The Journal of Social Psychology

ISSN: 0022-4545 (Print) 1940-1183 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vsoc20

Can mindfulness overcome the effects of

workplace ostracism on job performance?

Sadia Jahanzeb, Tasneem Fatima, Basharat Javed & Julie Pitcher Giles

To cite this article: Sadia Jahanzeb, Tasneem Fatima, Basharat Javed & Julie Pitcher Giles
(2019): Can mindfulness overcome the effects of workplace ostracism on job performance?, The
Journal of Social Psychology, DOI: 10.1080/00224545.2019.1707465

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2019.1707465

Published online: 23 Dec 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

This article has been awarded the Centre

for Open Science 'Open Materials' badge.

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vsoc20
THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2019.1707465

Can mindfulness overcome the effects of workplace ostracism on

job performance?
Sadia Jahanzeba, Tasneem Fatimab, Basharat Javedc, and Julie Pitcher Gilesa
a
Memorial University of Newfoundland; bInternational Islamic University; cNamal College

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

With a basis in the transactional theory of stress and coping, this study Received 8 February 2019
investigates the relationship between employees’ exposure to workplace Accepted 9 December 2019
ostracism and their job performance, while also considering the mediating KEYWORDS
role of acquiescence silence and the moderating role of mindfulness. Workplace ostracism;
Multisource, three-wave data from employees and their peers in Pakistani acquiescence silence;
organizations reveal that ostracism in the workplace hinders job perfor- mindfulness; job
mance because employees passively withhold relevant ideas about their performance; Pakistan
work due to feelings of acquiescence. The mediating role of acquiescence
silence is mitigated if employees can draw from their mindfulness trait. This
study accordingly identifies a key mechanism – the passive withholding of
pertinent ideas, based on submission – by which workplace ostracism
hampers job performance, and it reveals how this process might be con-
tained by encouraging employees’ receptive attention and awareness
focused on present experiences.

Introduction
In today’s dynamic, pluralistic, and cutthroat job environment, employees’ effective job performance
promotes organizational continuation and development (Jaramillo, Mulki, & Marshall, 2003).
Efficient job performance implies that employees deliver outcomes and behaviors that contribute
to organizational objectives, competitive advantage, and overall success (Visweswaran & Ones,
2000). Different factors may affect employees’ job performance; namely, abusive supervision
(Chen & Wang, 2017), job stress, organizational tenure, leader’s psychological capital (Chen,
2015), positive affect and person-job fit (Lin, Yu, & Yi, 2014). Another relevant input that shapes
job performance is workplace ostracism, defined as an employee’s perceived experience of being
ignored or avoided in the workplace (Robinson, O’Reilly, & Wang, 2013). Such ostracism is
pervasive in nature and requires consideration in both Western and non-Western organizational
and cultural settings (Quade, Greenbaum, & Petrenko, 2017; Wu, Liu, Kwan, & Lee, 2016; Yang &
Treadway, 2018; Zhu, Lyu, Deng, & Ye, 2017).
According to current research, ostracism in the workplace evokes different negative conse-
quences, such as emotional exhaustion, reduced satisfaction (Liu, Kwan, Lee, & Hui, 2013), with-
drawal of prosocial behaviors, decreased organizational citizenship behaviors (Ferris, Brown, Berry,
& Lian, 2008), and increased deviant behaviors (Zhao, Peng, & Sheard, 2013), among others.
Notably, a negative and significant relationship also exists between workplace ostracism and job
performance (Ferris, Lian, Brown, & Morrison, 2015; Zhu et al., 2017).
This study seeks to broaden this line of research by investigating an unexplored causal mechanism
that might also underpin the relationship between workplace ostracism and job performance: acquies-
cence silence, which refers to employees passively withholding relevant ideas or opinions about their
own work because of feelings of resignation (Van Dyne, Ang, & Botero, 2003). Acquiescence silence has

CONTACT Sadia Jahanzeb sjahanzeb@grenfell.mun.ca

© 2019 Taylor & Francis
2 S. JAHANZEB ET AL.

