Workplace ostracism and corporate culture in secondary schools in Russia

There are some signs which can suggest the existence of WO. Zammit (2010) explored bullying and ostracism together as “two forms of emotional and psychological abuse of a person” (p. 2) and highlighted the most significant patterns of coworkers of supervisory behaviour which indicate personal mistreatment. First is “continually undervaluing effort” when the performance of the worker is constantly downgraded. Second is called “over-monitoring with malicious intent” when the person is continuously controlled; the person starts to feel nervous and being under pressure, less able to fulfil his or her duties. The last pattern is about “removing areas of responsibility or promising projects and not following through”. When the worker's sphere of responsibility is delegated to another employee, especially without explanations, the worker loses motivation and self-confidence, doubts his or her abilities. Such behaviour should warn the supervisory about worsening communication among employees.

Apart from day to day managerial practises which prevent WO, organizational culture must build a conducive environment to cope with WO (Zammit, 2018). For example, a “whistleblower” policy is necessary. Employees should feel free and comfortable to report about unethical actions that influence them or the organization. It is important to prevent disapproval, punishment and even higher exclusion from other workers for “denunciation”. Also, HR managers have to make sure that supervisors can treat their subordinates fairly and promote the same policy in the team. Leaders must take additional training to develop managerial skills and be able to empower people taking into account their individuality.

Herewith, organizational culture has the power to either enabling or inhibiting uncivil conduct (Cortina, 2008). Mangione and Mangione (2001) found that among 6540 employees from Fortune 500 companies CC with shared values is the most powerful factor in protecting men and women from hostility and harassment in the workplace. Salin (2003) stated that stressful and competitive CC provoke bullying among employees. Ulrich (2014) claimed that workers are less likely to engage when CC tolerate verbal abuse towards employees who do not perform well. Bowling and Beehr noted that employees who experienced workplace mistreatment often consider CC and poor HR practices as the basis for personal mistreatment.

Conclusion

WO is distinct, not explored and often underestimated type of communication, which, in the workplace context, deteriorates employee's well-being. WO is briefly explored in a societal and organizational context; the interaction between WO and CC is overlooked by scientists for now. CC influences communication inside the organization: the way supervisory treats subordinates, the way employees interact with each other. It may either provoke or prevent the existence of personal mistreatment in the workplace. The way workers engage in social communications and interact is affected by the type of CC too. There is no universal conclusion on how people act depending on their cultural background, but the interaction between CC and WO or other forms of mistreatment is proved. The goal is the present research is to explore the connection between WO and the individualistic/collectivistic type of CC.

Methodology

Procedure and Sample

Two private schools from the secondary education sector located in Saint-Petersburg, Russia, are explored. Educational sector is chosen to fill the research gap. In most scientific literature workplace misconduct is explored in large business corporations with a high number of employees to collect enough data. Therefore, small- and medium-size organizations are not observed. Schools are often explored for communicational issues. It is known that high cooperation between teachers facilitates in “forming a healthy atmosphere for communication” (Dogan & Sezer, 2010, p. 1380). Teachers also have an informal opportunity to influence the school environment and participate in making decisions about the educational and organizational process (Johnston, Akinniranye, & Doss, 2020). Through teaching practice, teachers influence students' educational achievements, social cognitions and feelings (Sylva, 1994). Therefore, as communication between teachers impacts their ability to establish healthy learning environment and provide high-quality education for students, it is important to analyze the specifics of teachers' interactions and the way how organizational environment influences it.

The data collection is conducted through Google form service: through the corporate mail respondents receive the link to the questionnaire, where they should 1) provide personal and demographic information (name, gender, age, education, status); 2) fill surveys on workplace ostracism and corporate culture; 3) go through sociometry analysis; each phase of the questionnaire contains detailed instructions. Due to the specifics of measures, the questionnaire is not anonymous, as for sociometry analysis respondents should name themselves and their colleagues to answer the questions; still, the confidentiality of the results is mentioned. The respondents are informed about the purposes of the study and asked for consent to use their personal data for the analysis.

