Workplace ostracism and corporate culture in secondary schools in Russia

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Workplace ostracism and corporate culture in secondary schools in Russia

Communication between people significantly defines the way people perform in personal, professional and social activities. Ostracism - the purposeful ignoring or shunning of an individual by others (Sommer, Williams, Ciarocco, & Baumeister, 2001) is one of the negative outcomes of communication. Ostracism is often called as passive treatment, when people do not greet you, do not speak to you, do not spend time with you. Such an attitude from the others has a deteriorating influence on the target of ostracism, causing negative psychological and physiological reactions. Ostracism is widely examined in the sociological context (personality, communication, etc.), but not a lot is known about ostracism in the workplace. The present research explores ostracism in the organizational context, focusing on its (ostracism) interaction with the types of the corporate culture. Individualistic and collectivistic types of corporate culture define whether people perform as a separate unit or as a group respectively. The type of corporate culture may strongly influence the existence and extent of ostracism as these types are about the way people communicate in the group while ostracism is excluding the person from the group.

The research examines two private schools from the secondary education sector to reveal the type of corporate culture and the level of ostracism and formulate the relationship between organizational culture and workplace ostracism. In the research correlation and regression analyses are applied, to reveal the connection between ostracism and types of corporate culture and the influence of demographic factors on the level of ostracism. Sociometry methodology is used for comprehensive analysis of group communication. The results show that both schools have a low level of ostracism and the prevailing individualistic type of culture. Comparing organizations, School 1 has a lower exclusion level and more developed corporate culture. According to the results, the corporate culture of any type and the level of ostracism are negatively correlated.

Unethical conduct has become more common in the work. Here are some recent examples. The well-known case of Harvey Weinstein who was accused and convicted of sexual harassment against several women: colleagues and actresses (Hayers & Wagner, 2020). Severe working conditions at Amazon: highly stressful, competitive, even sabotaging environment, irregular working hours, unfair remuneration and the absence of support for current and former employees (Kantor & Streitfeld, 2015). A conflict of interest in Merrill Lynch which was charged to pay $8.9 million for failure to properly disclose conflicts of interest and failure to properly discharge a firm's fiduciary duties (Jacko, 2018).

The practice of workplace misconduct is widespread in all countries and all nations. 2019 Global Business Ethics Survey on workplace misconduct in which Africa & Middle East, Asia Pacific, Europe, North America and South America were explored reported that conflict of interests, abusive behaviour and violations of health and/ or safety regulations are most common on the workplace. The data on observed/reported misconduct is also presented. The mean value among all five regions is 45% of witnessed mistreatment and 34% of not reported. Europe has the lowest level of observed misconduct: 43% comparing with 60% in Africa & Middle East and South America; and the highest level of not-recorded misconduct: 41% comparing with 23% in Africa & Middle East. Workplace unethical conduct may take many forms like corruption, abuse, conflict of interest, bullying, harassment, discrimination. The Society for Human Resource Management (2000) found that 48% of employees experience mistreatment during the last two years, including verbal threats (39%), pushing and shoving (22%) and physical pressure (14%).

A new form of personal mistreatment, known as workplace ostracism (WO) was introduced in the 1990-s and defined as “the purposeful ignoring or shunning of an individual by others” (Sommer et al., 2001a). Researches explored the communication between employees through different periods and stated that in half of the year 13% of employees were engaged in ostracism (Hitlan, Kelly, Schepman, Schneider, & Zarate, 2006) and in 5 years 66% of employees were engaged in ostracism (during 5 years) (Fox & Stallworth, 2005). Fox and Stallworth also mentioned that co-workers had left the room when they entered (29% of respondents) and reported being moved to an isolated location (18% of respondents) (2005). In 58% of cases, ostracism was viewed as intentional and was aimed, according to the targets, to cause hurt.

There are two main directions in which ostracism is explored. First, the prerequisites and consequences of ostracism are discussed. Ostracism leads to negative outcomes: people may experience depression and anxiety (Chow Tiedens, & Govan, 2008; Riva, Wirth, & Williams, 2011). It becomes more difficult to maintain a sense of self-esteem and control: people do not believe in themselves and in their ability to affect their life (Wu et al., 2011). In terms of job-related outcomes, ostracism negatively influences work performance (Leung, Wu, Chen, & Young, 2011; Xia, Wang, Song, Zhang, & Qian, 2019), engagement (Lyu & Zhu, 2019; Zhao, Xia, He, Sheard, & Wan, 2016) and helpful behaviour (Peng & Zeng, 2016; Thau, Aquino, & Poortvliet, 2007). Ostracism harms group communication and leads to mistrust and antipathy (Jones & Kelly, 2010; Mlika, Khelil, & Salem, 2017). Second, researchers have explored the ways to cope with ostracism, for example, with the help of political and communicational skills (Cullen, Fan, & Liu, 2014; Zhao et al., 2013), psychological health or psychological capital (Haq, 2014; Hitlan et al., n.d.; Waldeck, Tyndall, Riva, & Chmiel, 2017), and organizational issues like bonuses or feedback policy (Mok, 2015; Peng & Zeng, 2016). The second area has been explored more diversely and in-depth: these studies have included business spheres where ostracism is common (Zhao et al., 2013b, 2016), personal innate characteristics related to ostracism and methods to address ostracism in the workplace by HRM department.