been reported to cause several detrimental consequences for both employees and organizations. In
particular, this form of silence has been shown to impair job satisfaction, organizational commitment
(Vakola & Bouradas, 2005), job performance (Whiteside & Barclay, 2013) at the individual level, and to
reduce innovation (Argyris & Schon, 1978), interfere with change efforts at the organizational level
(Morrison & Milliken, 2000). In this study, we propose specifically that (1) exposure to ostracism in the
workplace reduces job performance because of acquiescence silence (Pinder & Harlos, 2001), and (2)
this process can be mitigated by employees’ mindfulness – the dispositional propensity to purposefully
focus on the present without being overwhelmed by emotional reactions or judgments about the
situation (Leroy, Anseel, Dimitrova, & Sels, 2013).
To guide the theoretical arguments pertaining to this possible indirect effect of workplace ostracism
on job performance through employees’ acquiescence silence, in addition to the mitigating role of
mindfulness, our study relies on the transactional theory of stress and coping (TTSC; Lazarus &
Folkman, 1984). This theory specifies that employees use primary appraisal to gauge hindrances as
either threatening or challenging. They then apply secondary appraisal to judge whether they have the
resources to respond to these challenges. If employees find that they have the means to manage
hindrances, they will resort to problem-focused or approach coping responses. However, if employees
assess that they lack the capacity to respond to trials, they may apply emotion-focused or avoidance
coping responses. An increasing number of studies have tested the transactional theory of stress and
coping (Debus, König, Kleinmann, & Werner, 2015; Donald, Atkins, Parker, Christie, & Guo, 2017; Guo
et al., 2018; King & Beehr, 2017), yet few have applied this framework to study the link between
workplace ostracism and employees’ job performance.
Such an application appears pertinent though as the independent variable, workplace ostracism, is
a psychologically demanding and physically taxing experience which could stimulate the mediator,
acquiescence silence (Van Dyne et al., 2003), which, in turn, will reduce the outcome variable, job
performance. As described in prior research, ostracism in the workplace negatively affects employ-
ees’ ability to self-regulate or maintain persistence and effort in performing and accomplishing tasks.
Such adverse experiences elicit self-defeating behavior (SDB) in employees which increases the
likelihood of them observing acquiescence silence or withholding information about a dangerous
work environment as they have given up any hope of improvement (Baumeister, DeWall, Ciarocco,
& Twenge, 2005).
In addition, the transactional theory of stress and coping posits that employees’ appraisal of
stress-inducing situations, such as workplace ostracism, varies according to their access to the
valuable personal resource, mindfulness, which acts as a moderator and facilitates adaptive forms
of coping (Garland, Gaylord, & Fredrickson, 2011). Consistent with this logic, employees’ mind-
fulness could buffer against their self-defeating efforts to observe acquiescence silence in response to
workplace ostracism, which would in turn diminish the likelihood of reduced job performance.
Mindfulness is described as a state of awareness that is characterized by present-moment conscious-
ness and nonjudgmental acknowledgment of moment-to-moment events (Glomb, Duffy, Bono, &
Yang, 2011). Mindful employees maintain impartial processing of both internal and external
information, and meet situational strains with adaptive responses rather than with impulsive
reactions (Shapiro & Carlson, 2009). Formally, if employees are equipped with mindfulness, the
negative effect of ostracism in the workplace on their job performance through acquiescence silence
should be attenuated. Figure 1 presents the theoretical framework. The subsequent sections detail
our hypotheses.

Hypotheses
Mediating role of acquiescence silence
Workplace ostracism refers to an employee’s perception of the degree to which he/she is ignored,
rejected or excluded in the workplace. It involves instances such as an employee being omitted from
 THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 3

Mindfulness

Workplace Acquiescence Job performance

ostracism silence

Figure 1. Conceptual model.

an important e-mail chain, a meeting beginning without a certain colleague being present, or
a coworker’s suggestions or requests being ignored (Robinson et al., 2013). According to the
transactional theory of stress and coping (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), employees apply primary
appraisal and gauge workplace ostracism as a psychologically stressful experience that endangers
their well-being. For instance, they realize that ostracism hampers their ability to self-regulate or
harms their capacity to suppress instant urges in favor of deferred and higher arching goals
(Baumeister et al., 2005). Such dysfunctional experiences expose them to self-defeating behaviors
that bring with them greater costs than benefits, leading to oversights, personal damage, or distress
(Renn, Allen, & Huning, 2013).
Ostracized employees then use secondary appraisal to recognize that their basic circum-
stances cannot be altered, so they may choose to adopt an indirect method of dealing with
stressors through passive inputs (Blalock & Joiner, 2000). Hence, these employees may enact
an acquiescence silence response and display disengaged behavior as they feel helpless about
their situation (Pinder & Harlos, 2001). Overall, ostracized employees may display a soundless
remonstrance (Morrison & Milliken, 2000) in the presence of workplace ostracism as this
dysfunctional work situation negatively affects their adaptability to comply with social norms.
Formally,

Hypothesis 1: Employees’ perception of workplace ostracism relates positively to acquiescence

silence.

