-groupsoftensetasidedoubtsinmaking hastydecisionsthatconformtotheprevalentviewsofthe group.Theemphasisonhighgroupcohesionasanecessary conditionfor groupthink hasbeen challenged as it is pro-posedinstead that the symptomsof groupthink often are
associated with social identification with an in-group whetherthegroupishighlycohesive.
The tendency ofmembers ofin-groupstosuppress dis-sent,attheexpenseofexercisingjudgments,occursfroman irrational desireto avoid isolation or alienation fromthe group(e.g.,ostracism).Often,thefearofisolationfromthe group is greater than the fear that the decision may be irrational. When individuals agree with the strongly held viewofthegroup thisleads tofeelingsofself-confidence andreducedfearsofisolation.Alternatively,whentheviews thatoneholdsareintheminority,andtheminoritysituation escalates,the individualbecomesmoreuncertain andthe tendencytosuppresshisorherpointofviewincreasesasa mechanismtoavoidorreduceisolation.
RESPONSES
TO
OSTRACISM
BY
THE
OSTRACIZED
Ingeneral,theoreticalworkindicates thatthereactionto ostracism is temporal.The initial reaction toostracism is painandisaglobalresponsethatoccursimmediatelyafter rejection. Following this experienceof pain,being ostra-cizedthenleadstobehaviorsaimedatrecoveringthwarted needsofbelonging,self-esteem,control,andmeaningful existence.Theostracizedindividualoftenworksina posi-tive,sociallyattentive,pro-socialmannerandattemptsto strengthenbondstootherstogainacceptance.Forinstance, theymaybecomemorehelpfulandaccommodatingto fel-lowemployeesortheymayworkharderonteamprojects. Alternatively, or if pro-social behaviors do not lead to positiveself-affirmation,anti-socialbehaviorssuchas aggres-sionmayoccur. Otherindividualsmaychoosetoavoidthe situationortheindividualwhoisostracizingthem.Long-term ostracismmayreachbeyondpurelypsychologicalresponses. Manytargetsstatethattheydevelophealthproblemssuchas migraine,heartpalpitations,andincreasedasthmaattacks.In interviewswithpeoplewhohadbeenostracized,peoplewho havesufferedexclusionforlongperiodsoftime,individuals self-isolate,perhapshopingtoavoidfurtherrejection.The studyalso reported depression, suicidalideas, andsuicide attempts.Theyeventuallymayfeellittleabilitytochange theirsituationandresigntofeelingunworthyofattentionat all.Thismayleadtoasenseofhelplessness.Thisemotional trauma,as opposedto physicaltrauma,is relivedover and over bysomeindividuals.
The type of response to ostracism may be linked to individualdifferences such as attachment style,need for belonging,orself-esteem,tonameafew.Intheaftermathof the ostracizing episode, people experiencethree, almost simultaneousmotives:a heightened desirefor social con-nections,angry,antisocialurgestodefendoneselfortohurt thesourceoftherejection,andamotivationtoavoidfurther rejection and its accompanying hurt. The choice of responses can be predicted by people’s construal of the rejection incident. These constraints include fairness of the rejection, expectation of the relationship being repaired,pervasivenessorchronicityoftherejection,value ofthedamagedrelationship,perceivedcostsofthe rejec-tion,andthepossibilityofrelationalalternatives.Pro-social responseswilloccuriftherelationshipisvaluableandthey thinkitcanberepairedandiftheyperceivethatthereare
many costs associated with the loss of the relationship. Individuals will respond with antisocial behavior if they perceivetheincidenttobeunfair,andtheywillwithdraw oravoidiftheyhavealternativerelationshipsavailableorif therejectionorostracizinghasbeengoingonforalongtime. Peopledifferinthedegreetowhichtheyreactto nega-tive interpersonal incidents based ontheir agreeableness and their self-esteem. Agreeable people andpeople with highself-esteemperceivelessrejectionandarelesslikelyto respondinanegativeoravoidantfashion. However,other researchdidnotfindwidespreadsupportfortheideathat personalityattributesarerelatedtoindividual’sreactionsto ostracism.