School 1 is a private educational organization with around 70 employees which was founded at the beginning of 21 century. It provides all three phases of education: primary education, basic general education and secondary general education. For the last 5 years School 1 was standing in the top 10 private schools in Saint Petersburg. There are 55 respondents in School one, so the response rate is 78%. The mean age of respondents is 35 years (26 the youngest and 68 the oldest teacher) and gender composition as 89% of female and 11% of male. Most respondents from the sample have one high education (76% of the sample), but some teachers have two and more degrees (24%). There are three types of position which respondents have in School 1: teachers (45%), teachers and administrative workers (37%) and only administrative workers (18%). Some respondents are armatures in the teaching profession (0-5 years, 28%), who have 6-12 years of professional experience (43%) and people with solid teaching practice (more than 12 years, 29%).

School 2 is a private educational organization with around 55 employees, founded in the 2010 year in Saint Petersburg. It also manages primary, basic general and secondary general education directions. The rating position of School 2 is comparatively lower, as it is at the level of top 30 schools of Saint Petersburg. 45 employees participate in the research; the response rate is 69%. The mean age of respondents is 32 (25 the youngest and 54 the oldest), with 42 females (87%) and 7 males (13%). More people have only one high education (89% versus 11% of respondents). Teachers in School 2 fulfil or teaching duties (63%) either administrative duties (37%). There is an experienced team in School 2, having 28 teachers with 6-12 years of teaching practise, 9 teachers with more than 12 years of experience and only 8 teachers with less than 5 years working experience.

The united description of the sample is presented in Table 2.

Table 2. The sample description of School 1 and School 2

Measures

Workplace ostracism: ostracism was measured by a 10?item scale “Workplace ostracism” (Ferris et al., 2008) with a Likert-type scale with 1 as “strongly disagree” and 7 is “strongly agree” (see in Appendix B, Table B1). This scale is used as it is more often mentioned for measuring ostracism in the scientific literature (Fiset et al., 2017; Peng & Zeng, 2016; Zhao et al., 2013b, 2016). The initial version of the scale includes 13 questions, but after testing it Ferris et al. (2008) excluded three of them due to the inconsistency. The scale is translated in Russian; Cronbach's alfa is 0.645, that is the sufficient level for the 10-scale questionnaire (Gliem & Gliem, 2003).

Corporate culture: corporate culture was assigned with the “Organizational Culture Scale” (Robert & Wasti, 2002) questionnaire (see Appendix B, Table B2). The questionnaire consists of 13 questions, which are divided into two groups: organizational individualism (6 questions) and organizational collectivism (7 questions). Research questions are separated for collectivism/individualism groups but are be mixed to increase the credibility of the analysis. The questionnaire has a Likert scale, ranging from 1= never or definitely no and 7 = always or definitely yes. The scale is translated into Russian; Cronbach's alfa is 0.823, which demonstrates high consistency among the questions of the survey (Gliem & Gliem, 2003).

Sociometry analysis: Sociometry is a methodology created by psychologist Moreno and defined by him as “the mathematical study of psychological properties of populations, the experimental technique of and the results obtained by application of quantitative methods” (Moreno, 1953, pp. 15-16). Other words, sociometry is a tool for analysis of social choice and interpersonal attractiveness. There is always some hidden relationship which people cannot observe and understand, as there are some communicational norms, company principles and personal characteristics. These relationships are expressed in the daily decisions people made about their colleagues: with whom to have lunch, with whom to sit during the business meeting. It does not matter whether these decisions are made intentionally or not, whether reasons for decision making are positive or negative (Remmer, 2007): the choice of the person expresses his `energy vector” (Rostampoor-Vajari, 2012, p. 570), as people state their attitude when they choose or not choose somebody. Sociometry helps to trace, mathematize and visualize the relationships between employees. This method is considered useful for building perfect culture, as people may perceive themselves as a part of shared dynamics (Rostampoor-Vajari, 2012) and create better communicational patterns in the team (Hoffman, 2000).

To apply sociometry methodology, researchers ask people simple questions where respondents should choose their colleagues for different situations (e.g. “How will you invite on your birthday party”)'. These questions not just inquire people's decisions about parties but allow to reveal true attitude between employees. People rarely speak honestly about others directly, but these questions are appealed to different emotions, not only positive ones: when you pick people whom you would hire or would not tell your secret you express certain feelings towards this person. Some people are chosen for a positive reason, others for negative, but the fact that somebody is chosen demonstrates the attention to the worker from the team.