However, acquiescence silence could hinder employee’s job performance. Acquiescence silence
implies that employees deliberately reserve their comments about a dangerous work environment to
show their resigned disagreement, difference, and disapproval with reference to vital organizational
goals and outcomes (Renn et al., 2013). According to the transactional theory of stress and coping,
acquiescence silence may diminish employees’ task performance as they will be unwilling to make
any effort to speak up about, get involved in, or alter their current situation (strongly rooted
resignation). Such a state of disengagement and withdrawal diminishes their participation in
organization-wide measures (Perry-Smith, 2006). That is, acquiescence silence offers limited capacity
to deliver effective in-role performance (Haas, Criscuolo, & George, 2015).

Hypothesis 2: Employees’ acquiescence silence relates negatively to job performance.

The combination of these hypotheses suggests a mediating role of acquiescence silence, such
that employees’ loss of self-regulation, associated with workplace ostracism, hinders job perfor-
mance because of their acquiescence silence response. Employees who perceive that they have
been excluded in the workplace may underperform because they exhibit self-defeating behavior
4 S. JAHANZEB ET AL.

and passively withhold relevant opinions about their own work (Pinder & Harlos, 2001). Several
studies have proposed a mediating role of acquiescence silence between organizational justice
(Whiteside & Barclay, 2013), psychological contract breach (employee’s perception of the extent
to which the organization has broken its promises; Robinson, 1996), and work-related outcomes
(Wang & Hsieh, 2014). In short, the perception of workplace ostracism is dysfunctional because
it dissuades employees from openly sharing their ideas or opinions, which discourages them
from meeting preset performance targets. Therefore,

Hypothesis 3: Employees’ acquiescence silence mediates the relationship between their perception of
workplace ostracism and job performance.

Moderating role of mindfulness

We further expect a moderating effect of employees’ mindfulness on the relationship between work-
place ostracism and acquiescence silence. According to the transactional theory of stress and coping, the
self-defeating effect of adverse work situations, such as workplace ostracism, is buffered when employ-
ees apply their unique resources that help them appraise stress (Halbesleben, Neveu, Paustian-
Underdahl, & Westman, 2014). Notably, employees high in mindfulness can better offset hostile
work conditions by using a receptive state of awareness and observing both ongoing internal and
external events at the same time (Hülsheger, Alberts, Feinholdt, & Lang, 2013). Accordingly, employees’
mindfulness should boost their capacity to deal with the negative consequences of ostracism in the
workplace and facilitate their successful adaptation to this situation (Molet, Macquet, Lefebvre, &
Williams, 2013). That is, mindfulness should enable employees to better manage the self-defeating
tendency that comes with workplace ostracism (Hyland, Lee, & Mills, 2015), which in turn would
diminish their perceived need to show passive resignation. Conversely, employees low in mindfulness
are less able to protect themselves against the hardships that come with workplace ostracism because
they are more negatively influenced by stressful and dissatisfactory work conditions (Bazarko, Cate,
Azocar, & Kreitzer, 2013). Accordingly, those employees are more likely to respond to perceptions of
workplace ostracism with passive behavior, motivated by feelings of futility and/or beliefs that their
opinions will neither be heard by the organization nor result in meaningful change.

Hypothesis 4: The positive association between employees’ perception of workplace ostracism and
acquiescence silence is moderated by their mindfulness, such that the association is weaker at higher
levels of mindfulness.

These arguments also suggest a moderated mediation (Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes, 2007),
such that employees’ mindfulness serves as a contingent factor of the indirect effect of
employees’ workplace ostracism on their job performance, through passive submission. For
employees who can draw from open or receptive awareness and attention, informed by their
mindfulness, involuntary attempts to withhold ideas offer less important mechanisms to
explain why beliefs about workplace ostracism might escalate into lower job performance.
Consistent with the transactional theory of stress and coping (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), the
motivation to passively withhold relevant ideas, as a response to perceptions of workplace
ostracism, becomes a less important clarifying factor for reduced job performance if employ-
ees exercise mindfulness, which enables them to cope effectively with this unfavorable work
situation. In contrast, to the extent that employees exercise less receptive attention to
psychological states, the desire to show disengaged behavior through acquiescence silence
becomes a more prominent factor that elucidates how ostracism in the workplace contributes
to lower performance outcomes.
 THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 5

Hypothesis 5: The indirect relationship between employees’ perception of workplace ostracism and
their job performance through acquiescence silence is moderated by their mindfulness, such that this
indirect relationship is weaker among employees with higher mindfulness.

