CC BY
76
Organizational Psychology, 2022, Vol. 12, No. 3, P. 36-56. DOI: 10.17323/2312-5942-2022-12-3-36-56
ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
www.orgpsyjournal.hse.ru
Role of workplace ostracism and self-esteem on workplace deviance
Usman ZAFAR
Arabian Gulf University, Manama, Bahrain
Abstract. Being ostracized and resulting in interpersonal or organizational deviance is a pinching topic in research as well as in the practical world. Purpose. The present study analyses the relationship between workplace ostracism and two types of workplace deviance, i.e., interpersonal deviance (workplace incivility, workplace bullying, violence, workplace harassment, social undermining, organizational mobbing) and organizational deviance (work behavior deviated from certain norms), and examines the unexplored moderating role of self-esteem between these relationships. Study design. The respondents of the study were various managerial level employees from the food and textile sectors of Pakistan. Data from 380 employees were collected through a closed-ended, self-administered five-point Likert scale using employee intercept convenience-based sampling technique due to unavailability of the sampling frame. The partial least squares structural equation modelling (SEM) approach was utilized through SmartPLS software for quantitative results. Findings. Findings of the study revealed that ostracism is a significant factor in interpersonal and organizational deviance, but it seemed that organizational deviance is more strongly affected by ostracism. The subsequent results also justify that self-esteem is a valuable factor for these circumstances of deviance and ostracism. These findings direct the practitioners to nurture a positive work environment to mitigate the negative impact of ostracism. Value of results. Furthermore, off the job, social interactions and activities may bring employees closer to each other, reducing the chances of ostracism and raising self-esteem in employees.
As social by nature, human beings cannot live without society and prefer to live within the societal ambit. It is also a considering factor that human has gradually evolved their dependency on other members of the society for collective benefits. Therefore, they prefer to develop relationships within society to fulfill their needs and wants and peace of mind. Simultaneously, survival in a collective society cannot be achieved without positive and healthy relationships amongst each other. In fact, human's social bonding is necessary for survival, especially to satisfy certain basic needs, which remain unfulfilled when individuals feel rejected (Jahanzeb, Fatima, 2018). The same concept is
Address: Road 2904 Building 293 Manama, 329, Bahrain. E-mail: [email protected]
ORCID: 0000-0003-1416-0390
Keywords: workplace ostracism, deviance, JD-R model, self-esteem.
Introduction
applicable in organizations where a group of people works together and spend most of their time at the workplace.
A positive and negative attitude of employees impacts the workplace environment depending upon cultural and management practices. According to the literature, workplace deviance as antisocial behavior from an employer or employee brings negative consequences is harmful both for employee and organization (Walsh, 2014). On the other hand, the term workplace ostracism is gaining attention among researchers of organizational behavior (OB) and workplace well-being is becoming a priority for both employers and employees. Since the evolution of this concept, researchers are considering this phenomenon as an important research issue causing serious concerns for organizations' productivity and well-being (Liu, Xia, 2016).
Workplace deviance is a potentially harmful behavior for organizations from employees, and it remains one of the most pressing problems within organizations. Researchers describe this harmful behavior from employees contrary to organizational norms as it has a considerable impact on organizational productivity. According to S. L. Robinson and R. J. Bennett, "Workplace deviance is a voluntary behavior that violates significant organizational norms and in so doing threatens the well-being of an organization, its members, or both" (Robinson, Bennett, 1995). In today's competitive business environment, most organizations have certain rules and values to run organizational functions smoothly. They try to create a balanced and healthy working environment beneficial both for employer and employee. However, previous research indicates that employers and employees engage in deviant activities in many situations which have detrimental effects at the workplace (Liu, Ding, 2012). The employee or employer that breaks or violates organization rules, norms and regulations can be described as deviant behavior. Overall, deviance is something unacceptable within an organization or society. Deviance within an organization includes using ill language, physical violence,r verbally abusing a colleague (McCaughey, McGhan, Walsh, Rathert, Belue, 2014).
Accordingly, workplace ostracism leads to huge organizational losses. They believe that workplace ostracism is a type of behavior that has harmful effects on organizations and employees. Ostracism is often defined as an experience of social denial from other members, which emotionally affects the heart, the human mind and, as a result, hurts the entire organization and its members (Peng, Zeng, 2017).
Workplace ostracism occurs when someone is excluded from the group of employees or feels neglected by co-workers. This means ostracized employees become less interested in performing their roles for organizational betterment. Workplace deviance is defined as "voluntary behavior that violates significant organizational norms and in so doing threatens the well-being of an organization, its members, or both". Employees with deviant behaviors will try harder to perform activities generally accepted by the group members. "In fact, it is impossible for employees to perform extra miles when employees feel ostracized and consider themselves not part of the group" (Erkutlu, Chafra, 2018).
Numerous researchers consider workplace ostracism as an important antecedent variable of workplace deviance as it brings pain and anger to ostracized employees. People have a fundamental need for self-esteem because it leads to a sense of confidence and worth. On the other hand, people / employees feel inferiority complex and helpless without confidence. However, within the organizational context, the need for self-esteem is sometimes overshadowed by ostracism (Benos, Kalogeras, de Ruyter, Wetzels, 2018).
The phenomenon of ostracization directly or indirectly hurts the self-esteem of the ostracized members. It develops a severe level of depression and ill behavior among ostracized employees. Ostracism can significantly affect employee's behavior because human beings are social animals, and their needs and wants are fulfilled through social interactions. However, the experience of
social interaction is not pleasant for all, and most people recall it as being excluded in many social contexts, including the workplace (Mao, Liu, Jiang, Zhang, 2018). Theories on individual behavior emphasize three basic psychological needs: autonomy, competence and relatedness are universal for all individuals (Wu, Liu, Kwan, Lee, 2016).
Background
Organizational deviance is associated with behaviors that reduce an effort to complete certain tasks from employees. Research shows that organizational withdrawal is very difficult to hide. In fact, every organization tries to achieve set goals and targets. However, these efforts show no result due to employees' deviant behavior (Wetzel, Schroger, Widmann, 2013). Workplace deviance occurs in all types of work environments. Therefore, every organization is needed to create better working environments for their employees, especially to address the issue of workplace deviance (Palo, Chawla, 2015). Undoubtedly, human resources (HR) has evolved rapidly from hiring and firing towards HR as a business partner in Pakistan. However, many organizations are still facing the challenge of ostracism; especially in the food industry, people are being ostracized for organizational and personal gains. A new study found that being ignored at the workplace has a worse effect on the mental and physical well-being of the employees than others factors such as bullying or harassment.
Further studies about workplace ostracism and deviant behavior also reveal that most of the employees' productivity concerns are due to the work environment (Anjum, Ming, Siddiqi, Rasool, 2018). In order to be productive and sustainable, organizations should develop human resources as valuable and the most important assets (Tuzun, £etin, Basim, 2017). Therefore, to avoid ostracism at the workplace, HR people must be extra careful to diminish the impact of ostracism on employees with the help of training, motivation and reward. If they feel any unusual activity in any employee, such as being late or having too many breaks, it is the time to get involved.