IMPACT
ON
THE
OSTRACIZER
Althoughtherecontinuesaburgeoningstreamofresearchin regardtotheostracized,thereisrelativelylittleresearchin regardto:theonewhoistheostracizer,forthosethatare witnesses to ostracism, or the unwilling participants in ostracism. Astherearemanyreasonsfor ostracism,there willbejustasmanyinregardtoastowhytheostracizeris actingaccordingly.Oneresearchstreamsupportsaformof ostracismastopmanagementisattemptingtoillustratebad behaviorofanemployeeandtomotivatethatemployeeto “comebackintothefold”astheyviolatedthenormsofthe groupinsomeway.Eventhistypeofostracismsuggeststhat theostracizerwillfeelunpleasantness,self-degradationand fatigue.Otherresearchsuggestedthatostracismwasusedas either a punishment or as a defense against criticism or rejectionwiththeostracizerfeelingadisconnectiontowards theostracizedandasenseofcontrolling.
Researchontheostracizerisstillinanascentstateandthe resultsarenotconclusive,andwecurrentlycanfindnonethat directlyisastudythatoccurswithintheworkenvironment. However,throughnon-work-relatedresearch,wecoulddraw some tentative conclusions. If ostracizing a stranger, the ostracizerfeelsmorecontrol,highself-esteemandagreater meaningful existence, but no control feelings with close others. To summarize the little research in regard to the ostracizer,theresultsseemtobedifferentbutnegativeto thefirm.Theostracizerwillfeeladecreasedsenseof belong-ing,increasedanger,egodepletion,andadecreasedneedto makenewsocialconnections.Intotal,thereseemstobea greaternegativeofpsychologicalcostsfortheostracizerwith greaterfeelingsofguilt,shame,distressandlower related-ness.Longtermostracismorsevereostracismresultsin con-sequencesrangingfrom self-destructivebehaviors(suicidal thoughts and attempts, alcoholism) to aversive effects of ostracismontheirphysicalmentalhealthorevenmuchmore worsebymassshooting.Hence,ostracismisadouble-edge swordforthefirm,bothnegativeforthosethatareostracized aswellasfortheostracizer.
IMPACT
ON
THOSE
WHO
WITNESS/
BYSTANDERS
TO
THE
OSTRACISM
PROCESS
Notonlyisostracismpainfultothevictimandtheostracizer, it may also cause negative affect to those who merely observe the process or act of ostracism. Witnesses feel thepainofothers’ostracismas theirown. Sociallearning
theory suggests that people learn by observation, visual imagesorthroughverbalcodes.Peoplecanlearnfromgood experience,badexperiencesorfromimitation.Allofthem occurveryoftenbyindividualsengagedinbehaviorthatthey have previously witnessed others doing. Witnessing the actions of others,people thatare closetous, canaffect ourparticipationinbothcompliantanduncommonbehavior. Imitationhasalsobeenfoundtobemoreimportantinthe initialacquisitionandperformanceofnovelactionsthanin itsmaintenanceorterminationofbehavioralpatternsonce established.
PERFORMING
AN
OSTRACISM
AUDIT
Thepreludetoanyauditistherecognitionofaneedtoaudit. The premiseofthisauditconcerns theneedfor proactive measurestowardsreducingandultimatelyeliminatingacts ofostracismintheworkplace.Whileanauditisreactivein nature,itistheintentthattheauditwillbringforth proac-tiveideasandmeasuresservingasapulse-checkforprogress ondetectinganderadicatingformsofostracismtoprotect firm futuresuccess potential.In the long-term, the audit offersanintermittentmechanism(ataratedeemed appro-priate by the firm) to checkwhether proactivemeasures havebeensuccessfullyaddressedandtodetectanylingering concerns.Model1depictsa6-stepauditingprocess,eachof whichwillweelaborateonnext.
Step1:ProblemRecognition“Ostracismas a Problem”
Ostracismisapervasiveandseriousworkplacematter.We suggestthatthefrequencyofostracismhascreatedaneed toevaluateobjectivelytheeffectivenessoforganizational culture(i.e.whatis acceptablebehavior andwhatis not) where organizational culture has been prone to dictate ostracismbehaviorandunwantedoutcomes.Anaudit
rela-tivetoostracismbehavioris inorderwhose outcomescan helppreventand/orresolveostracismintheworkplace.An auditisaplannedanddocumentedactivityperformedbya set of qualified personnel to determine by evaluation of objective evidence, the adequacy and compliance with establishedprocedures,or applicabledocuments, andthe effectivenessofimplementation.