Method
Sample and procedure
We collected time-lagged (i.e., three-wave) and multisource (i.e., self-reports and peer reports)
data from full-time and contracted employees in the Pakistani service sector. This data
collection procedure deployed a time interval of eight weeks between each wave. It was
necessary to collect time-lagged data as the effects included in a mediation analysis are causal
outcomes that span a period of time (Maxwell & Cole, 2007). Failure to do so could lead to
considerable bias in estimating parameters in mediation analysis (Cole & Maxwell, 2003).
One of the study authors had personal and professional links with the selected companies. All
participants received a cover letter which explained the importance of the study and guaranteed
their anonymity to ease any evaluation apprehension. At time 1, we contacted 356 lower-,
middle-, and upper-level employees to collect responses about workplace ostracism and mind-
fulness. We received 302 completed questionnaires. Two months later, we contacted these 302
employees again to gather acquiescence silence responses and received 290 questionnaires, of
which we could match 275 with the original responses. After a gap of another two months, we
gathered peer-rated responses of employee job performance, which helped avoid common
method bias. Each peer appraised a maximum of two respondents, to avert data nesting. We
clarified if the peer had worked with the principal respondent for a minimum of six months to
confirm that he/she was knowledgeable about the effectiveness of the other person’s organiza-
tional behavior.
Finally, we coordinated the responses of times 1, 2 and 3 with the key generated by each
respondent according to directives given in the surveys. For self-reports, we asked the participants
to provide their initials followed by the month of their birth. For peer reports, we requested
participants to list the first and last name of the peer to whom they had provided a response.
Hence, the three-waved data collected from multiple sources minimized common method bias and
social desirability concerns (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2012).
Our analysis is based on 275 completed sets of responses, representing a response rate of 77%.
Approximately 59% of the respondents are men, and the average age is 39 years (SD = .50). The
participants are top-level (22%), middle-level (43%), or lower-level (35%) managers and work for
diverse service departments. With regard to tenure, 10% of the employees had been working for their
current firm for 6–12 months, 26% for 1–4 years, 24% for 4–7 years, 15% for 7–12 years, and 25% for
more than 15 years. All respondents had earned either an undergraduate (44%) or a graduate degree
(56%). 49% of the respondents worked for public sector organizations while the remaining 51% were
employed in private companies. We noticed a slight dropout in our time-lagged study as some of our
respondents (full-time/contractual employees) either lost their willingness to cooperate, went on
leave, or quit their job during our data collection process.

Measures
We used established scales to gather data pertinent to the study variables. The questionnaire was in
English, which is the medium of instruction for all schools and universities in Pakistan, as well as the
official language of business organizations. Unless otherwise noted, the scales used 5-point Likert
anchors that ranged from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”).
6 S. JAHANZEB ET AL.

Workplace ostracism
We measured this variable using a 10-item Workplace Ostracism Scale (Ferris et al., 2008).
Sample items included “Others ignored you at work”, “Others left the area when you entered”
and “Your greetings have gone unanswered at work” (Cronbach’s alpha = .92).

Mindfulness
We captured this construct by applying the 15-item Mindful Attention Awareness Scale tapped on
a 6-point Likert instrument (Brown & Ryan, 2003). Some sample items included “I find it difficult to
stay focused on what’s happening in the present” and “I find myself preoccupied with the future or
the past” (Cronbach’s alpha = .74).

Acquiescence silence
We gauged this form of silence using 5 items on a 7-point Likert scale (Van Dyne et al., 2003).
Sample items included “I am unwilling to speak up with suggestions for change because I am
disengaged” and “I withhold ideas about how to improve the work around here, based on being cut
off” (Cronbach’s alpha = .76).

Job performance
We used Williams and Anderson’s (1991) 7-item measure of peer-reported in-role job performance
to avoid concerns about common method bias. Sample items included “This employee fulfills
responsibilities specified in the job description”, “This employee meets the formal performance
requirements of the job” and “This employee adequately completes assigned duties” (Cronbach’s
alpha = .87).

Control variables
The analyses included three control variables: age (in years), organizational type (1 = public), and
designation (3 = top management).

Results
The correlations and descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1 while the regression results
can be found in Table 2. Models 1–3 predict acquiescence silence, and Models 4–6 predict job
performance. The variance inflation factor values of the regression coefficients in each model
were less than 10, so we could rule out the issue of multicollinearity from our analyses (Aiken &
West, 1991).
Hypothesis 1 predicts that employees who perceive that their coworkers have ostracized them are
more likely to show disengaged behavior as they feel dejected and are not keen on putting any effort
into voicing concerns, being involved, or altering the status quo (Pinder & Harlos, 2001). In support

Table 1. Correlation table and descriptive statistics.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Workplace ostracism
2. Mindfulness −.13*
3. Acquiescence silence .16** −.09
4. Job performance −.22** −.20* −.32**
5. Age .18** .08 −.19** −.02
6. Organizational type −.20** .09 .17** .14* −.09
7. Designation .02 .14* .04 .12* .05 .23**
Mean 1.94 2.78 3.31 2.30 1.29 2.16 1.08
Standard deviation .59 .58 1.15 .82 .50 .69 .27
n = 275.
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
 THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 7

Table 2. Regression results.