In this regard, organizations should develop effective human resources management practices to improve employee performance with the help of education, training, and career planning for better productivity which is beneficial for both employees as well as organizations. However, the primary focus of management is on discussing what deviant behaviours look like and why such behaviour takes place, not on causes and consequences within organizations (Casad, Bryant, 2016). Only employee behaviour is the center of attention in an organization for smooth organizational functions. In addition, recent research on interpersonal deviance focuses on co-workers engaging in deviant behavior towards other organizational members such as team members, subordinates, and supervisors (Bande, Jaramillo, Fernandez-Ferrin, Varela, 2019). Researchers of OB and IB support this stance that employing best practices at work can shape employees' behaviour positively diminish the bad effects of ostracism in organizations (Tuzun, Kalemci, 2018).
Different studies have been conducted to assess workplace ostracism in general and that does not differentiate the forms of ostracism behaviors and classify the source of ostracism. An individual may encounter numerous kinds of behaviors that may ostracize him (her), leading to workplace deviance. Furthermore, in addition to the main and moderator effects of workplace ostracism on employees' CWBs, we also expect that future research should employ some potential mediators (e.g., job satisfaction, commitment, belongingness, and self-esteem) to explore the mechanisms underlying the relationship. Job satisfaction as an example, given that workplace ostracism, is a painful and aversive experience, ostracized employees experienced greater dissatisfaction (Ferris et al., 2008).
To improve our results, it makes sense to validate our results externally. This would require further research in which we would replicate our research in other settings. Second, our data support the importance of the individual position (proactive personality) and individual ability (political
skill) roles to understand the correlation between workplace ostracism and Counter-Productive Work Behavior (CWBs). However, we did not include some behavioral strategies such as self-serving, impression management, and ingratiation, which may influence these relationships in our study."
Therefore, being ostracized in collectivistic cultures such as Pakistani culture may generate severe negative outcomes compared to individualistic culture. And it is thus likely to happen that workplace ostracism is related to workplace deviance because it undermines target employee's self-esteem. The purpose of the study is to explore the effect of workplace ostracism on workplace deviance in the context of self-esteem. In this research study, the pivot of research is to explore and understand the effect of workplace ostracism on workplace deviance within organizations. This study explores the relationship between ostracism and deviant behaviour among employees. It also investigates the mediating effect of self-esteem on the relationship between ostracism, interpersonal and organizational deviance. Some research questions of the study are; does workplace ostracism affect the self-esteem of the employees? Does self-esteem relate to interpersonal deviance? Does self-esteem relate to organizational deviance? Does self-esteem moderate the relationship between workplace ostracism and organizational and interpersonal deviance?
Literature Review
Job demand — resource model theoretical background
Job demand resource (JD-R) model since its advent is highly popular as one of a Google scholar revealed that two seminal papers discussed this model had been cited more than 2400 times (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, Schaufeli, 2001; Schaufeli, Bakker, 2004). This model proposes that high job demand leads to stress characterized by exhaustion, and high resources increase motivation at the workplace among employees. This model was first published by Demerouti et al., 2001 to understand the antecedents of burnout, a chronic state of work-related psychological stress such as being fed up and cynicism (Naz, Atta, Malik, 2017). The JD-R model, after some years, supplemented with work engagement with positive characteristics at work such as dedication, vigor and absorption (Maslach, Schaufeli, 2017).
The JD-R model proposes that every job includes demands (e.g., job require physical & mental efforts such as work overload), and resources (e.g., be functional in achieving work goals due to personal growth and development (Borst, Kruyen, Lako, 2017). The main popularity of this model is due to its flexibility as according to the JD-R theory, all working environments can be categorized into demand and resources at the job place, especially to make predictions about worker well-being (Bakker, Demerouti, Sanz-Vergel, 2014). Another reason for its popularity is that it hypothetically comprises all job burdens and resources and can be personalized to a much wider diversity of work situations. The comprehensive scope of the model charms searchers, just as its suppleness is striking to practitioners (Adil, Bag, 2018). A hefty pool of consistent and effective short scales that measure job demands, job resources, personal resources, psychological states, and positive and negative outcomes is available and can be included to "dress up" the JD-R model, depending on the information needed (Nell, 2015).
Workplace ostracism and deviance
Ostracism (Greek, ostrakismos) was a process under Athenian democracy in which any inhabitant could be disqualified from the city (state) of Athen for ten years in consequence of fury. It has been called the "worthy exile" by scholar P. J. Rhodes. The word ostracism remains to be used for numerous circumstances of social "shunning". The literature presents ostracism as a pervasive and constant painful phenomenon (Lomas, Medina, Ivtzan, Rupprecht, Eiroa-Orosa, 2017); as it threatens basic
psychological needs: belonging, self-esteem, control and meaningful existence. It can lead to a sense of pain (Mao, Liu, Jiang, Zhang, 2018); maladaptive behaviors (Wu et al., 2011); feelings of alienation (Walsh, Kolobov, Simanovskaya, 2019).
Further researchers describe ostracism as an act of excluding or ignoring another person (Williams, Nida, 2011). In this regard, the past decade has witnessed a lot of research interest on ostracism and its consequences, i.e., what happens when the person is rejected or excluded (Nezlek, Wesselmann, Wheeler, Williams, 2015). Recent research regarding ostracism also indicates that people may be ostracized almost daily (Machell, Kashdan, Short, Nezlek, 2015). However, more recently, the research interest on ostracism has moved into two areas: group and workplace (Robinson, O'Reilly, Wang, 2013); because people join groups to reduce self-uncertainty (Gaffney, Rast III, Hogg, 2018).
Being isolated in a collective society such as Pakistan, where individuals prefer to be recognized and respected in a group or society, brings negative results. The studies in this domain have noted that workplace ostracism significantly affects basic human needs such as self-esteem, belongingness and needs of control (Fiset et al., 2017). As an act of destructive phenomena within the organization, workplace ostracism negatively affects employees' behavior, such as self-esteem and job performance (Stenseng et al., 2014). In the past, the main organizational focus was on profit. Studies have shown that 80% of the employees' productivity issues are related to the work environment (Anjum, Ming, Siddiqi, Rasool, 2018).
The history of workplace deviance research has evolved from focusing on singular behaviors, such as theft or withdrawal in the 1970s and 1980s — to the broader focus on a range of behaviors in the 21st century. Many causes have been studied as sources of deviant workplace behaviors, for example, personality characteristics such as neuroticism or low conscientiousness, modeling others' behavior (Brady Germain, Cummings, 2010); experiences of injustice, uncertainty, lack of control, or feelings of anger, frustration, and dissatisfaction (O'Neill, Lewis, Carswell, 2011). Nowadays, some researchers are returning to a focus on individual behaviors, or smaller clusters of behaviors such as sexual misconduct, gossip, and even constructive deviance (Naseer, Raja, Syed, Donia, Darr, 2016), and the outcomes of workplace deviance on actors, targets, and observers are being investigated (Al-Atwi, 2018).