There are several reasons why ostracism is dangerous. First, it harms employee's well-being in a work-related and personal context: reduces productivity, engagement and cooperation, cause depression, anxiety and self-esteem problems (Riva et al., 2011, Wu et al., 2011; Xia et al., 2019). Second, it has no obvious reason, so it can be difficult to identify it and to understand the motives for ostracism (Robinson, O'Reilly, & Wang, 2013). It is problematic to confront such behaviour. The actions within ostracism are too obscure, so supervisory hardly may punish the worker for the absence of greeting or talking (Robinson et al., 2013). Likewise, the offender may deny that ostracism occurred (Williams, 2001) and the victim of mistreatment will not be able to prove the opposite. Third, the ostracism is not always reported as it leads to the undesirable consequences for the sufferer. The employee risks gaining the reputation of an untrustworthy worker and “not team player” which may influence future promotion and appraisal (Meares, Oetzel, Torres, Derkacs, & Ginossar, 2004). Moreover, the worker may be considered by colleagues as a “stool pigeon” which may worsen the situation and lead to even higher ostracism (Zammit, 2018). So, ostracism negatively influences the target's well-being in working and social context. It is disregarded or overlooked by supervisory and ignored by witnesses-colleagues. It is not recorded accurately as employees are afraid or ashamed to report about it because of disapproval from colleagues and supervisory; it is not officially stated in the principles of corporate culture and, consequently, difficult to confront. Although ostracism has a serious negative impact on employees, managers often underestimate its impact: they do not understand the possible consequences of ostracism and are not equipped to handle it.

The research problem is that the influence of WO in terms of specific working environment is not explored. WO is an obscure kind of behaviour, dangerous and harmful for people (Pfundmair, Aydin, Du, Yeung, Frey, & Graupmann, 2015), and it may take different forms in the specific situation. The workplace is usually guided by the organizational culture and principles developed by the administration. These principles determine the way WO can be manifested. In the workplace, where people need to interact a lot to fulfil their responsibilities, it is especially important to maintain a healthy relationship, as a poor atmosphere will not only worsen performance (Leung, Wu, Chen, & Young, 201) but also lead to more serious consequences. Since ostracism is not an obvious type of behaviour, a person will feel himself in an impasse, unable to cope on his own and seek help, which will further complicate the solution to the problem (Eisenberger, Lieberman, & Williams, 2003). This can harm a person's personality by lowering their self-esteem, undermining self-confidence, in their abilities and in their ability to control the situation (Riva, Wirth, & Williams, 2011; Wu et al., 2011). This will harm work, because, after long ostracism, a person decides to leave (Fiset, Al Hajj, & Vongas, 2017), and is unlikely to be able to enter into normal working relations soon after such stress (Lyu & Zhu, 2019).

Ostracism is a form of behaviour, and in the organization the behaviour of people is defined by the corporate culture (CC) as it “shapes and frames the interaction of employees” (Simmons, 2008, p. 24), determines responsibilities and rules. WO is also the form of mistreatment, and administration of the company state the rules of communication and influence the perception of these rules by employees as “their [manager's] attitudes and behaviours directly impact what is considered as acceptable conduct” (Burke-Smalley & Zelin, 2019, p. 17). So, if it is necessary to analyze the conditions in which WO is developed, the first thing to take into account is CC. In the present research, WO is explored in individualism/collectivism construct of CC (Yaakobi, & Williams, 2016), as exclusion is a confrontation of an individual and a group, and individualism-collectivism is about performing either as an individual or as a group.

The goal of this research is to analyse the relationship between the corporate culture and the workplace ostracism in private schools in Russia. The type of culture (individualistic or collectivistic) may influence how people perceive, react to, and cope with ostracism.

The results of the research may be implemented in many HR practices. The better understanding of communication between employees is important for companies which strive to improve the performance and foster cooperation among workers. The awareness of specifics of CC is necessary for the emerging companies, which start to develop their organizational environment and need to understand the influence of CC on the workforce. The healthy communication of workers facilitates the creation of strong, long-term relationship and engaging CC.

Literature Review

Corporate Culture

The notion of “corporate culture” (CC) was established in the 70s of the XX century for Japanese companies to outperform American ones: CC aimed to improve motivation commitment and shared values of employees (Deshpandй, Farley, & Webster, 1993). There is no universal definition of CC, as it may be specified by the subject, sphere and social culture (see Table A2 in Appendix A). This term could be understood as the set of norms and values supported by the company (O'Reilly & Chatman, 1996; Reichers & Schneider, 1990). The definition also includes the two-side character of the CC: theoretical and practical (House et al., 2005). The meaning may highlight the scene of working activities, like in Schein's research (1991). Schein defines CC as “a pattern of basic assumptions that a group has invented, discovered or developed in learning to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration” (Schein, 1985).