Acquiescence silence Job performance
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6
Age −.40** −.47** −.43** −.17+ .19* .12
Organizational type .24* .33** .36*** .02 .09 .03
Designation .08 .06 .09 .53** .56** .55**
Workplace ostracism .44*** 2.16** −.31*** −.24**
Mindfulness (M) −.12 1.05* −.28** −.25**
Workplace ostracism x M −.59**
Acquiescence silence −.18***
R2 .06 .12 .14 .04 .14 .19
ΔR2 .06*** .03** .09*** .05***
n = 275 (unstandardized regression coefficients).
+
p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 (two-tailed tests).

of this prediction, Model 2 reveals a positive relationship between workplace ostracism and acquies-
cence silence (β = .44, p < .001). Furthermore, Hypothesis 2 projects that higher levels of acquies-
cence silence prevent employees from meeting performance requirements, as manifested in the
negative relationship between acquiescence silence and job performance in Model 6 (β = − .18,
p < .001).
To assess Hypothesis 3, which highlights the mediation by acquiescence silence, we
followed the bootstrapping method (Preacher & Hayes, 2004), utilizing the Process macro
(Hayes, 2013). This test generates confidence intervals (CI) for indirect effects, so it mini-
mizes the potential statistical power problems that might result from asymmetric and other
non-normal sampling distributions (MacKinnon, Lockwood, & Williams, 2004). The CI for
the indirect effect of workplace exclusion on job performance through acquiescence silence
does not include 0 [.02, .13], in support of the presence of mediation.
Next, to test Hypothesis 4, we assessed the workplace ostracism × mindfulness interaction term
for predicting acquiescence silence in Model 3. This interaction term is significant (β = − .59,
p < .01). A simple slope test indicates that at low values of mindfulness, a strong relationship exists
between workplace ostracism and acquiescence silence (β = .68, p < .001, CI does not include 0
[.32, 1.05]), whereas this relationship is weak and insignificant at high levels of mindfulness
(β = .01, p > .05, CI includes 0 [−.29, .32]). The significance of this interaction term is further
proven by the Johnson-Neyman method, with a moderator value (0.19) that has 40% data above
and 60% data placed below the region. Figure 2 reveals the effect of workplace ostracism on job
performance at high and low levels of mindfulness; the harmful effect of this adverse work
condition is subdued among employees with high levels of mindfulness. Thus, the effect by
which workplace ostracism increases acquiescence silence is buffered by mindfulness, in support
of Hypothesis 4.
To test the moderated mediation effect in Hypothesis 5, we again applied Preacher et al.’s
(2007) procedure and Hayes’s (2013) Process macro. This procedure generates CI for the
conditional indirect effects (MacKinnon et al., 2004); results indicate that the 95% bootstrap
confidence intervals for the conditional indirect effect of workplace ostracism on job perfor-
mance at the low (−1SD) and medium (Mean) level of the moderator did not contain zero
([.06, .25], [.03, .13], respectively), but at the high (+1SD) level of the moderator they did
contain zero [−.05, .07]. Additionally, the index of moderated mediation (−.12) and its
corresponding confidence interval did not include zero ([−.24, −.03]), indicating that mind-
fulness serves as a buffer against the negative indirect effect of workplace ostracism on job
performance, through acquiescence silence, in support of Hypothesis 5 and this study’s overall
framework.
8 S. JAHANZEB ET AL.

4.5

Acquiescence silence 3.5

Low Mindfulness
3
High Mindfulness
2.5

1.5

1
Low Workplace ostracism High Workplace ostracism

Figure 2. Moderating effect of mindfulness on the relationship between workplace ostracism and acquiescence silence.