To conduct the sociometry analysis the list of questions should be developed, the traditional number of questions is around 10 (Jones, 1996). Hoffman (2000) proposed several criteria that questions must meet. These are the most important conditions for consistent sociometry questions:

* The questions should be formulated in the most simple and straightforward way

* The questions should refer to the experience/knowledge of the respondent (if possible)

* The questions should point out specific emotions/attitudes/decisions (“with who will you have lunch” rather than “who do you like”).

Because of the criteria, there is no unified list of questions which are applied in sociometry analysis. Each scientist develops specific questions, which are adapted to the purpose of the research, the team composition, the field of analysis, etc. For the present research, 6 questions are developed (see Appendix B, Table B3). Answering these questions, employees should choose their colleagues, the number of choices is not limited. The questions are adapted to the educational field and refer different emotions: friendliness, professionalism, energy level, personal characteristics; this allows to expand the range of people who can be chosen. After respondents pass the sociometry analysis, the number of times each employee is mentioned is calculated. The number of choices demonstrates the position of an employee in the group: the number of “energy vectors” (Rostampoor-Vajari, 2012, p. 570) which other workers directed to him.

So that, with questionnaires we determine the level of ostracism withing given corporate culture, with sociometry we support our findings (e.g. the person who demonstrates ostracism is questionnaire is also excluded according to sociometry).

Data Analysis

The results are analysed using several statistical instruments. The findings of Likert scale questionnaires for WO level and the type of CC are calculated. Descriptive statistics are presented for WO and CC results: the number of participants, mean level and standard deviation level. Correlation analysis is conducted to show the connection between the level of exclusion and the type of CC. Regression analysis is used to reveal the influence of demographic and personal factors (independent variables) on the WO level (dependant variable) in the model. For correlation and regression analysis figures show whether the results are statistically significant and therefore may be representative for the broader sample. In the sociometry analyses: first, the number of times each worker is mentioned by other employees is calculated. The sociometry index (SI) is calculated using the formula (1):

where Ci is the sociometry status of the worker, R is the number of choices, N is the number of employees in the organization. Therefore, the higher index demonstrates the higher status of the worker.

There are two approaches sociometry data may be analyzed (Remer, 2007). The first approach is to determine SI and use it for statistical calculations in correlation, regression analysis etc. The second approach is visualization when SI is applied to create the map, which demonstrates the communicational structure in the team. In the present research, the first method is taken, as SI is used for correlation analysis.

The SI is used to determine its correlation with the level of WO. The level of WO is an indicator determined using the questionnaire `Workplace Ostracism”, the subjective opinion of the employee about his relationship with colleagues. The SI is a more objective indicator obtained using sociometry, the number of times each employee was selected. Both parameters demonstrate the inclusion of each employee in the group, but the level of WO is the point of view of one employee, and the SI is the combined point of view of all employees. The correlation between these indicators shows whether there is a correlation between the status perceived by the employee (the level of WO) and his real status in the team (SI).

Results

For the analysis of WO and CC, three types of analysis are conducted: descriptive analysis, correlation, and regression analysis.

Descriptive analysis

School 1 has a mean level of WO (M = 1.532 out of 7) with standard deviation (SD = 0.257, see Table 3). In School 1, the level of individualism is higher than of collectivism (M = 5.307 and M = 3.468 respectively). In School 2 the mean level of WO is nearly 1 point higher comparing with School 1 (M=2.387). In School 2 there are lower levels of individualism (M = 4.092) and collectivism (M = 2.865).

Table 3. Descriptive statistics of workplace ostracism and types of the corporate culture

In School 1 both types of corporate culture have a strong negative connection with WO; the relationship between individualism and WO (-0.645) is stronger than between collectivism and WO (-0.346, see Table 4). Both correlations are statistically significant (p < .05). In School 2, the correlation between WO and individualism is statistically significant; these parameters have a medium, negative relationship (-.483). The relationship between WO and collectivism is not statistically significant. In both schools CC and WO are strongly correlated; therefore, the H1 (There is a relationship between organizational culture and workplace ostracism) is retained. Individualism has a stronger negative correlation with WO than collectivism (in School 1, -.645 and -.346 respectively). Hence, H2 (Individualistic and collectivistic types of corporate culture have a different level of relationship with workplace ostracism) is retained.