S. L. Robinson and R. J. Bennett have identified two main types of workplace deviance, i.e., interpersonal deviance and organizational deviance (Robinson, Bennett, 1995). Interpersonal deviance (ID) includes workplace incivility in which organizational members believe that they are being disregarded by other members (Hershcovis, 2011); workplace bullying, violence, workplace harassment, social undermining (Bennett, Marasi, Locklear, 2018); and many other forms such as organizational mobbing (Ertureten, Cemalcilar, Aycan, 2013). Next, organizational deviance (OD) can be defined as deviant behavior deviated from certain norms, and this type of deviant behavior is significantly harmful to organizational productivity (Erkutlu, Chafra, 2018). In this regard, the researchers of OD and ID show that deviance behavior causes organizations' productivity significantly throughout the world (Howald, Lortie, Gallagher, Albert, 2018). Therefore, it can be argued that the consequences of organizational deviance may be direct and indirect. Organizational deviance represents deviant behavior as harming individual who damages workplace relationships (Howald, Lortie, Gallagher, Albert, 2018). Organizational deviance is associated with behaviors that reduce an effort to complete certain tasks from employees (Benos, Kalogeras, de Ruyter, Wetzels, 2018).
The literature on workplace deviance points out the distinction between interpersonal deviance and organizational deviance. According to the literature, organizational deviance encompasses deviant behaviors under attack within the organization, such as being work late for permission (Lian, Ferris, Morrison, Brown, 2014); and interpersonal deviance encompasses targeted toward
individuals such as theft and humiliating co-workers and gossip. On these bases present study hypothesized that:
H1: Workplace ostracism has an impact on interpersonal deviance.
H2: Workplace ostracism has an impact on organizational deviance. Self-esteem and deviance
Workplace ostracism discourages employees from maintaining lasting relationships within the organization and as a result, ostracized employees respond with a negative outcome such as interpersonal deviance and maladaptive behavior (Yan, Zhou, Long, Ji, 2014). Workplace ostracism significantly encourages interpersonal deviance as it involves isolating and neglecting employees. In this regard, research studies show a positive association between workplace ostracism and interpersonal deviance if the principle of diminishing self-esteem is employed properly. In fact, numerous studies have investigated the impacts of workplace ostracism; however, few have examined the underlying mechanism between workplace ostracism and behavioral outcomes in the context of self-esteem (Chung, Yang, 2017). For example, workers' conflict in organizations was found to mediate the relationship between workplace ostracism and interpersonal deviance and self-esteem, i.e., in-role behavior and organizational citizenship behavior (Chung, 2015; Scott et al., 2015).
It is very natural that when this basic need is revoked, the experience individual feels distressed and lacks self-esteem (Yu, Duffy, Tepper, 2018). The act of being excluded or isolated by others from group interactions at work is a painful experience for those who experience it. Workplace ostracism occurs whenever an individual is being ignored or unwanted. Undoubtedly, employee productivity is a key factor in organizational success, such as work engagement. However, it badly affects employees when they feel ostracism at the workplace (Yang, Treadway, 2018).
Individuals being social by nature, primarily to fulfill their needs and wants, spend long periods of their life in social organizations such as schools and companies. However, at the workplace, they develop a significant relationship with other members of the organization. Workplace ostracism is defined as being excluded or ignored at work can bring negative outcomes for organizations and employees (Ferris, Lian, Brown, Morrison, 2015). When employees experience ostracism, it significantly affects their self-esteem because self-esteem provides a foundation stone with belief in our abilities and motivation to carry them out (Chung, 2015).
Workplace deviance is the most pressing problem facing by today's organizations in terms of productivity. According to researchers, employees' deviant behavior or behavior contrary to prevailing organizational norms can cost the organization billions of dollars (Kiviruusu et al., 2016). Drawing from the self-esteem threat perspective, D. L. Ferris with colleagues theorized and found that when ostracized, employees showed lower self-esteem and engaged less in citizenship behavior to be consistent with their deficient self-views (Ferris et al., 2015).
The research present on organizational deviance shows that deviant acts from employees take place in organizations on a regular basis (Bryant, 2015). Now the question is: What are the causes of employees' deviant behavior within organizations? In this regard, researchers have placed self-esteem as an antecedent to organizational deviance (Whelpley, McDaniel, 2016). Although self-esteem is not strongly associated with happiness or job performance (Ferris et al., 2015), it has many outcomes, such as job performance, satisfaction, and mental stability (Howald, Lortie, Gallagher, Albert, 2018). In this regard, the research on self-esteem suggests that when employees experience diminished self-esteem from abuse, they try to protect their sense of self (Mitchell, Vogel, Folger, 2015). They engage in destructive behavior because of diminished self-esteem to reassert their self-image (Vogel, Mitchell, 2017).
The latest research presents ostracism as a major concern both for organizations and employees at the workplace. Employees who are ostracized may become the victim of frustration and deprivation of their self-esteem. This deprivation of self-esteem lowers the morale of the employees, and the outcome can be deviant behavior at the workplace. This is also evident in recent research, which found self-esteem is a major cause to mediate the relationship between organizational ostracism and employee's job performance (Ferris, Chen, Lim, 2017). Ostracism, a painful phenomenon, threatens individual physical and mental well-being, especially self-esteem, and as a result, individuals tend to engage in hostile activities (Williams, Nida, 2011).
In an organizational context, ostracism encourages negative work behavior, such as depression, lack of self-esteem and emotional exhaustion. In fact, workplace ostracism revokes employees from performing their job tasks effectively as it reduces work motivation harmful both for the organization and employee. Therefore, it can be argued and as results show that workplace ostracism and organizational deviance have a significant association with self-esteem. Therefore, based on all the above discussion researcher proposed the following hypotheses:
H3: Self-esteem moderates the relationship between ostracism and interpersonal deviance. H4: Self-esteem moderates the relationship between ostracism and organizational deviance. In the present study, there are four variables in the current model ostracism, self-esteem, interpersonal deviance, and organization deviance. Here, a study is being conducted to check the moderating influence of individuals' self-esteem on interpersonal and organization deviance, as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Theoretical framework
Methodology
The present research is a quantitative research work in which a survey method was employed to investigate the effect of workplace ostracism on workplace deviance in the context of self-esteem in Pakistani foods and textile sector organizations. The primary purpose of the study is to investigate and understand the relationship between ostracism and the self-esteem of the employees, i.e., workplace ostracism affects employee's self-esteem, and it may lead to interpersonal as well as organizational deviance. The study is cross-sectional due to the time and resources constraints. A cross-sectional study design is very useful to measure the research outcome (Setia, 2016); all the measurements for a sample member are obtained at a single point in time (Sedgwick, 2014).
In this study, the current population of interest comprised of the food and textiles sector organizations. The study was carried out in three foods and three textiles' sectors organizations, namely "K&N's Foods", "Mr. Chicken", "Big Bird", "Shafi Textiles", "Crescent Bahuman" and "US Apparel", from food sector these companies are having around ten thousand and textile companies having thirty thousand employees. According to these figures, the total population for the present study is around 40,000 employees, it is recommended that this population sample size be 380 employees (Krejcie, Morgan, 1970).