Discussion
This study has drawn from the transactional theory of stress and coping (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984)
to propose that (1) the likelihood of reduced job performance in response to workplace ostracism
arises because employees submissively withhold relevant ideas and opinions (Pinder & Harlos, 2001),
and (2) their mindfulness mitigates this process (Jimenez, Niles, & Park, 2010). The empirical results
largely validate these theoretical projections.
It contributes to extant research by investigating how employees’ assessments of workplace
ostracism informs their job performance, with a singular focus on unspecified factors that shape
this process. Despite some studies examining how ostracism in the workplace might hamper
employees’ ability to fulfill their job requirements (Steinbauer, Renn, Chen, & Rhew, 2018; Zhu
et al., 2017), a relatively small sample of research has explicitly explored why employees’ perceptions
of workplace ostracism might hamper their job performance, let alone the critical, specific role of
acquiescence silence.
The current study thus offers the novel insight that employees who sense workplace ostracism are
less likely to fulfill their performance duties, explicitly because they display disengaged behavior and are
less willing to speak up, get involved in, or alter the state of affairs. Workplace ostracism distorts an
employee’s ability to self-regulate or exert control over the self (Baumeister et al., 2005). Such adverse
experiences also elicit self-defeating behavior in employees, which increases the likelihood of them
observing acquiescence silence or withholding information about a dangerous work environment
because they do not believe that the organization will address their concerns (Renn et al., 2013).
Nevertheless, acquiescence silence in response to workplace ostracism can be mitigated by
employees’ mindfulness, which is the dispositional propensity to purposefully concentrate on the
existing situation, without being overwhelmed by emotional responses or judgments about the
situation (Leroy et al., 2013). As the transactional theory of stress and coping (Lazarus &
Folkman, 1984) establishes, employees’ appraisal of stress-inducing situations, such as workplace
ostracism, is mitigated to the extent that they benefit from intentionally attending to their present
experiences in nonjudgmental ways through the unbiased processing of internal/external informa-
tion with adaptive responses (Shapiro & Carlson, 2009). Thus, the extent to which employees who
perceive ostracism in the workplace can draw from mindfulness provides an improved coping
mechanism that diminishes their need to withhold ideas. When employees apply a receptive state
of awareness (Hülsheger et al., 2013), the negative effect of workplace ostracism becomes attenuated.
Further, mindful employees may find themselves better equipped to search for and find effective
resolutions for adverse work conditions, such as workplace ostracism (Robinson et al., 2013). This
 THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 9

outcome reduces their desire to engage in passive behavior, motivated by feelings of futility and/or
beliefs that their opinions will neither be heard by the organization nor result in meaningful change.
The mitigating effect of mindfulness on the relationship between ostracism in the workplace and
employees’ passively resigned behavior is particularly insightful when studied with the mediating
role of acquiescence silence. As the moderated mediation analysis reveals (Preacher et al., 2007), the
potency of the indirect effect of workplace ostracism on job performance through acquiescence
silence depends on employees’ mindful disposition. That is, the self-defeating behavior that stems
from ostracism turns less powerfully into reduced job performance; by way of acquiescence silence,
employees offer responsiveness as well as awareness focused on the present moment (Brown, Ryan,
& Creswell, 2007; Good et al., 2016).
In combination, these findings establish a complete understanding of the factors that describe
the association between ostracism in the workplace and reduced job performance. We extend
extant research by detailing how (1) acquiescence silence serves as a crucial link between this
source of workplace adversity and weakened job performance, and (2) employees’ mindful
disposition helps contain this process. The findings thus expand earlier enquiries into the direct
beneficial effects of mindfulness on employee outcomes, such as reduced emotional exhaustion
(Li, Wong, & Kim, 2017), decreased aggressive behaviors and enhanced job satisfaction
(Hülsheger et al., 2013), lessened impulsivity and enhanced self-control (Fetterman, Robinson,
Ode, & Gordon, 2010), reduced depression and somatic, cardiopulmonary, and gastrointestinal
indications (Reibel, Greeson, Brainard, & Rosenzweig, 2001). In particular, the benefits of
mindfulness that we identify in this study are indirect, in the sense that employees who could
offer receptive attention and awareness are better positioned to cope with unfavorable work
situations, including workplace ostracism (Fisher, Kerr, & Cunningham, 2019). Overall, we
suggest that the role of workplace ostracism in reducing job performance through acquiescence
silence can be moderated by mindfulness, which counters the adversities resulting from the
perception of such ostracism.