Table 4. Correlation of workplace ostracism and corporate culture types

Regression analysis

For School 1, only age (.019), gender (.287) and position (-.175) are statistically significant; experience (-.016) and education (.07) are statistically insignificant (See Table 5). In the model for School 1 R2 equals 0.55, so it describes 55% of the sample, which is sufficient (Whaley, 2006). In School 2, age (.248) and position (-.302) are statistically significant and have a little bit higher influence than in School 1. Experience level has a medium negative influence on WO (-.327), while gender and education are not significant. The regression model for School 2 is not so representative, as it describes around 38% of the sample (Whaley, 2006).

The regression analysis provides partial support for H3. First, the position of an employee is statistically significant in both schools and has a slight negative impact (-.175) on WO in School 1 and medium negative impact (-.302) on WO in School 2, so does not influence the degree of his / her exclusion; H3a (The position has a significant impact on ostracism) is rejected. Age has a statistically significant influence on WO in both schools (.019 in School 1 and .248 in School 2), which retains H3b (Age does not have a significant impact on ostracism). Gender appeared to be significant only in School 1, with a positive connection with WO, so H3c (Gender does not have a significant impact on ostracism) is partly retained. Experience is relevant in School 2 and has a medium negative impact on WO, which partly proves H3d (Working experience does not have a significant impact on ostracism). It is impossible to make conclusions on employee's education as it is statistically insignificant in the regression model for both schools, so cannot be analyzed.

Table 5. The predictors of workplace ostracism in School 1 and School 2

Sociometry analysis revealed the degree of “popularity” of each employee: the more times somebody is chosen (the higher is SI), the more relationship he or she has in the team. When people chose each other, they express attention: people who are often chosen are called “stars”, those who are rarely chosen, are called “neglected”.

Distribution analysis.

Figure 1 demonstrates the comparison of sociometry index for School 1 and School 2

The graph shows the distribution of people among different indexes: from the lowest point (index 1) to the highest point (index 3,5). It is seen that in School 1 people receive higher indexes than School 2.

In School 1 the biggest number of employees receive the index from 1.5 to 2, so the person was chosen by each colleague on average two times. It is seen that there are people chosen very few times (9 people with an index below 1.5). 22% of employees were chosen more than three times. In School 2 the most widespread index is still 2 (15 employees). There are 43% of employees receive index below 2; the same time there are 6 employees who receive the highest index (more than 2.5). so that, although the prevailing number of employees receive low indexes, there are several outliers with extremely high index status.

Correlation analysis.

Two parameters represent each worker status in the team: the level of perceived WO (based on the questionnaire) and SI (calculated from the sociometry). The correlation between them shows whether the worker's perception of his status (WO) has a direct relationship with the team's perception of the worker (SI). In both schools, there is a strong negative connection between these parameters (-0.629 in School 1 and -0.537 in School 2, see Table 6). This means that the level of exclusion which the worker perceives from the team and the number of times when the worker is chosen by his colleagues have a strong negative correlation. Therefore, H4 (There is a strong relationship between the level of workplace ostracism and sociometry index of each worker) is retained.

Table 6. The correlation between the worker's WO and SI.

Discussion

The goal of this research is to analyze the relationship between corporate culture and the workplace ostracism in private schools in Russia. Figures 3 and 4 represent the main findings on the exclusion / CC relations: the correlation between variables in School 1 (see Figure 2) and School 2 (see Figure 3).

The figure 2 reflects the relationship between three variables: WO, individualism, and collectivism in School 1. Correlation (WO / individualism) = -.645, p < .01. Correlation (WO / collectivism) = -.346, p < .05

The figure 3 reflects the relationship between three variables: WO, individualism, and collectivism in School 2. Correlation (WO / individualism) = -.483, p < .05. Correlation (WO / collectivism) = -.197.

The results revealed that the level of WO is quite low in both schools, so people perceive the team they are working with as friendly and inclusive. Although, School 2 has a higher level of exclusion, so in this organization, workers experience more stress and anxiety in the team (Riva et al., 2011; Robinson, et al., 2013; Wu et al., 2011). The level of exclusion is also correlated with the extent to which CC is expressed in the organization, in line with the conclusion of other scholars on the connection between CC and communication between employees (Aquino & Lamertz, 2004; Estes & Wangо, 2016; Mangione & Mangione, 2001). The level of individualism and collectivism has inverse relationships with the level of WO. It means that weak CC - whatever it is, individualism or collectivism- cause WO. These results differ from the previous findings, where either individualism (Pfundmair et al., 2015), or collectivism (Garris, Ohbuchi, Oikawa, & Harris, 2011; Sato, Yuki, & Norasakkunkit, 2014; Yamaguchi, Kuhlman, & Sugimori, 1995) has a direct relationship with the WO. So, the CC is certainly able to shape employee' communication (Simmons, 2008), and therefore create conditions for mistreatment, but the reason for conflicts is not the type of CC itself. The mistreatments appear because of the weak CC, when managers fail to express the principles of CC through the rules established in the company.