Yet, bringing attention to ostracism within the firm is problematiconitsown, asitcan bethosewho“raisethe alarm”whobecomeostracizedasaconsequence(noteour spiralofsilenceargument). Atthisstage,it isan internal processandfranklyrequiresachampiontoleadthewayand toconvince/enthuseothersofthenecessityofsuchanaudit. The value propositionmust be developed by those cham-pioningtheprocess.Ifostracismisacommonlyperceived/ identifiedissueamongmanyemployees,thefirmmaywishto agreethatasetofprinciplestodetect/classifyandreport ostracism behavior alongside an interest in the probable causes of ostracism behavior is what will assist greater workplacehappinessandproductivity.
Step2: SearchforExternalAuditor
Whileinternaltothefirmachampioncanraiseawarenessof theostracismchallenge,thelikelihoodthanan internally-ledprocessyieldsthedesiredresultsthecontextofsuchan emotionally entrenched topic is unlikely and can pose offencetothefirm’sclimateandculture.Peripheral assis-tancethroughthemeansoftrustedexternalauditorswould insteadobtain themostobjectiveandaccuratepictureof ostracism behaviors within the workplace. This would be particularlycomfortingtoemployeesincasesofmanagerial abuses of ostracism. Unquestionably, external auditors ensurequalityintheprocessandhavea higherchanceof eliminatingbiases.Doingsowillassisttoprotectthe work-force’sphysicalandmentalhealthimpacts.
An external person is of help only if they are sourced independently,and not byreferral froma previous work-placecolleagueorexistingcolleagues.Theauditorhastobe trustworthyandcompetentintheareaofostracism.They must be competently working closely alongside internal champions but are able to separate and take charge of thesensitive task.Prior totheaudit, themost influential andnon-obstructivewayinternal championscanassistthe externalauditorwiththetasksaheadistoendorsethisaudit, notonlybyaddressing‘what’willoccur,but‘why’thisisa necessarystepforthefirm.Thistacticholdsespeciallytrue ifostracismreachesacrossanewterritoryforthefirm.
Step3: Investigation/EvaluationofInternal OstracismBehaviorbyExternalAuditor
Objectivityiskeytoaninvestigation/evaluationofworkplace ostracismbehavior.Thetaskathandfortheexternalauditoris toevaluate the adequacy and compliance toany existing proceduresandlikewisepointtoavenuesforimprovement intheprocess.Ultimatelytheauditorisexpectedtomake recommendationsaboutwhyostracismexists,theextentto whichithasbecomevisibleinthefirm,howtoapproachthe alleviation of ostracism and to offer measures which can guaranteetheeffectivenessoftheproposedimplementation.
For these recommendations to have meaning it is equally importanttounderstandthoseprocessesofostracismwhich aredeliberateandconsciousacts,inadditiontothosewhich areobliviousactsofostracism,i.e.,thosethattheostracizer maynotbeawareofthemselves.
Thetoolsusedbyanauditorshouldexaminetheoverall firm’s‘stateofhealth’,attitudesofmanagerialstafftowards ostracism,employees’experienceswithandperceptionof ostracism-related behavior, among other elements that relate to assessing ostracism and the causes and impact thereof.LinkedtoStep2,theidea isthat cooperationof internal employeeswilloccur only ifthe auditor has sub-stantialbuy-infromemployees.Weareallvulnerabletothe process,someperhapsmorethanothers.Bystanders. Ostra-cizer.Ostracized.Thefirmmostofall.
Becausethecauseofostracismisgenerallynottohurtthe ostracizedpersonbuttoself-protect,wedonotadvocateany recommendationsforpunishmentbyexitingostracizersfrom thefirm(unlessitisvoluntary)asthiscanmoreharmfuleffects thannotaddressingtheissuesatall.Weadvocatethatanytool usedorrecommendationmadeoughttosupportforthepeople whoaretheculpritsorthose whohaveexperiencedorare witnesstoostracism.Theideaistoevaluatewhetherandto whatextenttheostracizerneedshelpperhapsinfightingtheir battle.Mentalhealthperhaps.Likewise,theideaislikewiseto addresstheconcernsoftheostracizedindividuals.The ostra-cizedindividualislikelynotatfault,howevertheostracized individualmaynotknow/believe thistobetrue.The audit servesthe purposetonot onlydetect, but toaddressthe ostracism phenomenon in the light of its different stake-holdersandthefeaturesandmotivesandothernuancesit presentsitselfwith.Nottobeforgottenarethepeoplewho mayhaveheldonostracismexperienceforanumberofyears. Howcan barriers be broken down? It is an uncomfortable experience to speak about. Varied experiences must be detected,andperhapssomeoftheaudiencehavestillnot cluedinthatthereisostracismatplayorthattheymaybe engaginginostracismbehavior—itisafteradeliberateor obliviousact.Focusgroupmaybeofassistancehere.