The sampling technique is described as a range of methods to reduce the amount of data you need to collect by considering only data from the sub-group rather than all possible cases and elements to (Saunders et al., 2009). The present research was based on employee intercept convenience-based sampling due to time and resources constraints and unavailability of sampling frame as it was impossible to collect data from the whole food and textile sector organizations within Pakistan.
In this research study, quantitative data were collected through adopted questionnaires consist of demographic variables such as gender, age, experience, and qualification for generalizing results. Accordingly, the main research variables and their measures thirteen-item scales was used to measure workplace ostracism (Ferris et al., 2008), ten-item scale was used to measure self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1965). The nine-item scale was used to measure self-esteem, the five-item scale was used to measure interpersonal deviance, and the twelve-item scale was used to measure organizational deviance (Bennett, Robinson, 2000). All items were measured using a five-point Likert scale ranging from "1" for "Strongly Disagree" and "5" for "Strongly Agree". Lastly, the collected data was analysed through Smart-PLS using the Structural Equation Model technique. Keeping in view all ethical issues regarding research, no such question or field is included in the questionnaire that may disclose the name or identity of the respondent or his / her organization or by which the respondent may feel offended.
Cleansing of collected data
Data cleansing refers to the procedure being adopted to scan the errors in data made by the respondents (Sekaran, Bougie, 2013). The detectable errors can occur due to two reasons; they can be either errors made by respondents, or they can be entry errors. The errors due to respondents occur if they provide an unclear response or false information. On the other hand, errors and omissions in the data entry may occur due to some missing value that might have been filled validly, but the researcher leaves it blank.
Table 1. Demographic questions responses
Data analysis and preparation
Variables
Meanings
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Designation responses
General manager Head of department Senior manger Manger Line manager Executive Officer Supervisor
15 22 5
54
42
33
76
114
361
4.2 6.1
I.4
15.0
II.6 9.1
21.1 31.6 100.0
4.2 6.1
I.4
15.0
II.6 9.1
21.1 31.6 100.0
4.2 10.2 11.6 26.6 38.2 47.4 68.4 100.0
Total
Gender Male 311 86.1 86.1 86.1
Female 50 13.9 13.9 100.0
Total 361 100.0 100.0
Service duration Less than a year 82 22.7 22.7 22.7
1 to 2 years 77 21.3 21.3 44.0
2 to 5 years 17 4.7 4.7 48.8
More than 5 years 185 51.2 51.2 100.0
Total 361 100.0 100.0
Education Bachelors 109 30.2 30.2 30.2
Masters 128 35.5 35.5 65.7
Others 124 34.3 34.3 100.0
Total 361 100.0 100.0
Respondent age Less than 30 years 127 35.2 35.2 35.2
30-35 years 76 21.1 21.1 56.2
36-40 years 51 14.1 14.1 70.4
41-45 years 54 15.0 15.0 85.3
46-50 years 46 12.7 12.7 98.1
Above 50 7 1.9 1.9 100.0
Total 361 100.0 100.0
Although all the questions in the questionnaire were required to be essentially responded to, the data still included some questionnaires having missing values to certain questions. In the current survey, the questionnaires with missing values were omitted. For the present study total sample size of 380 valid and completely filled questionnaires was 361; according to this response rate for the study is more than 90 percent.
Descriptive statistics
Descriptive or demographic statistics is the first step for data analysis, which contains demographical questions to build individuals' interest and get the information about the demographic stats of the target audience. According to research type and demand, the present study contains five demographic questions: the respondent's designation, gender, duration of service in the organization, qualification, and age. For the purpose of data analysis of these questions, descriptive frequencies analysis was made through SPSS.
Table 1 shows the result of the first section of the questionnaire regarding five demographic questions. Statistics results revealed that from a total valid 361 responses supervisor is on the top by having 114 respondents. Next, the data is more male dominant by having 311 male respondents, third was regarding service duration, and results show that the majority of respondents have experience of more than five years. While talking about their education, master's and above is on the top by having 128 respondents. The last question about their age shows that most respondents are below 40 years of age, with a cumulated percent of 70.4%.
Validity and reliability testing
After demographic analysis, the next test is to verify the validity of the instrument and reliability of data. Reliability statistics are being used to show the consistency of data, whereas the validity concept talks about that the items should measure well enough what they are being supposed and used to be measure, simplifying that validity shows that the instrument is measuring its variables well. For this purpose, J. F. Hair Jr. with colleagues recommended two different validities, i.e., convergent validity and discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2017). Convergent or congregate validity is a measure defined as a degree to which all the compound items of the model are being used to evaluate and assess the very same concept (Hair, Hult, Ringle, Sarstedt, 2014). It shows and supports the theoretical correlation between items and variables and supports the model. This test is being
taken for both inner as well as outer models. For outer model factor loading or item reliability analysis is being done, while the inner model average variance extracted is being conducted to measure the convergent validity.
Table 2 shows the convergent validity results through factor analysis and average variance extracted, whereas reliability through Cronbach and Composite. Factor analysis is the basic criterion to check the goodness of measurability of any question for its own variable. This value should be greater than 0.7, but 0.6 loadings are acceptable when validity criteria are up to the mark. Here if any question did not meet the criteria, it is recommended that the researcher not consider that question for further analysis. The above table shows the reliable items filtered after initial factor analysis screening. Next, AVE second criteria assure the convergent validity of data by approving the theoretical correlation between the variables. The criteria for this are that the value should be greater than 0.5 and all variables have well enough values. The next criteria for reliability is that value should be greater than 0.7 (Hair, Hult, Ringle, Sarstedt, Thiele, 2017). The results show that all four variables have a good enough value for each criterion by having values between range (0.784 -0.935) which are good enough to meet the J. F. Hair Jr with colleagues set criteria.
Table 2. Reliability and convergent validity
Variables Items Factor Loading AVE Cronbach Composite Alpha Reliability
Ostracism Others at work stopped you during the conversation Others refused to talk to you at work Others at work treated you as if you weren't there .669 .671 .775
Others at work did not invite you or ask you if you wanted anything when they went out for a coffee break .756 .516 .811 .864
You have been included in conversations at work (Reverse Coded) .771
You had to be the one to start a conversation in order to be social at .656
work
Organizational Have you taken an additional or longer break than is acceptable at .697
deviance your workplace Do you come in late to work without permission Have you spoiled your work environment .699 .679
Intentionally worked slower than you could have worked .670 .501 .858 .889
Discussed confidential company information with an unauthorized .733
person
Used an illegal drug or consumed alcohol on the job .759
Put little effort into your work .703
Dragged out work in order to get overtime .721
Self-esteem On the whole, I am satisfied with myself At times I think I am no good at all .878 .885
I feel that I have a number of good qualities .755 .708 .923 .935
I am able to do things as well as most other people .834
I feel I do not have much to be proud of .832
I certainly feel useless at times .857
Interpersonal You made fun of someone at work .795
deviance You said something hurtful to someone at work .759
You Made an ethnic, religious, or racial remark at work .779 .540 .784 .854
Do you curse at someone at work .679
Do you play a mean prank on someone at work .651
Discriminant Validity
The next criteria to measure the validity is through discrimination validity measurement. Discriminant talks about the truth that variables and items are theoretically having some different
and have their own separate concept on the bases of pre-developed and tested theories, for this both inner model and outer model is evaluated, the inner model is measured through Fornell-Larcker criteria, and outer model is evaluated through cross-loading (Hair et al., 2017).