CC relates many work-related issues. For example, a strong organizational culture is associated with work performance during two or three following years (Gordon & DiTomaso, 1992). Fondas and Denison (1991) explored 230 organizations in Europe, Asia and North America and reveal a strong correlation between the CC and workplace effectiveness. Both innovation and performance seem to be linked with CC (Deshpandй et al., n.d.), as specific CC enhances the company's ability to attract people's attention and interest (Fiordelisi et al., n.d.). CC also contributes to employee commitment by reinforcing the bond between employees and the company (O'Reilly, 1989) and improved financial performance of the companies (Kotter & Heskett, 1992).

CC may be described in many ways, and several models are developed to shape the theoretical side of this question. The first model discussed is the Denison (1991) organizational culture model that includes such CC's elements as involvement, consistency, adaptability and mission. Involvement is about uniting people in one organization and by the same goal when each person has his or her duties and responsibilities. Consistency ensures the company is established on the logic, structure and core values. Adaptability, on the contrary, is about saving the ability to stay flexible, be ready to change and fit new tendencies. And mission requires to formulate and share a clear idea of the goal the company is achieving, its objectives and its vision.

Cameron and Quinn (2006) suggested the Competing Values Framework that describes different types of CC in terms of workplace climate, employee management, core values (focus) and desirable (successful) development. There are four types of CC: clan, adhocracy, Hierarchy, market; they are determined (see Table3). This classification reveals the distinct features of its CC type and the approach that each type has to the internal and external environment of the company.

Table 1. A Model of Organizational Culture Types

The term “social” or “societal” culture (SC) has a long history; the first modern definition was proposed in 1871 by Edward Tyler who defined SC as “complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, arts, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society” (Tylor, 1871, p. 10). Simply stated, the sense of social culture may be reflected in three people's activities: “what people think, what people do, and what people make” (Thar, 2009, p. 3). A corporation can be defined as a micro-society (Guiso, Sapienza & Zingales, 2015): it presents the group of individuals who interact with each other and strive to reach their goals through more efficient. Corporate culture has some distinctive features which make it more flexible and dynamic communication (Guiso, Sapienza & Zingales, 2015). First, the founder may establish his or her own formally stated values, which not always fully coincide with the societal culture's values. Second, corporate culture is more prone to change, as it is not so rooted. Third, as companies are launched and dissolved much more often than countries, it is easier to observe the corporate culture in different social culture contexts. As societal culture forms the cultural basics and contains corporate one, a societal culture largely determines the corporate culture and the HRM practices, adopted by the organization (Babnik, 2011). Scientists admit that the organizational culture is conditioned not only by cultural background, but also by demographic, historical or personal factors (Brodbeck, Hanges, Dickson., Gupta, & Dorfman, 2004; Otten & Jansen, 2015).

Corporate culture and personnel mistreatment.

CC strongly related to personnel mistreatment cases in organizations. For example, CC could explain causes of workplace mistreatment (Estes & Wang, 2008). Workplace mistreatment is "low-intensity behaviour with ambiguous intent to harm the target in violation of workplace norms for mutual respect; uncivil behaviours are characteristically rude and discourteous, displaying a lack of regard or others" (Andersson & Pearsol 1999. p. 457). CC strongly related to personal mistreatment cases in organizations. As it was written by Estes and Wang (2008) “organizational culture may provide a viable, if not complete, explanation relating to the causes of workplace mistreatment” (p. 224). CC may involuntarily cause mistreatment as it defines the way people communicate. First, the character of the company impacts the employee's interactions. For example, competitive, not interdependent or aggressive managerial styles may support the tension between employees (Hackney & Perrewe, 2018). If penalties, competition between departments or the existence of coercive power are considered as an adequate and effective means of motivation and engagement, the occurrence of abuse is more possible (Aquino & Lamertz, 2004). Second, the way an organization treats employees and handles interpersonal conflicts influences the behaviour of workers. Meares, Oetzel, Torres, Derkacs, & Ginossar (2004) conducted the study in large organizations and interviewed employees about the perception of mistreatment in the organization by different cultural groups. A European American male in his 50s said, “I'm a white male, so I'm not used to it. I'm not preconditioned, so I wouldn't let it [mistreatment] pass” (p. 13). Otherwise, a 40-year-old Hispanic woman reported “If you go higher up [to resolve the problem] you get on the list of troublemakers, which affects promotion and appraisal, and managers say you are not a team player. I feel that there's no effort to institute fairness. . .” (p. 15). The attitude (even not officially stated) of the organization to mistreatment and the environment created by CC impacts the way employees feel; some of them have the power and ability to confront and feel free, the others experience helplessness and injustice. Moreover, as discrimination is illegal (King & Cortina, 2010) the mistreatment may take the hidden forms, the mistreatments will be not obvious, not direct, like “not giving mentally challenging jobs to physically disabled employees or “forgetting” to nominate women for supervisory positions” (Hackney & Perrewee, 2018, p. 76).

Although mistreatments on the workplace can be rather harmful, organizations rarely have the policies to handle such issues, managers are often not instructed and not equipped to cope with them (Simmons, 2008).