Corporate culture is not an objective indicator, it is an environment that is created by management and which is perceived by employees (Ekmekci, Casey, Rosenbusch, Cataldo, & Byington, 2012). Managers, through the formal (official guidelines) and informal (attitudes and reactions to the conflicts between employees) channels, determine the communicational norms in the organization (Burke-Smalley & Zelin, 2019; Estes & Wang, 2016). When workers evaluate corporate culture as clear individualism, independence from each other and self-reliance are the norm for workers (Chen, Chen, & Meindl, 1998), this is not perceived as ostracism because it is a culture where workers operate autonomously. If the manifestations of individualism are not so high, dissociation is perceived by the employee not as a norm, but as an action directed at him/her, and the worker experiences ostracism (LeFebvre & Franke, 2013). When employees evaluate corporate culture as collectivism, they interact a lot, value communication with each other (Robert & Wasti, 2002) and, therefore, are not excluded. If the manifestations of collectivistic are not high, then people who require communication and do not receive it, experience ostracism (LeFebvre & Franke, 2013). Therefore, a lower level of both individualism and collectivism raises the level of ostracism. With developed CC, when there are clear, officially stated rules, created by management, the communication of employees is shaped by these principles (Simmons, 2008), which prevent WO. With weak CC, when there are no determined communicational norms, the possibility of WO is higher. It means that the threat is not in the certain type of CC, but in the ability of the administration to establish CC through organizational norms.

Regression analysis shows that demographic factors do not have a significant influence on WO, which retains the same conclusion of the several scholars (Hiltan, et al., 2006; Bozin & Yoder, 2008; Stroud, Salovey, & Epel, 2002). However, the results for a position which does not influence WO a lot contradict with the findings that offender is usually higher in the hierarch (Mlika, et al., 2017). It may be because schools do not have developed hierarch, and there are only two-three position levels, therefore, no significant influence. Comparing schools, it is seen that in School 1, where both individualism and collectivism are higher expressed, the level of WO is lower and demographic factors do not influence WO a lot. Otherwise, in School 2, where corporate culture is not so developed, demographic factors are more influential. When CC is developed, it determines the communication between employees and levels the effect of demographic features (Estes & Wangо, 2016). When the CC is weak, employees are compelled to make their judgments about the person relying on other features. So, CC is the mos

It is also seen that the employees can recognize their status in the team, as the worker's perception of the attitude from colleagues correlates the true relations in the team. There is no misunderstanding between employees, when, for example, the worker feels excluded, but in reality, other employees do not express exclusion. It means that communication is transparent: if there is a problem, both sides of the conflict observe and admit it. In such circumstances, it is easier to foster communication, as there are no hidden interactions between people (Simmons, 2008).

Practical implementation

There are several areas where the results of the study could be applicable. First, the management of small companies. Large corporations view CC as one of the most crucial internal issues. Small companies often neglect the development of CC, as they do not consider this significant enough and do not have the necessary resources. However, the results of the study show that even in small companies, employees are affected by the organizational climate. Moreover, in small teams are often considered as more inclusive, friendly communities (Hoegl, 2005), so less effort is made to regulate the interactions between employees. In this case, WO, which happens in teams of any size, can be easily overlooked, and the conflict will be exacerbated. Second, companies that want to improve their CC. There is no single, ideal type of CC that all organizations must follow, therefore there is no need to radically change the foundations of the company, to try to implement a culture that will contradict the existing principles of interaction. Companies should not follow any particular type of culture, but develop the type that naturally manages communication between employees. CC is developed by the management of the company, widespread through the official rules and perceived by employees. The existence of WO manifests that either the established principles fail to regulate the communication of employees, or that there is no consistency between the official principles and real attitudes/reactions from the administrative board. The existence or absence of mistreatment is the sign of CC's condition. Third, companies that want to improve the interaction between employees. After analyzing the degree of development of CC, management will be able to understand how the environment affects the interaction between employees and fix it. The WO differs from other forms of mistreatment as it is more difficult to detect, so the understanding of the core features of WO and its relationship with CC facilitates the development of policies to improve the employee's communication. Fourth, companies that want to improve their performance. Ways to improve engagement, productivity, etc. are now being studied very deeply (Bauer, 2004; Richardson, 2014; Hafeez, Yingjun, Hafeez, Mansoor, & Rehman, 2019), and analyzing the level of corporate culture and its impact on employees of a particular organization can help improve the company's performance.