Fornell-Larcker criteria
Fornell-Larcker criterion has a requirement that all latent variables comprehend considerable variance with other latent variables in the theoretical model. For this, Fornell-Larcker is measured through the square root of the AVE values of each variable. J. F. Hair Jr. with colleagues set the criteria of goodness that value with own should be greater than 0.7 and maximum from all other variables (Hair et al., 2017).
Table 3. Fornell-Larcker Criteria
Variables IntD ODev Ost SfEs SfEs mod IntD SfEs mod ODev
Interpersonal deviance .735
Organizational deviance .645 .708
Ostracism .691 .534 .718
Self-esteems .022 .077 .107 .841
Self-esteems mod interpersonal deviance .243 .235 .149 -.103 1.000
Self-esteems mod organizational deviance .243 .235 .149 -.103 1.000 1.000
The value of Fornell-Larcker should be greater than 0.7 of all variables with its own and should be lesser than others. So, values that are greater than 0.7 shows valid results. Table 3 shows the Fornell-larker criterion of the present research. All the values met the threshold criteria, so all are good enough. These values are the square root of AVE, like the AVE value of ID is 0.540, and its square root is 0.735 and lesser with other variables, so the value is good enough.
Cross loading
The next measure for supporting the discriminant validity is cross-loading analysis, where we check the relation of an item and it's on hypotheses and other hypotheses. Here the criterion is that value of each item should be maximum with its own construct (variable) and should be lesser with other variables in the model (Ringle, Sarstedt, 2014).
Table 4. Cross loading values of items
Items IntD Ost ODev SfEs SfEs mod IntD SfEs mod ODev
ID-1 .795 .510 .644 .026 .181 .181
ID-2 .759 .497 .611 .075 .158 .158
ID-3 .779 .508 .620 .120 .176 .176
ID-4 .679 .521 .679 -.094 .153 .153
ID-5 .651 .494 .537 -.038 .223 .223
0stracism-10 .533 .756 .561 .101 .124 .124
Ostracism-11 .556 .771 .562 -.006 .098 .098
Ostracism-13 .446 .656 .506 .185 .196 .196
Ostracism-7 .437 .669 .469 .007 .102 .102
Ostracism-8 .483 .671 .520 -.017 .070 .070
Ostracism-9 .513 .775 .539 .192 .059 .059
OD-10 .613 .497 .759 .094 .192 .192
OD-11 .603 .427 .703 .025 .181 .181
OD-12 .644 .501 .721 .073 .196 .196
OD-4 .525 .595 .697 .103 .207 .207
OD-5 .555 .557 .699 .088 .176 .176
OD-6 .679 .521 .679 -.094 .153 .153
OD-8 .546 .485 .670 .029 .148 .148
OD-9 .632 .538 .733 .107 .079 .079
Self-esteems-1 .054 .130 .075 .878 -.118 -.118
Self-esteems-2 -.003 .061 .040 .885 -.106 -.106
Self-esteems-3 -.017 .051 .020 .755 -.093 -.093
Self-esteems-4 .010 .033 .048 .834 -.073 -.073
Self-esteems-5 .011 .077 .058 .832 -.085 -.085
Self-esteems-6 .010 .114 .091 .857 -.062 -.062
Table 4 shows the cross-loading values of all items with their own constructs and others. Clearly, each question has met the criteria of having maximum value with its own variable and lower with all other constructs existing in the model. Hence this also supports the discriminant validity of data.
The goodness of Fit Criteria
The goodness of the model is used to show the integrity of the model, which was developed and run through the partial least square technique. This concept talks about model run goodness, which is mainly measured through SRMR, RMS 0, R2 and some studies also recommended using VIF.
SRMR Value
Model fit is measured by SRMR, x2 and RMS 0. SRMR is defined as the difference between the observed and predicted correlations of the variables, i.e., constructs (Henseler, Ringle, Sarstedt, 2015). The SRMR is the average of the residuals between the observed and implied covariance matrix (correlation matrix). Its value should be less than 0.08, which is considered a good fit value (Hair Jr, Sarstedt, Ringle, Sarstedt, 2017). While taking 6 value into account, its value should be near zero; as its value is near zero, it shows the strength of goodness. Results show the values of goodness criteria by showing SRMR, d_ULS and RMS 0. The value of SRMR is 0.08, which is less than 0.1, which shows the goodness of the model, RMS 0 value is 0.1, which is also near to 0. Values are on both ends good enough, e.g., structural model as well as estimated model.
VIF Model
Variance inflation factor measures the extent to which the variance of the estimated regression coefficients is enhanced compared to the situation when the predictor variables are not linearly related. This can be measured separately for the Inner and the outer model. Inner VIF consists of the variance values of the relationship existing in the measurement model. This is the true measure to check collinearity statistics. It should also have a value less than 5 for all the relationships (Hair Jr, Sarstedt, Ringle, Sarstedt, 2017).
Table 5. Inner variance inflation factor
Variables Interpersonal deviance Organizational deviance
Ostracism 1.039 1.039
Self-esteems 1.027 1.027
Self-esteems mod Interpersonal deviance 1.038
Self-esteems mod Organizational devince 1.038
Values inner VIF shown in Table 5 shows the values of all relationships existing in the model. These values show how much the variance is inflated or overestimated. Basically, this is a measure of Multi-Collinearity in data. There is some criteria value for VIF Values which says that if value less than 5 (VIF < 5), and value near to 1 shows that there is no correlation (Hair Jr, Sarstedt, Ringle, Sarstedt, 2017). The table shows that the maximum value for the model is between Ostracism and Interpersonal Deviance by having 1.039; this shows that all remaining values are less than this, indicating acceptance and goodness of VIF.
Model Run
A model run is an initial test that is supposed to measure coefficient or beta values between the independent and dependent variables, and it is considered the most sig criteria to measure the strength of the model and relationships. This value shows the relationship power between independents and dependent variables, and the sign with them shows the direction of the relationship (Hair et al., 2017). For this purpose, PLS divided this test into two models are supposed to be shown as an inner and outer model; the inner model is all about the relationship between the exogenous and endogenous latent variable and secondly, it shows R2 values for dependent variables, talking about Outer model which showing results regarding items reliability which is measured through factor loading values.