There is strong reasoning to explore ostracism in the corporate culture context. First, corporate culture influences communication between employees (Simmons, 2008). The values of the organization define the attitude of management, supervisory and other workers to workplace misconduct; the character of corporate culture (competitive, stressful) regulates the interactions between employees. Inclusive and collaborative corporate culture is considered as the most powerful protection from workplace mistreatment; otherwise, employees are less ready to engage in a stressful or aggressive environment (Mangione and Mangione, 2001). So, fostering corporate culture, management may avoid mistreatment at the workplace. Second, corporate culture influences other forms of workplace misconduct, for example, harassment (Beaver, Stafford, Hallock, 2010; Howald, Walker, Melick, Albert, & Susannah Huang, 2018; Timmerman & Bajema, 2000), discrimination (Gelfand, Nishii, Raver, & Schneider, 2007; Green, 2005; Kartolo, 2016), abuse (Vredenburgh & Brender, 1998; Ebeid, Kaul, Neumann, Shane, 2011). Therefore, corporate culture could also influence ostracism.

Theoreticians explored cultural aspects in various workplace context. They proved that corporate culture influences the climate at the workplace and can create environments which provoke workplace misconduct (Ebeid, Kaul, Neumann, Shane, 2011; Hackney, Perrewe, 2018). Culture “shapes and frames the interaction of employees” (Simmons, 2008, p. 24), determines how they handle mistreatment and whether they are enabled to confront it. There is some evidence that societal culture may influence the exclusive behaviour of a worker (Chi, Friedman, Tsai, 2009; Vadi, Allik Realo, 2002), but the connection between CC and WO has been not determined yet.

H1: There is a relationship between organizational culture and workplace ostracism.

The collectivistic/individualistic character of the corporate culture.

Individualism/collectivism construct proposed by Hofstede (1980) determines how people communicate in the group. The core principle is whether the person perceives himself as an individual or as a part of a large group. Individualistic culture focuses on a separate human being, highlighting the importance of individual personality and identity (Yaakobi, & Williams, 2016). The most important issues are independence, uniqueness and priority on privacy. In contrast, culture with collectivistic character concerns most about community, in-group harmony and shared abilities. Core values for this type are belongingness to a certain group (family, workplace, hobby), communication and close relations. Triandis (1993) described a prototype social relationship that illustrates both types of culture. For individualism prototype relationship is a marketplace with barter principle: people should pay to receive goods and services in return. Relationships are emotionally distant, members communicate on business, not personally. Individualism encourages competition and social classes, where the status of the person is defined by his achievements and personal success. The prototype relationship for collectivism is family, where all members cooperate and take care of each other. People perform as a single unit, and each participant has his or her predefined role in communication. Members of collectivistic culture are emotionally connected; a person's status is defined by the position in the group. Individualism and collectivism can hardly be called antonyms; they are “worldviews that make different aspects of the self-concept salient” (LeFebvre & Franke, 2013, p.113). This construct is mostly explored in individual and societal contexts; as people spend a profound part of their life at the workplace, individualism/collectivism dimension may apply to the working context too (Robert & Wasti, 2002).

Individualism/collectivism theory facilitates our understanding of worker's reactions to managerial decisions and policies (Erez, 1994; Mendonca & Kanungo, 1994); evaluating the effectiveness of HRM practices (Ramamoorthy & Carroll, 1998), job attitudes (Hui, Yee & Eastman, 1995), and firm financial results (Newman & Nollen, 1996). Chen, Chen and Meindl (1998) found out that cooperation, communication and group identity can be fostered through the individualism/collectivism model.

Individualism/collectivism constrain affects the conditions, which are supported in the organization: friendliness, diversity and inclusiveness (Hartung, 2000). As discussed in the WO section, inclusive culture “provides him or her with a sense of belonging while simultaneously allows and encourages him or her to be authentic” (Otten, & Jansen, 2015, p. 75). So, people experience WO when there are not enough conditions for comfortable communication, employees are treated as outsiders and do not feel appreciation from colleagues or supervisory. In scientific literature, there is evidence for both individualism and collectivism influencing people from different cultural backgrounds (LeFebvre & Franke, 2013). People from cultures with individualistic character (Germany) appeared to be more sensitive to exclusion in workplace content than with collectivistic character (Turkey, India, Hong Kong) (Pfundmair et al., 2015). Opposite results stated that exclusion sensitivity is higher in collectivistic countries of East Asia (Japan and Korea) than individualistic European Americans (Garris, Ohbuchi, Oikawa, & Harris, 2011; Sato, Yuki, & Norasakkunkit, 2014; Yamaguchi, Kuhlman, & Sugimori, 1995). Consequently, in different circumstances both individualism and collectivism may influence people's behaviour.

Although the collectivistic/individualistic classification was originally related to social culture, scientists explored collectivism/individualism in CC perspective too. The research on the sensitivity of individualism and collectivism cultures on ostracism is mixed as there is profound evidence for both sides (Garris, Ohbuchi, Oikawa, & Harris, 2011; Sato, Yuki, & Norasakkunkit, 2014; Amaguchi, Kuhlman, & Sugimori, 1995). Previous research stated that for people with the collectivistic background are oriented on communication and “are more attentive to concerns of other parties” (p. 170); thus they would be less likely to act in excluding manner (Chi, Friedman, & Tsai, 2009). Otherwise, Cheng and Kwan (2008) stated that in individualistic society the level of ostracism may be lower, as they are less likely to report both anxiety and avoidance, directed to them. So, the hypothesis proposes different connection of CC types with WO.