External auditor may invite affected and non-affected individualstofocusgroup/sdiscussions,offerwaystoprovide anonymousfeedback underthepremise thatanydata col-lectedwillbeusedtoinformthedevelopmentofthefirm’s actionplan.Thiscanbefollowedbyafirm-wideinvitationfor anonymoussurveyresponsestotheostracismsbehavior iden-tified.Fortheprocesstowork,consultationwitha represen-tativesampleofthefirmisamust.Theprocessmustgivethose whohavefeltostracizedandbystandersoftheseeventsasafe avenueto speak out on whatthey have witnessed, while protectingtheiridentities.Ifthisissomethingthefirmcares about,theevaluationshould includearigorous self-assess-mentmeasureforallunits,thiswill(stillanonymously) high-lightwhetherandtheextenttowhichostracismprotrudes throughouttheentirefirmora fewspecificunits.Asetof recommendationresultsfromthisprocess.
Step4:CommunicationofResultstoAppropriate UnitsInternally
So,whatarethemechanismsthroughwhichthe recommen-dationscanbecommunicatedthrough?Theslogan“wecome
inpeace”comestomind.Whichevermethodofinformation disseminationisselectedtobemostpurposefulbythefirm, the lead executive would hear about it first. Generally speaking, the process should alleviate pain, anxiety and uncertainty, withthe intentof makingit amore pleasant environmentforall.Addressingthe‘why’oftheaudit(see Step2),becomesimportanthereoncemore.Thelastthing an audit should do it tofrighten or make employees and managers nervous, especially is they present part of the problem.
Whatarethemechanismsbywhichthisisbest commu-nicated tothe ostracized personand the ostracizer? Dis-seminatingdatatounitswillgototheleadersoftheunits who will then disseminate the information within their units.Trainingwill beofferedtotheleadersof eachunit toensureaunifiedapproachistakentoaddressing ostra-cism concerns,whereby theapproach orextenttowhich recommendationsareobserveswillinfluencetheextentto whichrecommendations areimplemented.Incaseswhere theleaderofanyunitisresponsibleforacultureof ostra-cism,theleadexecutiveoughttobeadvisedbytheauditor ofthecircumstances.
Communicatingtheresults/recommendations,the audi-torisresponsiblefor:highlightingstrategiesrelativetowhat aleaderofunitoramangermightdotorecognizeostracism inhis/herownbehavior;offeringwaysthemanagermaydeal withindividualswhoreportostracizingbehaviorversusthose whoreporttohaveobserved ostracizingbehavior;howto address theconcerns ofthosewhodonotspeakupabout ostracism among others; and how toassist those already ostracizedindividualstobecomere-engaged.Thisisabout creatinganenvironmentwhereeverysingleemployee can haveavoiceandberespectedforhavingavoice,evenfor thosewhofeelliketheydonothaveavoice.
Communicating the results/recommendations through-outhierarchieswilltakefinesse,assomewillalreadybelieve themselves to be culprits while others may fear further ostracismduetothefactthattheyhavecooperatedinthis matter.Whatisimportanttorememberisthatevery mem-berofthefirmispartofthesysteminwhichweoperate.No oneisimmunetoostracism,andrelapseswilloccurtothose mostpronetouseostracizingbehaviors.Checkingpulseon the challenges frequently is important toensure progress towardsgoalsismade.
Step5:Implementation ofResultsacross Organizations’Units
Empoweringemployeestounderstandthemselvesandwhat ostracism means to them ought to beat the core of the implementation. We do not advocate for another online trainingtool.Theapproachmustbemoreuniquethanthat. Infact,weadvocateforleaderstosetthetonebyenacting appropriatebehavior,basedontherecommendationsmade. When leadersenact appropriate behavior, employees will follow.Alongsideleaderssettingthetone,implementation ought to include a creation of communication channels whereby employers can increased employee’s interaction andtohaveproperchannelsforreportinginsults,threatsor abuses,theseinclude:healthycommunicationandconflict resolution, surveys pertaining to social inappropriateness
fromtimetotime.Thereisaphilosophyunderpinningafirm and therefore its culture. Understanding how to address ostracismintheworkplaceculturalcontextisimportant.