OrD4 OrD5 №
\ t /
0697 0.699 0.679
OST9
OST7
os-ra 4—0.671 0,775
SfEs mod IntD
IntD
Figure 2. Algorithm model run
Figure 2 represents the results of the PLS algorithm obtained to measure the measurement of the structural inner and outer model. The figure shows both inner and outer model results by showing the factor loading values in the outer model and coefficient R2 values for the inner model. All the factors are reliable enough, as explained earlier. Outer model shows all factor loadings are up to mark, whereas the inner shows coefficient values for all relationships. Firstly, the values between ostracism and organizational and interpersonal deviance are 0.713 and 0.675, showing that ostracism strongly influences organizational deviance by 71.3%.
Bootstrapping
The last technique for analysis is Bootstrapping. PLS Bootstrapping technique is applied to find the different results for the used Variables. We used Bootstrapping technique in smart PLS to find out the p-values and t-statistics. If t statistic is greater than 1.96 and p-value is less than 0.05, we accept the hypothesis that the exogenous variable has a significant impact on the endogenous variable. PLS
Bootstrapping technique is applied to find the different results for the used variables. Figure 3 is used to explain bootstrap analysis results for the inner and outer models. The core purpose of Bootstrap is to obtain t-statistics and p-values for entire paths in the model. P-value shows the confidence level on data, 95% confidence level is being considered in the present study that is why p-value should be lesser than 0.05 and t-statistics should be greater than 1.96. For the significance of any path, both of the values should meet the criteria. The upper figure contains t-statistics of each path existing in the model.
Figure 3. Bootstrapping analysis
Findings and discussion
Findings are justified through proposed hypotheses testing by empirical evidence, explaining that bootstrap analysis is used for hypotheses testing. The table is the output of Bootstrapping; the path coefficient shows the beta coefficient values, the impact of Exogenous Variable on Endogenous Variable. Here t-statistics value and p-value are the thresholds for hypotheses acceptance. According to J. F. Hair Jr with colleagues value of t-statistics should be greater than 1.96, and p-values should be less than 0.05 for hypotheses acceptance (Hair et al., 2014). Both of the values should meet the criteria. Otherwise, the hypothesis will be rejected. Here results of all the relationships existing in the model are presented.
Table 6. Hypotheses testing
Hypotheses
Original Sample Standard Sample Mean Deviation
f-statistics p-values
Ostracism -> Interpersonal deviance Ostracism -> Organizational deviance
.675 .713
.679 .718
.033 .030
2.410 23.820
.000 .000
Self-esteems mod Ostracism -> Interpersonal deviance .154 .144 .052 2.951 .003
Self-esteems mod Ostracism -> Organizational deviance .145 .136 .050 2.926 .004
Table 6 shows the results of bootstrap analysis by showing path coefficient in original sample; sample means generated after bootstrapping, its standard deviation for showing the deviance from the mean value, t-statistics, and p-value. Here mainly considered values are coefficient, t and p-value for the significance of hypotheses. Starting from H1 impact of ostracism on interpersonal deviance, its path coefficient value is shown 67.5% impact of ostracism on interpersonal deviance and t-values are 20.410, which is well enough according to J. F. Hair Jr with colleagues criteria and p-value is 0.00, which is also good enough (Hair et al., 2014). Less than 0.05, both values are good enough for acceptance criteria, so results show that H1 will be accepted. Next, H2 is about the impact of ostracism on organizational deviance. Its path coefficient value is shown 71.3% impact of ostracism on organizational deviance, and t-values are 23.820, which is well enough according to J. F. Hair Jr with colleagues criteria and p-value is 0.00, which is also good enough and less than 0.05 both values are good enough for acceptance criteria, so results show that H2 will be accepted (Hair et al., 2014).
These findings also support the existing literature, like significance influence of ostracism on interpersonal deviance, recently a study by A. C. Peng and W. Zeng was conducted by having two studies targeting employees of China both of studies revealed that interpersonal deviance could occur due to ostracism at workplace (Peng, Zeng, 2017). Another study also supports the results conducted by J. Fiset and D. P. Bhave by having multisource data from three different countries, and the study also revealed a positive and significant relationship between that ostracism and interpersonal deviance behaviors (Fiset, Bhave, 2019). Next, existing literature also supports the results about the significant influence of workplace ostracism on organizational deviance. A study by D. E. Warren was conducted to have a deep understanding of types of deviance and ostracism. Study results also support present results by providing evidence regarding the relationship between these two concepts (Warren, 2019).
Next is about moderating role of self-esteem; the first moderating hypothesis is under H3 that self-esteem moderates the relationship between ostracism and interpersonal deviance, coefficient value is 0.154, which means that individual's high self-esteem will strengthen the relation by 15.4%. Its t-values are 2.951 and p-value is 0.003; both values are well enough according to J. F. Hair Jr with colleagues criteria of acceptance and significance of hypotheses, so results show that H3 is accepted. The last moderating role of self-esteem is under H4 between the relationship of ostracism and interpersonal deviance, and the coefficient value is 0.145, which means that individual's high self-esteem will strengthen the relation by 14.5%. Now talking about its significance, t-values are 2.926 and p-value is 0.004; both values meet the acceptance criteria (Hair et al., 2017) and show that H4 is accepted.
Results are also justified through literature likewise, moderating influence of self-esteem between relationships of ostracism and interpersonal and organization deviance, studies found the strong influence of self-esteem on deviance but a paucity of literature was being found regarding its moderating role (Haider, de Pablos Heredero, Ahmed, 2019); but studies consider self-esteem as moderation between other contexts and other variables, like a study by J. Brunet with colleagues conducted and revealed that self-esteem moderated the strongly and significantly the frequency of the depressive symptoms (Brunet, Pila, Solomon-Krakus, Sabiston, O'Loughlin, 2019). The present study shows a significant moderating role of self-esteem between both. This shows that an individual whose self-esteem is high he/she could not bear ostracism and deviance.
Conclusion
This study aims to investigate the impact of workplace Ostracism on workplace deviance, i.e., interpersonal deviance and organizational deviance in a Pakistani Food and Textile Sector so that both sectors may focus on the impacts of organizational deviance, which has become a serious threat for organizations because of its negative outcomes (Erkutlu, Chafra, 2013; Chung, 2015). Moreover, organizational aggression includes destructive behavior, theft, withdrawal, and organizational silence (Demirtas, 2018), which may lead to massive losses. It has been concluded that ostracism has a significant impact on interpersonal deviance, which leads to workplace incivility in which organizational members believe that they are being disregarded by other members (Hershcovis, 2011); workplace bullying, violence, workplace harassment, social undermining (Bennett, Marasi, Locklear, 2018); and many others forms such as organizational mobbing (Ertureten, Cemalcilar, Aycan, 2013). These factors ultimately affect the performance of employees, which directly or indirectly affect the performance of employees.
Similarly, self-esteem ruled both deviants under ostracism and had a significance impact on both deviants. In line with the adverse effects self-esteem threat perspective, D. L. Ferris with colleagues theorized and found that when ostracized, employees showed lower self-esteem and engaged less in citizenship behavior to be consistent with their deficient self-views (Ferris et al., 2015). Simultaneously, self-esteem is not strongly associated with happiness or job performance; it has many outcomes, such as job performance, satisfaction, and mental stability (Ferris et al., 2015; Howald, Lortie, Gallagher, Albert, 2018).