H2: Individualistic and collectivistic types of corporate culture have different relationship with workplace ostracism

Workplace Ostracism

The term “ostracism” appeared in Greece and expressed the procedure used against potentially dangerous people or a potential tyrant. Under the Athenians law, any citizens of Athena can be expelled from the city-centre for 10 years is punishment or with the preventive purpose. Nowadays there is a similar way to treat this term as "any act or acts of ignoring and excluding of an individual or groups by an individual or a group" (Williams, 2001, p. 9). Most organizations strive to acquire inclusive culture (Bilimoria, Joy, & Liang, 2008; Roberson, 2006; Shore et al., 2011; Thomas & Ely, 1996), which is defined as “the culture which provides him or her with a sense of belonging while simultaneously allows and encourages him or her to be authentic” (Otten, & Jansen, 2015, p. 75). Ostracism in the workplace is considered as a distinct type of organizational undermining behaviour. There are also other definitions for ostracism in a work-related and communicational perspective and a couple of labels that can be used as synonyms. The terms presented in Table A1 in Appendix A are placed chronologically to follow the development and changes in the sphere. Gruter and Masters (1986) defined ostracism as “a general process of social rejection or exclusion” (p. 8). Fifteen years later, Williams (2001) referred to ostracism as an “act or acts” and added the act of ignorance to the definition. Sommer et al. (2001) suggested that ostracism is purposeful and that the term shunning could be used as a synonym. Hitlan, Cliffton, and DeSoto (2006) provided more synonyms to the term (exclusion, rejection, or ignoring) and empathize the ability of ostracism to interfere in successful communications of the ostracized individual. Ferris, Brown, Berry, and Lian (2008) describe ostracism from the target's point of view - how the excluded person perceives ostracism. Dotan-Eliaz, Sommer and Rubin (2009) introduced ostracism when the person is out of communication due to the language barrier. Blackhart, Nelson, Knowles, and Baumeister (2009) define ostracism as an unsuccessful attempt of the person to initiate communication. Anderson (2009) referred that during organizational shining the person who was included in the interaction is excluded. Cullen, Fan and Liu (2014) determined interpersonal mistreatment as the violation of communicational norms.

There are a lot of ways to refer to ostracism, underlining the exact implication of the label. In this paper the term “workplace ostracism” (WO) will be used; it is mentioned in many studies devoted to this topic (Peng & Zeng, 2016; Zhao et al., 2013b, 2016) and can help to specify the work-related meaning of the term and avoid misleading.

Researches separate people, involved in the interaction, by their roles. The person or group of people, who neglects to act engagingly, are called ostracizer(s); the person who experiences ostracism is called an ostracizee (Balliet & Ferris, 2013; Fiset et al., 2017). When such types of organizational behaviour as harassment, abusive supervision, mistreatment are recognized as active aggression, WO reflects a passive form of aggression, as it is usually less obvious and less definable (O'Reilly et al., 2015).

More specifically, scholars distinguish two types of WO: purposeful and nonpurposeful (Robinson et al., 2013). In the case of purposeful ostracism, when the process occurs intentionally, a person or a group consciously act in a way to exclude the ostracizee from the communication process. Such behaviour aims to punish, reject or hurt the ostracizee. Some scientists believe that in particular cases ostracism can be manifest when a group of people protect themselves from the outsider. So, ostracism may occur when people take care about their group's well-being and try to exclude the “dangerous” individual (Sommer, Williams, Ciarocco, & Baumeister, 2001) or when the outsider may negatively influence the effectiveness of the group and should be stopped (Gruter & Masters, 1986; Pickett & Brewer, 2005). In terms of purposeful WO, the first factor which promotes WO is the team, where engaging people in ostracism does not suppose severe punishment from the supervisory. As WO is considered as a passive form of aggression, it is difficult to detect it, and the possibility of strict punishment for “ignoring” from the management is also not high (Williams, 2001). That is why WO is an easier mistreatment method for an ostracizer, than more expressive and obvious forms of interpersonal mistreatment. The second factor relates to the influence of WO on the ostracizer, as this process may be emotionally painful: when ostracizer exclude somebody, he or she feels guilt, shame and discomfort (Roy F. Baumeister et al., 1993; Ciarocco et al., 2001). That is why the presence of WO is higher, when the actor ostracizes the victim not alone, but with co-workers. Ostracizers mitigate the influence WO on them, as they: validate and rationalize the reasons for interpersonal mistreatment; share responsibility for WO between the members of the group (Latane & Nida, 1981). Ostracizers also experience inclusion because they are united in a group and pursue a shared goal - to exclude somebody from the team. The third factor is connected directly with the actions undertaken in WO. Employees follow certain social norms and engage in communicational scripts (Goffman, 1956), and it requires a great effort to break these scripts. WO is about the exclusion and ignorance of somebody, so WO is about the violation of these social scripts (Ciarocco et al., 2001). Breaking communicational scrips become easier if there is no task interdependence between employees. When people's duties are not connected and, respectively, employees are not obliged to communicate, they do not have to engage in social scripts (Guzzo & Shea, 1992). In this case, it is less emotionally harmful to ostracize the person. The fourth factor is about the aim of the WO that always serves to protect the team, for example, by excluding the person with “deviant” or dangerous behaviour (Williams, 2001). So, WO often appears in the organization if there are no more effective ways and methods to resolve conflict.