Limitations and future research

The findings of this research are correlational, and hence should be studied with its limitations.
We may conduct multistage longitudinal research to test the contributing effects of our moder-
ated mediated framework (Cole & Maxwell, 2003). Our study offers several important research
avenues. First, in response to calls for enquires exploring why workplace adversity might
engender dysfunctional employee behavior, we focus on acquiescence silence as a vital mechan-
ism that illustrates the harmful effect of workplace ostracism on job performance (Ferris et al.,
2008, 2015; Lustenberger & Jagacinski, 2010; Peng & Zeng, 2017). Other mediators also remain
unexplored, including prosocial silence (i.e., withholding work-related ideas to benefit coworkers
or the organization, for cooperative motives; Van Dyne et al., 2003) and emotional suppression
(i.e., active attempts to change overt emotional expressions, which may result in little or no
impact on experience; Gross & Levenson, 1997; Riva, 2016).
Second, our investigation of mindfulness as a central feature that mitigates the indirect link
between perceived workplace ostracism and job performance might be broadened by considerations
of additional individual characteristics. For instance, individual features such as personal and social
identity (Xu, Farver, & Pauker, 2015) or emotional intelligence (O’Reilly & Banki, 2016) might buffer
against the risk that the experience of workplace ostracism transforms into acquiescence silence and
reduced job performance. Organizational context factors might also prevent the frustration caused
by perceptions of workplace ostracism from reducing job performance, such as a supportive
organizational climate (Eck & Riva, 2016).
Third, the results reflect companies that function in one particular country, Pakistan. Its
cultural environment, marked by collectivism, makes it apposite for examining the harmful
impact of ostracism that threatens social harmony in the workplace (Markus & Kitayama,
10 S. JAHANZEB ET AL.

1991). Still, it would be beneficial to carry out cross-country evaluations that gauge the promi-
nence of perceived workplace ostracism for inducing acquiescence silence and diminished job
performance, as well as the effectiveness of various underlying moderators in this process, in
cultural settings that are different from Pakistan. Such contrasts could reveal how different
cultural features influence the relative importance of the focal variables.

Practical implications
This study presents several important practical suggestions. Perceptions of workplace ostracism –
including the perceived experience of being overlooked or bypassed at work (Ferris et al., 2008;
Robinson et al., 2013) – create negative energy among employees and undermine their job perfor-
mance, so organizations must seek to understand probable sources of employees’ beliefs about
ostracism in the workplace. First, organizations must ensure that all employees identify the harmful
effect of workplace ostracism. In this context, organizations may try to foster an inclusive inter-
personal environment and recognize, respect, and value the contributions of individual organiza-
tional members, through effective leadership (Bilimoria, Joy, & Liang, 2008). For example, leaders
may try to develop cohesive groups by arranging communal events and fostering a collective
identity.
Second, organizations may offer conflict management skills training to avoid ostracism being
used as a means of managing conflict. Organizational researchers have acknowledged that workplace
ostracism occurs when employees lack the necessary social tools to manage conflict in an effective
manner (Robinson et al., 2013). For instance, an employee may avoid a problematic colleague to stay
away from any disagreement, but the avoided colleague might perceive this as workplace ostracism.
Thus, effective conflict management skills may not only help employees to avoid using ostracism as
a way of managing conflict but also provide them with the required social tools to resolve conflict.
Finally, companies may invest in interpersonal training programs, which could help employees
appreciate acceptable versus unacceptable behaviors in the workplace. An example is the Civility,
Respect, and Engagement in the Workplace (CREW) intervention program, which may help
promote civil behavior in the work environment (Leiter, Laschinger, Day, & Oore, 2011; Maslach,
Leiter, & Jackson, 2012).
In addition to this general suggestion to reduce perceptions of workplace ostracism, this
study is particularly relevant to organizations that are unlikely to eliminate ostracism com-
pletely from their employee ranks (De Clercq, Haq, & Azeem, 2019). Employees who are
responsive to, and focused on, present experiences (Brown et al., 2007; Good et al., 2016;
Hülsheger et al., 2013) are in a better position to deal with perceptions of workplace ostracism
(Scott & Duffy, 2015). Hence, mindfulness represents a critical psychological capacity that an
organization can leverage to mitigate acquiescence silence and diminished job performance
when some individuals or groups inadvertently exclude or ignore other individuals or groups.
Organizations that can count on the mindfulness of their employees can, in turn, better protect
themselves from an individual tendency to involuntarily withhold ideas, so any associated job
performance damage is thwarted. The recruitment and retention of employees who view events
more impartially (Shapiro, Carlson, Astin, & Freedman, 2006) can thus be extremely beneficial
for organizations whose employees will sometimes perceive workplace ostracism (Jones, Wirth,
Ramsey, & Wynsma, 2019). Beyond the need to hire and retain such employees, organizations
might also investigate ways of enhancing the levels of mindfulness among their employees (Li
et al., 2017). For example, organizations may introduce training, such as the Mindfulness-
Based Stress Reduction program (MBSR), so that employees can develop mindfulness
(Grossman, 2008).
 THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 11

Conclusion
This study has endeavored to further develop prior investigations into perceived workplace ostra-
cism by examining the effect of an employee’s experience of this negative work condition (i.e.,
workplace ostracism) on their job performance, as well as the role that acquiescence silence and
mindfulness play in this process. The passive withholding of ideas or opinions from others emerges
as a vital reason for perceptions of workplace ostracism escalating into reduced performance out-
comes, but the potency of this explanatory mechanism decreases when employees exhibit mind-
fulness. We anticipate that this investigation will help to pave the way for further research into how
organizations can avoid the negative performance consequences of workplace ostracism (O’Reilly &
Banki, 2016).