Managerial Implication
Different studies have suggested an adverse effect of ostracism on employees' personal life and organizational health. The negative impact manager should be more vigilant and more responsible in observing culture, workplace conditions, and employee performance. Being a citizen of a collectivistic society, Pakistani are more sensitive and reactive towards social shunning. Social shunning ultimately affects the well-being of employees, which results from deviant behavior. Managers should also nurture a positive work environment to mitigate the negative impact of ostracism. Preferably, teamwork activities and cross-functional job roles may help employees understand the importance of colleagues, peers, and subordinates. Simultaneously, off-the-job social interactions (activities) and family gatherings may bring employees closer to each other, reducing the chances of ostracism.
It is also a challenge for managers to handle unintended ostracism, which will negatively affect employees as a silent killer. Furthermore, a manager should act as a mentor, counselor and motivator at the same time while handling the workforce, which will also reduce the possibility of ostracism. Being a member of a cooperative society, managers should also focus on corporate social responsibility and the well-being of employees by providing family benefits to contribute to employees' personal lives, contributing to employees' self-esteem.
Limitation and Future Direction
The study also expects future research to be gender-based to know the impact of ostracism on male and female behaviors. Secondly, future studies can also evaluate the mediating role of self-esteem between ostracism and deviance. Not only this researcher can also integrate various research models aligned with this model. Future research can also explore the reasons for ostracism
in Pakistan and whether that impacts differently on various sectors, i.e., Food and Textile. Although the Food Industry is an emerging industry in Pakistan with many growth opportunities, the textile sector is facing a decreasing trend, so researchers may also find the impact / share of ostracism reason of industry decline.
References
Al-Atwi, A. A. (2018). Oblivious, paranoid, and disclosed negative ties: An examination of the mechanisms underlying the relationship between negative ties and job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(5), 648-662. Anjum, A., Ming, X., Siddiqi, A., Rasool, S. (2018). An empirical study analyzing job productivity in toxic workplace environments. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(5), 1035.
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., Sanz-Vergel, A. I. (2014). Burnout and work engagement: The JD-R
approach. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav, 1(1), 389-411. Bande, B., Jaramillo, F., Fernández-Ferrín, P., Varela, J. A. (2019). Salesperson coping with work-family conflict: The joint effects of ingratiation and self-promotion. Journal of Business Research, 95, 143-155.
Bennett, R. J., Marasi, S., Locklear, L. (2018). Workplace deviance. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of
Business and Management. USA: Oxford University Press . Benos, T., Kalogeras, N., de Ruyter, K., Wetzels, M. (2018). Diagnosing member-customer ostracism in co-operatives and counterpoising its relationship-poisoning effects. European Journal of Marketing, 52(9/10), 1778-1801. Borst, R. T., Kruyen, P. M., Lako, C. J. (2017). Exploring the job demands — resources model of work engagement in government: Bringing in a psychological perspective. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 39(3), 372-397. Brady Germain, P. A., Cummings, G. G. (2010). The influence of nursing leadership on nurse
performance: a systematic literature review. Journal of Nursing Management, 18(4), 425-439. Brunet, J., Pila, E., Solomon-Krakus, S., Sabiston, C. M., O'Loughlin, J. (2019). Self-esteem moderates the associations between body-related self-conscious emotions and depressive symptoms. Journal of Health Psychology, 24(6), 833-843. Casad, B. J., Bryant, W. J. (2016). Addressing stereotype threat is critical to diversity and inclusion in
organizational psychology. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 8. Chung, Y. W. (2015). The mediating effects of organizational conflict on the relationships between workplace ostracism with in-role behavior and organizational citizenship behavior. International Journal of Conflict Management, 26(4), 366-385. Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources model
of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499-512. Erkutlu, H., Chafra, J. (2013). Effects of trust and psychological contract violation on authentic
leadership and organizational deviance. Management Research Review, 36(9), 828-848. Erkutlu, H., Chafra, J. (2018). Despotic leadership and organizational deviance: The mediating role of organizational identification and the moderating role of value congruence. Journal of Strategy and Management, 11(2), 150-165. Ertureten, A., Cemalcilar, Z., Aycan, Z. (2013). The relationship of downward mobbing with leadership
style and organizational attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics, 116(1), 205-216. Ferris, D. L., Chen, M., Lim, S. (2017). Comparing and contrasting workplace ostracism and incivility. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4(1), 315-338.
Ferris, D. L., Lian, H., Brown, D. J., Morrison, R. (2015). Ostracism, self-esteem, and job performance: When do we self-verify and when do we self-enhance? Academy of Management Journal, 58(1), 279-297.
Fiset, J., Bhave, D. P. (2019). Mind your language: The effects of linguistic ostracism on interpersonal work behaviors. Journal of Management, 47(2), 430-455.
Gaffney, A. M., Rast III, D. E., Hogg, M. A. (2018). Uncertainty and influence: The advantages (and disadvantages) of being atypical. Journal of Social Issues, 74(1), 20-35.
Haider, S., de Pablos Heredero, C., Ahmed, M. (2019). A three-wave time-lagged study of mediation between positive feedback and organizational citizenship behavior: the role of organization-based self-esteem. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 12, 241-253.
Hair Jr, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage.
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M. (2014). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks.: Sage.
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Thiele, K. O. (2017). Mirror, mirror on the wall: A comparative evaluation of composite-based structural equation modeling methods. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(5), 616-632.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115-135.
Hershcovis, M. S. (2011). "Incivility, social undermining, bullying... oh my!": A call to reconcile constructs within workplace aggression research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(3), 499-519.
Howald, N., Lortie, B., Gallagher, C., Albert, M. A. (2018). Preventing and deterring organizational deviance. A White Paper prepared by the Visibility Committee of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
Jahanzeb, S., Fatima, T. (2018). How workplace ostracism influences interpersonal deviance: The mediating role of defensive silence and emotional exhaustion. Journal of Business and Psychology, 33(6), 779-791.
Liu, H., Xia, H. (2016). Workplace ostracism: A review and directions for future research. Journal of Human Resource and Sustainability Studies, 4(3), 197-201.
Liu, N. T., Ding, C. G. (2012). General ethical judgments, perceived organizational support, interactional justice, and workplace deviance. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(13), 2712-2735.
Lomas, T., Medina, J. C., Ivtzan, I., Rupprecht, S., Eiroa-Orosa, F. J. (2017). The impact of mindfulness on the wellbeing and performance of educators: A systematic review of the empirical literature. Teaching and Teacher Education, 61, 132-141.
Machell, K. A., Kashdan, T. B., Short, J. L., Nezlek, J. B. (2015). Relationships between meaning in life, social and achievement events, and positive and negative affect in daily life. Journal of Personality, 83(3), 287-298.
Mao, Y., Liu, Y., Jiang, C., Zhang, I. D. (2018). Why am I ostracized and how would I react?—A review of workplace ostracism research. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 35(3), 745-767.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B. (2017). Historical and conceptual development of burnout. In W. B. Schaufeli, C. Maslach, T. Marek (Eds.) Professional burnout, Recent Developments in Theory and Research (1-16), Routledge.