Nonpurposeful ostracism happens when the people unconsciously act in an antisocial manner and negatively influence the well-being of the ostracizee (Sommer et al., 2001b). In this case, ostracism occurs because of overload, reverie or forgetfulness of the ostracizer, and can be the result of misinterpretation of the social norms of behaviour in the working context. Regardless of the ostracism type, the ostracizee always perceives such actions as intentional and harmful. People are prone to see ostracism even in situations when no one is rejecting them form interactions. When actors are unaware that they engage others in ostracism, most reasons for WO relate to some practical factors. First, to pay attention to co-workers, people need some basic resources: time, ability and conditions for consideration. If people face high overload, inconvenient corporate structure and lack of technical resources they may experience obstacles in communicating with other employees. Another factor is the week corporate culture. If there are no developed values and social scripts that are followed by employees, misinterpreting may occur because of different perceptions of communication and social engagement. In this case, people may unintentionally hurt others and engage them in ostracism. The third factor is a geographical distance; when people are separated by physical space the possibility to overlook co-workers and miss some social norms could be high.

How workplace ostracism occurs: demographic, social and organizational factors.

Several social and organizational factors should be considered in the WO context. Some social and organizational factors may affect the perception of WO by employees.

Demographic factors. Several studies examined the influence of demographic factors like gender, social status and age on perception of WO. Gender may act as a moderator in different work-related issues including harassment (Rotundo et al., 2001) and work retention (Sweeney & McFarlin, n.d.). There is no consensus on the differences in the perception of ostracism by men and women. Men tend to define the working conditions they operate in as more inclusive and just, compared with women (Mor Barak et al., n.d.). Lopez (1982) proved that men are more prone to base their judgments on their own opinion, regardless of the public attitude (not so subjected to ostracism), compared with women. Schwalbe, Gecas and Baxter (1986) reported the opposite results. Hiltan, Cliffton and Desoto (2006) stated that men, unlike women, perceive ostracism as more harmful in terms of supervisor satisfaction, co-worker satisfaction, psychological health and self-esteem threat. At the same time, (Stroud, Salovey, & Epel, 2002) claimed that women are more impacted by “interpersonal stressor” than men. So, these and similar studies suggest that both genders consider ostracism to be painful. The status of ostracizer is also explored by some scientists. Later Bozin and Yoder (2008) stated that gender is not enough to determine the reasons and consequences of the WO; status, ethnicity, age and education also influence WO generation. Hiltan, Cliffton, and Desoto (2006) revealed that once WO happened in the workplace, it may be repeated by co-workers and/or supervisors with a 75% probability. The status of the ostracizer determines how painful WO would be and how ostracizee would react. For example, if the ostracizer carries authority in the organization, the ostracizee may invest more effort to rehabilitate or to re-establish his or her social status and position within the co-workers. Age factor affects the extent to which the ostracizee experiences negative emotions after WO. Pharo, Gross, Richardson, and Hayne (2011) who explored adolescents, emerging adults, and young adults reported that the WO negatively influences basic needs of the person (sense of belonging, self-esteem, control, and meaningful existence), and the extent of the effect was higher in the adolescents, emerging adults groups. Hawkley, Williams, and Cacioppo (2010) revealed a negative correlation between the respondent's age and WO effect (the older is the respondent, the lower is the impact). To prove the sensitivity of people (even of young age) to WO, the research conducted by Marinovic, Wahl, and Trдuble (2017) can be mentioned: children (Mage = 58 months) demonstrate clear reaction, as after witnessing WO they try to be closer to a stranger in the attempt to fulfil the need to belong (which is negatively affected by WO).

Social factors. People with emotional instability, negative affectivity and introversion, who may have low self-esteem and conflict-avoidant character, are prone to be the targets of WO. Also, people with developed cognitive skills often become victims of WO, as they usually perform better in task-achievement, training and career promotion. Because of that, they may cause such negative feelings from co-workers as envy anxiety and consequently appeared to be excluded from the communicational loop (Kim & Glomb, 2010). For the same reasons people with some unique abilities and traits are potential targets of WO: though skill diversity is highly necessary among the group for better performance, employees with outstanding abilities may experience ignoring and exclusion (Jones & Kelly, 2010b). Employee's behaviour also can lead WO. For instance, rude and disrespectful behaviour from the worker is often followed by mistrust and suspicion from other members of the group, which can lead to ostracism against the actor (Robinson et al., 2013). People who belong to a minority group (Gamian-Wilk & Madeja-Bien, 2018) such as foreign-language speakers (Hitlan, Kelly, Schepman, Schneider, & Zarate, 2006) and people with visible disabilities, physical illnesses (Wynne & McAnaney, 2009) or mental illnesses (Marr, Thau, Aquino, & Barclay, 2012) can experience WO. Williams and Sommer (1997) suggested that, in line with theories about social compensation (when people invest more effort as they try to compensate poor environment), employees work harder and devote more to their working activities after being ostracized by co-workers. Results reflected that women perform more intensively in a group with same-sex employees who ostracize them. Later Bozin and Yoder (2008) found similar results. This phenomenon can be characterized as “significant other” example when the personality of the actor (in our case, being excluded by same-sex people) influences the perception and experience of the mistreatment.

