Being Ostracized Versus Out of the Loop: Redundant or Unique Predictors of Variance in Workplace Outcomes?
exclusion
ostracism
out of the loop
workplace
Journal
Journal of applied social psychology
ISSN: 0021-9029
Titre abrégé: J Appl Soc Psychol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0321050
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2021
Jan 2021
Historique:
entrez:
26
7
2021
pubmed:
27
7
2021
medline:
27
7
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Based on the existing research, being excluded from information (i.e., being out of the loop) produces similar consequences as being ignored or excluded from activities. Consequently, one might wonder whether it is necessary to measure or study different types of exclusion in the workplace context, rather than just assessing a single type of exclusion. The current research investigated the associations between two types of workplace exclusion (i.e., being ostracized and being left out of the loop) and various workplace outcomes, with the purpose of determining whether these different types of exclusion predict unique or redundant variance in these workplace outcomes. In Study 1, we obtained better model fit when we assigned items measuring out-of-the-loop experiences at work to a different factor than items assessing experiences with ostracism at work. In Study 2, we observed that measuring employees' experiences with being out of the loop predicted unique variance in workplace outcomes (e.g., job satisfaction), above and beyond experiences with ostracism at work. Relative weight analyses suggested that both ostracism and out-of-the-loop experiences were equally important predictors of these outcomes. Together, these studies indicate that being ostracized and being left out of the loop may be distinct exclusion experiences and better predictions about workplace outcomes can be made by assessing both types of exclusion. On a practical level, measuring different types of exclusion may prove useful, because organizations may need to implement different interventions for addressing distinct types of exclusion.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34305167
doi: 10.1111/jasp.12712
pmc: PMC8297684
mid: NIHMS1720877
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
17-31Subventions
Organisme : NIDA NIH HHS
ID : K12 DA041449
Pays : United States
Références
J Appl Psychol. 2013 Jan;98(1):37-48
pubmed: 22985114
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2005 Apr;88(4):589-604
pubmed: 15796662
Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2010 Sep;36(9):1186-201
pubmed: 20693383
J Soc Psychol. 2018;158(1):93-108
pubmed: 28375814
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000 Nov;79(5):748-62
pubmed: 11079239
Annu Rev Psychol. 2012;63:539-69
pubmed: 21838546
J Appl Psychol. 2001 Jun;86(3):386-400
pubmed: 11419799
Cogn Neurosci. 2011 Mar;2(1):27-33
pubmed: 24168421
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2006 Nov;91(5):918-28
pubmed: 17059310
J Appl Psychol. 2015 Jan;100(1):98-113
pubmed: 24773402
J Appl Psychol. 2015 Mar;100(2):547-56
pubmed: 25314369
Annu Rev Psychol. 2007;58:425-52
pubmed: 16968209
J Appl Psychol. 2005 May;90(3):483-96
pubmed: 15910144
Conscious Cogn. 2015 Jan;31:24-34
pubmed: 25460238
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2001 Dec;81(6):1058-69
pubmed: 11761307
J Soc Psychol. 2015;155(5):497-514
pubmed: 26267130
Psychol Sci. 2008 Aug;19(8):789-95
pubmed: 18816286
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2002 Oct;83(4):817-27
pubmed: 12374437
J Exp Soc Psychol. 2009 Jul;45(4):686-694
pubmed: 20161218
J Appl Psychol. 2009 Jul;94(4):900-12
pubmed: 19594233
J Appl Psychol. 2008 Nov;93(6):1348-66
pubmed: 19025252
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2007 Jan;92(1):42-55
pubmed: 17201541
J Appl Psychol. 2003 Oct;88(5):879-903
pubmed: 14516251
Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2003 Jun;29(6):747-58
pubmed: 15189630
Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2010 Jul;36(7):869-82
pubmed: 20505162
Death Stud. 2015 Jan-Jun;39(1-5):19-23
pubmed: 24592875