McCaughey, D., McGhan, G., Walsh, E. M., Rathert, C., Belue, R. (2014). The relationship of positive work environments and workplace injury: evidence from the National Nursing Assistant Survey. Health Care Management Review, 39(1), 75-88.
Mitchell, M. S., Vogel, R. M., Folger, R. (2015). Third parties' reactions to the abusive supervision of coworkers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(4), 1040-1055.
Naseer, S., Raja, U., Syed, F., Donia, M. B., Darr, W. (2016). Perils of being close to a bad leader in a bad environment: Exploring the combined effects of despotic leadership, leader member exchange, and perceived organizational politics on behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(1), 14-33.
Naz, F., Atta, M., Malik, N. I. (2017). Teacher self-efficacy as determining factor of burnout among college teachers. Journal of Research in Social Sciences, 5(2), 105-120.
Nezlek, J. B., Wesselmann, E. D., Wheeler, L., Williams, K. D. (2015). Ostracism in everyday life: The effects of ostracism on those who ostracize. The Journal of Social Psychology, 155(5), 432-451.
O'Neill, T. A., Lewis, R. J., Carswell, J. J. (2011). Employee personality, justice perceptions, and the prediction of workplace deviance. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(5), 595-600.
Palo, S., Chawla, A. (2015). Incidences of workplace deviance behavior among nurses. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 150-161.
Peng, A. C., Zeng, W. (2017). Workplace ostracism and deviant and helping behaviors: The moderating role of 360 degree feedback. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(6), 833-855.
Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M. (2014). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Robinson, S. L., O'Reilly, J., Wang, W. (2013). Invisible at work: An integrated model of workplace ostracism. Journal of Management, 39(1), 203-231.
Robinson, S. L., Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 555-572.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE). Acceptance and commitment therapy. Measures package, 61 (52).
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 25(3), 293-315.
Sedgwick, P. (2014). Cross sectional studies: advantages and disadvantages. Bmj, 348, 1-2.
Sekaran, U., Bougie, R. (2013). Research methods for buisness: A skill building approach. Italy: Wiley.
Tuzun, I. K., Kalemci, R. A. (2018). Workplace deviance and human resource management relations: A case study of Turkish hotel employees. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 17(2), 137-153.
Tuzun, I. K., £etin, F., Basim, H. N. (2017). Deviant employee behavior in the eyes of colleagues: the role of organizational support and self-efficacy. Eurasian Business Review, 7(3), 389-405.
Vogel, R. M., Mitchell, M. S. (2017). The motivational effects of diminished self-esteem for employees who experience abusive supervision. Journal of Management, 43(7), 2218-2251.
Walsh, G. (2014). Extra-and intra-organizational drivers of workplace deviance. The Service Industries Journal, 34(14), 1134-1153.
Walsh, S. D., Kolobov, T., Simanovskaya, O. (2019). What is it about perceived discrimination that can lead immigrant adolescents to alcohol use and delinquency? The mediating role of feelings of alienation. Substance Use & Misuse, 54(1), 65-77.
Warren, D. E. (2019). The persistence of organizational deviance: When informal sanctioning systems undermine formal sanctioning systems. Business Ethics Quarterly, 29(1), 55-84.
Wetzel, N., Schroger, E., Widmann, A. (2013). The dissociation between the p 3a event-related potential and behavioral distraction. Psychophysiology, 50(9), 920-930.
Whelpley, C. E., McDaniel, M. A. (2016). Self-esteem and counterproductive work behaviors: A systematic review. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(4), 850-863.
Williams, K. D., Nida, S. A. (2011). Ostracism: Consequences and coping. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(2), 71-75.
Wu, C. H., Liu, J., Kwan, H. K., Lee, C. (2016). Why and when workplace ostracism inhibits organizational citizenship behaviors: An organizational identification perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(3), 362-378.
Yan, Y., Zhou, E., Long, L., Ji, Y. (2014). The influence of workplace ostracism on counterproductive work behavior: The mediating effect of state self-control. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 42(6), 881-890.
Yu, L., Duffy, M. K., Tepper, B. J. (2018). Consequences of downward envy: A model of self-esteem threat, abusive supervision, and supervisory leader self-improvement. Academy of Management Journal, 61(6), 2296-2318.
Received 29.10.2021
Роль остракизма на рабочем месте и самооценки в проявлении отклонений трудового поведения
ЗАФАР Усман
Инженерно-технологический университет, Лахор, Пакистан
МАХМУД Асиф
ORCID: 0000-0003-1416-0390
Университет Персидского залива, Манама, Бахрейн
Аннотация. Остракизм на рабочем месте, приводящий к межличностным или организационным отклонениям1, — острая тема как в науке, так и в практике. Цель. Настоящее исследование анализирует взаимосвязь между остракизмом на рабочем месте и двумя типами отклонений в трудовом поведении на рабочем месте, а именно: межличностные отклонения (грубость на рабочем месте, издевательства на рабочем месте, насилие, домогательства на рабочем месте, травля, склоки и дрязги) и организационные отклонения (рабочее поведение, отклоняющееся от определённых норм). Кроме того, была проверена пока неизученная модерационная роль самооценки в этой взаимосвязи. Дизайн исследования. Респондентами исследования были различные управленческие работники пищевой и текстильной промышленности Пакистана. Первичные данные были собраны от 380 сотрудников, самостоятельно заполнивших опросник с помощью закрытой пятибалльной шкалы Р. Ликерта. Была использована «удобная» выборка, сформированная методом «снежного кома» вследствие отсутствия жёстких требований к составу выборки. Для получения количественных результатов с помощью программного обеспечения SmartPLS был использован метод частичного структурного моделирования методом наименьших квадратов (SEM). Результаты. Результаты исследования показали, что остракизм является важным фактором межличностных и организационных отклонений в трудовом поведении, но оказалось, что организационные отклонения сильнее обусловлены остракизмом. Последующие результаты также подтверждают, что самооценка является значимым фактором во взаимосвязи между отклонениями в трудовом поведении и остракизмом. Эти результаты побуждают практиков создавать благоприятную рабочую среду, чтобы смягчить негативное воздействие остракизма. Ценность результатов. Кроме того, социальные взаимодействия и деятельность вне работы могут сблизить сотрудников, уменьшая вероятность остракизма и повышая самооценку сотрудников.
Ключевые слова: остракизм на рабочем месте; девиантность; модель «требования работы — ресурсы»; самооценка.
1 Остракизм на рабочем месте возникает, когда некто исключается из группы сотрудников или чувствует, что коллеги прене-
брегают им. Это означает, что подвергшиеся остракизму сотрудники становятся менее заинтересованными в выполнении своих обязанностей на пользу организации. Отклонение на рабочем месте определяется как «добровольное поведение, которое нарушает важные организационные нормы и тем самым угрожает благополучию организации, её членов или того и другого». Прим. ред.