Filipkowski and Smyth (2012) found no differences in how people experience imaginary WO (e.g., by reading a script that describes a situation with WO) or real WO (e.g., by experiencing WO in experimental mode). Stout and Dasgupta (2011) studied male and female perceptions of job ads which were written in a masculine gender-exclusive language (he), gender-inclusive language (he or she), or gender-neutral language (one). After reading the ad, respondents reported their feelings of inclusion/ exclusion, rated their willingness to invest time and effort in this job (Experiment 1) and evaluate organizational environment (Experiment 1 and 2). The results showed that women felt more ostracized in both experiments when they experienced gender-exclusive language comparing with a gender-inclusive ad. Also, in Experiment 1 women reported less readiness for personal investment in the described job. Men responded similarly regardless of the ad language.

Organizational factors. Mlika, Khelil, and Salem (2017) analysed 42 cases of WO and identified three components which take part in the WO process: target (ostracizee, the person who is excluded), actor (ostracizer, the person who excludes the target) and institution (the organization where the target and the actor work). Ostracizee reported such causes of WO as envy from the actor, power abuse, poor management, and a lack of communication and persuasive power. It is also possible to develop the potential image of the actor (ostracizer): in 30 cases (75%) actors were higher in the hierarchy and in 33 cases (82.9%) have problems in communication with other employees. Consequently, the WO condition can be associated with the weak organizational climate and HR management. Organizational structure and organizational culture also may impact the existence of WO in the organization. If working activities presuppose large physical distance or low interdependence, WO possibility if higher (Mlika, Khelil & Salem, 2017). Competitive or poor-value organizational culture may generate WO too. The WO can be used as a tool to gain power or to defuse the competitor (Gamian-Wilk, Salton Meyer, & Wilk, 2017). Different leadership styles have been related to WO. Styles that assume strict management and control (authoritative and transactional styles) or with shared leadership (Laissez-faire style) are positively correlated with WO, while transformational leadership style (which includes employees in the decision-making process) negatively correlated with WO (Kanwal et al., 2019).

In the present research, the influence of demographic factors on WO is explored. There are studies stated that “low-status or low-power workers (such as women and people of colour in low-level jobs) are more likely to be recipients of workplace abuse” (Burke-Smalley & Zelin, 2019, p. 25). Studies which explored demographic characteristics in ostracism conditions claimed that the most influential factor is the level in the hierarchy usually, as most often the offender has the position in the professional ladder (Mlika, et al., 2017). Other demographics of the offender or the target of ostracism do not seem to have importance, as there is evidence that people of any age, gender or experience and education level can be subject to an exclusion (Hiltan, et al., 2006). So, the following hypothesises on the influence of demographic factors are proposed.

H3a: the position has a significant impact on ostracism

H3b: the gender does not have a significant impact on ostracism

H3c: the age does not have a significant impact on ostracism

H3d: working experience does not have a significant impact on ostracism

H3e: education does not have a significant impact on ostracism

Consequences of workplace ostracism.

Research distinguishes among several consequences: psychological, physical and pragmatic. In terms of psychology, ostracism influences the four basic psychological needs of human beings: belonging, control, self-esteem, and meaningful existence (Williams, 2001). The ostracizee is seeking to fulfil these needs; but WO can lead to depression, estrangement and helplessness (Williams & Nida, 2011). To maintain physical and mental health people need to share their emotions and ideas with others (Heaphy & Dutton, 2008); when it is not possible due to ostracism, emotional resources are not reinforced, leading to emotional exhaustion (Lee & Ashforth, 1996). WO could lead to such emotional conditions as sadness (Buckley et al., 2004), anger (Chow et al., 2008; Zadro et al., 2004), shame (Chow et al., 2008), anxiety (Baumeister & Tice, 1990), and social pain (Riva et al., 2011). WO tend to provoke aggression ( Chen et al., 2012; Ren et al., 2018) and dishonesty (Kouchaki & Wareham, 2015; Poon et al., 2013) and to reduce helping behaviour (Thau et al., 2007; van Beest & Williams, 2006). Moreover, ostracizees tend to perceive themselves as less human beings (Bastian & Haslam, 2010).

WO also influences people's physical well-being as it causes changes in ostracizee heart rate, breath, pupillary state. The physical effect of WO provokes the activity of the certain areas of the brain that was recorded using MRI (Baird et al., 2010); moreover, physical pain and social pain influence the same areas of the brain, so have a similar negative impact on person's well-being (Eisenberger et al., 2003; MacDonald & Leary, 2005). Changes in pupillary state are also associated with the manifestation of WO (Kouchaki & Wareham, 2015; Sleegers et al., 2017).