Limitations and Future Development

Further direction for the research is to explore several companies in an attempt to have a sample with both collectivistic and individualistic corporate culture: in the present research, only one company participates in the analysis, meaning that only one side of the question is examined. So, we cannot make a complete and justified conclusion as there is not enough data. What is more, it can be reasonable to include other countries and explore the relations between corporate culture and ostracism there; the question is will basic, social culture influence 1) corporate culture which is set in the organization; 2) the way specifics of corporate culture affect employee's response to ostracism. Another interesting direction is to discover the effect of employee's relationship on children: as the company explored is the private school, employees are teachers who communicate with children daily. In the present research, the analysis covers only the teacher's environment, but it can be interesting to understand how the environment and communication between employees influence their communication with pupils. Also, other industries can be analysed. In the educational sphere (especially, in school) employees are often strongly connected, as they are connected with the same students of different subjects which can be related to each other, and therefore are united by a common environment. It means that in other spheres, where there is no such strong bond between workers, the ostracism may be different.

Conclusion

The initial goal of the research was to identify the connection between the CC and WO in the organization. To explore the connection between these factors, two questionnaires and sociometry tools are used by examining the corporate culture and ostracism separately and then supporting the results by the sociometry.

The connection between types of CC and WO level supposes the dominant status of one type of culture over another, as it means that one organizational environment is more beneficial, as it creates a healthy and productive environment, while the other may be harmful to employees, as it provokes the development of personal mistreatment.

Although CC affects the communication between employees (Aquino & Lamertz, 2004; Estes & Wang, 2008; Hackney & Perrewe, 2018), the results of the research reveal that the type of CC does not play the leading role in the exclusion situation. Statistically, it is possible to prove that individualism is more powerful, as the absence of this type of CC incites a higher level of WO. However, both individualism and collectivism have the same direction of power, and the difference of their influence is not significant.

CC as a micro-society is a part of the societal, national culture (Guiso, Sapienza & Zingales, 2015) which is developed in unique historical, economic, political, and social conditions and then were transmitted to the organizational environment (Tharp, 2009). Individualism and collectivism types of CC are created to serve a specific communicational goal and fulfil the requirements of people, and therefore, cannot be labelled as “good” and “bad” environment for employees.

A more reasonable explanation is that combination of CC, different demographic and personal factors of employees and employers, the sphere company operates in etc., creates a certain organizational environment, and all these factors all together affect the way workers perform and communicate (Liu, Chi, Friedman, Tsai, 2009).

Due to the simultaneous influence of all work-related issues, there are different, even contradictory results, when or individualism or collectivism is more powerful to provoke WO like it happens in the scientific literature (Garris, Ohbuchi, Oikawa, & Harris, 2011; Pfundmair et al., 2015; Sato, Yuki, & Norasakkunkit, 2014; Yamaguchi, Kuhlman, & Sugimori, 1995). In these circumstances, CC acts as a set of rules which determine the framework for the interactions, but it cannot completely determine communicational patterns between employees. Instead of changing the whole CC, it is necessary to develop the existing environment, so it is the best way to shape the communication between employees. The problem arises not because of the wrong, harmful type of CC, but because of the weak, inconsistent CC of any type.