Step6:FeedbackLoops —Continuous
ImprovementsinReducingOstracismBehavior
Anaturalreflectiononthisprocesswouldwarrant a feed-backloop whereby participantswithinthe processhave a non-threatening opportunity/ability to offer constructive feedbacktotheprocessdetectinganeradicatingostracism behavior.Finally,auditsoughttobeperformedregularly(or atthewillofthefirm)toupholdthestandardsofthefirmand to ensure that any changes to implementation are held consistentthroughouttime.Itisultimatelydependentupon theextenttowhichostracismpermeatesthroughthefirm, hencewecannotproposeaone-size-fitsallapproach.
SUMMARY
AND
CONCLUSION
Ostracism generally refers tothe process of rejection or exclusion of an individualby another individualor group. Ostracismbehavior isproblematic foramyriad of reasons andmoreimportantlycanpotentiallyimpactmorethanjust theostracizedperson.Theostracizerandwitnessesarejust asinvolved,directlyandindirectly,intheostracismprocess. Thenegativeoutcomesofostracism aresuchthatthefirm is deleteriously affected. In this paper, we examined the
significanceofostracismintheworkplace,itsconstituents and outcomes of actions of these constituents. With the premise of ostracism behavior as an undesirable element infirms,weproposedafirm auditof ostracismtoidentify possibleostracismcasesacrossthefirmanditsstakeholders andsuggestaplanforcorrection.
The cyber formof ostracism has recently come tothe forefrontduetofirmshavingmoreteleworkemployeesand theuseofe-toolssuchasemailande-groups.Peoplearenow integratedwithane-formatattheofficeandcanbe ostra-cizedthroughthisnewformat.Asallfirmsareaffectedby globalbusiness,antecedentsandconsequencesofostracism varyacrossdifferentcountriesandcultures,andpossibilities exist that one culture (in-group) may ostracize other cultures.
Convincedoftheharmfulimpactonanumberof stake-holdersandmostofallthelikelylong-lastingimpactonthe performanceofthefirm(ifunattended),westrongly recom-mendan auditfor ostracismin theworkplacewith imple-mentationproceduresforcorrectiveactions.Thisphaseof correctingostracismisexpectedtobethemostlucrativeto thefirmifdonecorrectly,sinceitpotentiallyceases ostra-cismactivities.Managingostracismintheworkplaceought toreceivemajorattentiondueitsimportance.Thiswilltake achampion.Theprocesswouldappeartobeadelicateone duetothechangesrequiredinattitudesaswellasprocesses whereby attitudes are usually the tougher elements to change. Managerial interventions and techniques must be discussed,andactionplansimplementedandsustained.
SELECTED
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Baumeister, R.F., Twenge, J.M, & Nuss, C.K. (2002). Effects of social exclusion on cognitive processes: Anticipated aloneness reduces intelligent thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(4), 817—827.
2.Ferris,D.L.,Brown,D.J.,Berry,J.W.,&Lian,H.(2008). Thedevelopmentandvalidationoftheworkplaceostracism scale.JournalofAppliedPsychology,93(6),1348—1366.
3. Robinson, S.L., O’Reilly, J., & Wang, W. (2013). Invisible at work: An integrated model of workplace ostracism.JournalofManagement,39(1),203—231.
4.Scheufele,D.&Moy,P.(2000).Twenty-fiveyearsofthe spiralofsilence:Aconceptualreviewandempiricaloutlook. InternationalJournalofPublicOpinionResearch,12(1),3—27. 5.Williams,K.D.(2001).Ostracism:Thepowerofsilence. NewYork:Guilford.
Michael Harvey formerlywasProfessorof InternationalBusiness attheUniversityofMississippi. Hisother affiliationsincludedtheUniversityofArizona,UniversityofOklahomaandSouthernMethodistUniversity.
MiriamMoellerisaSeniorLecturerinInternationalBusinessattheUniversityofQueenslandBusinessSchool.
TimothyKiesslingisanAssociateProfessorofGlobalBusinessatBilkentUniversityinTurkey.
Marina Dabic is a Professor of Entrepreneurship at the University of Zagreb, Croatia and Professor of EntrepreneurshipandNewBusinessventuringatNottinghamTrentUniversityintheUnitedKingdom.