The pragmatic influence of WO is often overlooked, but still, it has high importance. (Robinson et al., 2013). When an employee is excluded from the communicational loop, he or she loses access to some work-related information and resources. (Robinson et al., 2013). An ostracized person is excluded from both formal and informal networks (Sparrowe, Liden, Wayne, & Kraimer, 2001), so he or she experiences the lack of communication, advice and social support from co-workers (Kuipers, 1999). Ostracizee also may face with the deprivation of voice, when his or her opinion is not taken into account (Tehreem Fatima). In working context, employee cannot rely on interpersonal relationship and do not receive functional support from co-workers.

WO also affects the individual, team and organizational performance. WO negatively affects organizational performance (Ferris, Brown, Berry & Lian, 2008; Dotan-Eliaz, Sommer, & Rubin, 2009; Mlika, et al., 2017). Another study reveals the positive correlation between WO and counterproductive work behaviour (Zhao et al, 2013). A study based on Chinese hotels states that WO leads to lower work participation and a decrease in performance affecting the quality of hotel service (Leung et al., 2011). WO positively correlates with work satisfaction, emotional and physical exhaustion and depression (Wu et al., 2011; Wu, Yim, Kwan, & Zhang, 2012). Employees who experience WO also display lower job satisfaction, well-being and efficiency (Mao et al., 2017).

According to the Harvard Business report (2013) where Porath and Pearson interviewed 800 employees from 17 countries there are following consequences of workplace mistreatment (which include also ostracism):

* 48% of respondents experienced a decrease in work effort.

* 80% of respondents thought over the incident during working hours.

* 66% of respondents experienced a decline in performance declined.

* 78% of respondents experienced a decline in commitment to the organization.

WO can lead to the deformation of communication between employees. People have different status and different attitudes from colleagues. The situation when the person experience WO is deeply explored: social and organizational factors which provoke WO, physical and psychological consequences of WO. But the question of ostracism awareness is not reflected in the previous study: what is the person's perception of his or her status in the team and what is the team's true attitude. The worker's subjective opinion is reflected in WO level. The team real attitude is reflected in sociometry index, taken from sociometry analysis. Three scenarios are possible: a worker is ostracized by the team and realize it; a worker is ostracized and not realize it; a worker is not ostracized but perceive the behaviour of colleagues as ostracism.

H4: there is a strong relationship between the level of workplace ostracism and sociometry index of each worker.

Moderators of the influence of workplace ostracism.

In most cases, the moderator effect is connected with the psychological condition of the ostracizee. High psychological capital, which consists of optimism, hope, self-efficacy and resilience, has a moderating effect on the outcomes of WO, preventing decreased job performance, increased job stress and turnover intention (Haq, 2014). Psychological flexibility or the ability to fully concentrate on the present moment, perceive and analyse the situation and react according to some personal standards (Hayes et al., 2013) diminishes the correlation between WO and psychological distress (Waldeck et al., 2017). Psychological detachment is reflected in the ability to disengage from the working environment and other work-related issues, thoughts and concerns (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007); it moderates the effect of WO on sleeping conditions of the person (Chen & Li, 2019). Personal traits also can decrease the prevalence of WO. So, humour, as well as psychological detachment, is negatively correlated with sleeping conditions ( Chen & Li, 2019). Political skills, as it was mentioned before, facilitate people in communication and understanding social norms ( Wu, Wei, & Hui, 2012; Zhao et al., 2013b). Work-related issues can make differences in terms of WO. When 360-degree feedback is used in the organization, WO is negatively correlated with self-esteem, as it promotes the communication and opinion-sharing between coworkers (Peng & Zeng, 2016). Moreover, bonus monetary rewards, even if they are not associated with compensation, decrease the negative impact of WO on prosocial behaviour (Mok, 2015). It is also known that the ability to handle WO can be trained and improved. It is proven by the research where respondents acquired the technique of focus attention (the concentration on the present moment through breathing meditations, i.e. meaningful breathing) or unfocused attention, and they were exposed to WO (Molet et al., 2013). At the end of the experience, participants report about their level of need satisfaction immediately after the game and the next day. Although afterwards the experiment all participants report the same level of need satisfaction, the data from the next day revealed that those who were trained in focus attention managed to recover from WO quickly.

HRM and workplace ostracism.

To prevent WO or soften the consequences, an organization should adopt certain managerial policies; they determine the reaction of the ostracizee and supervisory in the case of WO. It is difficult for ostracizee to confront WO: you cannot even prove WO, as ostracizer often deny that WO occurred (Williams, 2001). There are some traditional HR practices which help to avoid WO. Formal and informal gatherings encourage communication and unite employees. Strong organizational culture with shared traditions and values enrich society (Lam and Lau, 2008). If WO occurred, the supervisor should take action to support ostracizee and mitigate the possible influence of WO (Erkutlu & Chafra, 2016). First, it is necessary to identify who excludes and why it happens. Second, the ostracizee with the supervisor should collaborate to help the employee to recover from mistreatment and restore resources. Third, the additional pieces of training for employees can be offered to explain the reasons and consequences of WO.