Table A1. The definitions of the term "ostracism"

Table A2. Definitions of corporate culture

Table B1. Substantively Valid Ostracism Items

1. Others ignored you at work.

2. Others left the area when you entered.

3. Your greetings have gone unanswered at work.

4. You involuntarily sat alone in a crowded lunchroom at work.

5. Others avoided you at work.

6. You noticed others would not look at you at work.

7. Others at work shut you out of the conversation.

8. Others refused to talk to you at work.

9. Others at work treated you as if you weren't there.

10. Others at work did not invite you or ask you if you wanted anything when they went out for a coffee break.

11. You have been included in conversations at work (reverse coded).”

12. Others at work stopped talking to you.”

13. You had to be the one to start a conversation in order to be social at work.”

Table B2. Organizational Culture Scale

Organizational individualism (OI) items:

1. Each worker is encouraged to realize his or her own unique potential.

2. People with good ideas make sure management knows the idea was theirs.

3. Employees' ability to think for themselves is valued.

4. Individuals who stand out in a high performing group are recognized.

5. Employees value independence in their job.

6. Competition between employees is accepted.

Organizational collectivism (OC) items:

1. Management and supervisors are protective of and generous to loyal workers.

2. Decisions about changes in work methods are taken jointly by supervisors and employees.

3. Employees are taken care of like members of a family.

4. Everyone shares responsibility for the organizations' failures as well as success.

5. Regardless of hierarchical level, employees take each other's views into consideration.

6. Once someone is hired, the organization takes care of that person's overall welfare.

7. Everyone is kept informed about major decisions that affect the success of the company.

Table B3. The sociometry questions

References

ostracism school corporate

1.Anderson, J. W. (2009). Organizational Shunning: The Disciplinary Functions of “Non-Sense”. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 17(1), 36-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/15456870802506140

2.Aquino, K., & Lamertz, K. (2004). A Relational Model of Workplace Victimization: Social Roles and Patterns of Victimization in Dyadic Relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 1023-1034. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1023

3.Baird, A. A., Silver, S. H., & Veague, H. B. (2010). Cognitive control reduces sensitivity to relational aggression among adolescent girls. Social Neuroscience, 5(5-6), 519-532. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470911003747386

4.Balliet, D., & Ferris, D. L. (2013). Ostracism and prosocial behaviour: A social dilemma perspective. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 120(2), 298-308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.04.004

5.Bastian, B., & Haslam, N. (2010). Excluded from humanity: The dehumanizing effects of social ostracism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(1), 107-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.06.022

6.Bauer, T. K. (2004). High Performance Workplace Practices and Job Satisfaction: Evidence from Europe. IZA Discussion Paper No. 1265. https://ssrn.com/abstract=582304

7.Baumeister, R F, & Tice, D. M. (1990). Point-counterpoints: Anxiety and social exclusion. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9(2), 165.

8.Baumeister, Roy F., Wotman, S. R., & Stillwell, A. M. (1993). Unrequited love: On heartbreak, anger, guilt, scriptlessness, and humiliation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(3), 377-394. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.3.377

9.Beaver, J., Stafford, and Dan Hallock, D. (2016). The Influence of Organizational Culture on Sexual Harassment Training: A Confirmatory Analysis. Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 696-707.

10.Bilimoria, D., Joy, S., Liang, X. (2008). Breaking barriers and creating inclusiveness: Lessons of organizational transformation to advance women faculty in academic science and engineering. Human Resource Management, 43(7), https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20225

11.Blackhart, G. C., Nelson, B. C., Knowles, M. L., & Baumeister, R. F. (2009). Rejection Elicits Emotional Reactions but Neither Causes Immediate Distress nor Lowers Self-Esteem: A Meta-Analytic Review of 192 Studies on Social Exclusion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(4), 269-309. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309346065

12.Bozin, M. A., & Yoder, J. D. (2008). Social status, not gender alone, is implicated in different reactions by women and men to social ostracism. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 58(9-10), 713-720. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9383-1

13.Buckley, K. E., Winkel, R. E., & Leary, M. R. (2004). Reactions to acceptance and rejection: Effects of level and sequence of relational evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(1), 14-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00064-7

14.Burke-Smalley, L. A., Zelin, A. (2019). Factors which predict workplace abuse: organizational audit. Journal of contemporary business issues, 24(1)

15.Chen, C. C., Chen, X.-P., & Meindl, J. R. (1998). How Can Cooperation Be Fostered? The Cultural Effects of Individualism-Collectivism. The Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 285. https://doi.org/10.2307/259375

16.Chen, Y., & Li, S. (2019). The Relationship Between Workplace Ostracism and Sleep Quality: A Mediated Moderation Model. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 319. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00319.

Размещено на Allbest.ru