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Data availability statement

The data described in this article are openly available in the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/fybcs

Open Scholarship

This article has earned the Center for Open Science badge for Open data through Open Practices Disclosure. The data
is openly accessible at https://osf.io/fybcs

Notes on contributors
Sadia Jahanzeb is an Assistant Professor of organizational behavior and human resources in Business, School of Arts
and Social Science, Memorial University, Grenfell Campus. She completed her PhD in OB from the International
Islamic University, Pakistan. She has published in journals such as Business Ethics: A European Review, European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology and the Journal of Business and Psychology. Her research interests
include workplace ostracism, employee silence, bullying, and counterproductive work behaviors.

Tasneem Fatima is an Assistant Professor of human resources at the Faculty of Management Sciences, International
Islamic University (IIU), Islamabad, Pakistan. She has published in Journal of Positive Psychology, European Journal
of Work and Organizational Psychology and the Journal of Business and Psychology. Her research interests include
OB domains such as incivility, leadership, and bullying.

Basharat Javed is an Assistant Professor of HRM at department of business studies, Namal Institute Mianwali. His
research interest is inclusive leadership, innovative work behavior and Work Ethics. Regarding these research areas, he
has published many research papers in journals like Business Ethics: A European Review, Journal of Creative Behavior,
Journal of Management & Organization, Journal of Psychology, Personnel Review, Review of Public Personnel
Administration, Asia Pacific Business Review and Current Issues in Tourism.
Julie Pitcher Giles is an Assistant Professor in strategy in Business, School of Arts and Social Science, Grenfell
Campus, Memorial University. She lectures and researches in the areas of ethics and social responsibility, leadership,
and strategy, with a particular focus on exploring how employee and business engagement shapes business success and
the overall organizational experience. Professor Pitcher Giles is currently completing her PhD in the School of
Business at the University of Leicester, UK.

References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action approach. Reading, MA: Addision Wesley.
12 S. JAHANZEB ET AL.

Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Ciarocco, N. J., & Twenge, J. M. (2005). Social exclusion impairs self-regulation.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 589–604. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.589
Bazarko, D., Cate, R. A., Azocar, F., & Kreitzer, M. J. (2013). The impact of an innovative mindfulness-based stress
reduction program on the health and well-being of nurses employed in a corporate setting. Journal of Workplace
Behavioral Health, 28, 107–133. doi:10.1080/15555240.2013.779518
Bilimoria, D., Joy, S., & Liang, X. (2008). Breaking barriers and creating inclusiveness: Lessons of organizational
transformation to advance women faculty in academic science and engineering. Human Resource Management:
Published in Cooperation with the School of Business Administration, the University of Michigan and in Alliance with
the Society of Human Resources Management, 47, 423–441. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1099-050X
Blalock, J. A., & Joiner, T. E., Jr. (2000). Interaction of cognitive avoidance coping and stress in predicting depression/
anxiety. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 24, 47–65. doi:10.1023/A:1005450908245
Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological
well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 822–848. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822
Brown, K. W., Ryan, R. M., & Creswell, J. D. (2007). Mindfulness: Theoretical foundations and evidence for its salutary
effects. Psychological Inquiry, 18, 211–237. doi:10.1080/10478400701598298
Chen, S. L. (2015). The relationship of leader psychological capital and follower psychological capital, job engagement
and job performance: A multilevel mediating perspective. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 26, 2349–2365. doi:10.1080/09585192.2015.1020443
Chen, Z. X., & Wang, H. Y. (2017). Abusive supervision and employees’ job performance: A multiple mediation
model. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 45, 845–858. doi:10.2224/sbp.5657
Cole, D. A., & Maxwell, S. E. (2003). Testing mediational models with longitudinal data: Questions and tips in the use
of structural equation modeling. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 558. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.112.4.558
De Clercq, D., Haq, I. U., & Azeem, M. U. (2019). Workplace ostracism and job performance: Roles of self-efficacy and
job level. Personnel Review, 48, 184–203. doi:10.1108/PR-02-2017-0039
Debus, M. E., König, C. J., Kleinmann, M., & Werner, C. S. (2015). Examining the effects of negative affectivity on
self-and supervisor ratings of job stressors: The role of stressor observability. Work & Stress, 29, 341–361.
doi:10.1080/02678373.2015.1075233
Donald, J. N., Atkins, P. W., Parker, P. D., Christie, A. M., & Guo, J. (2017). Cognitive defusion predicts more
approach and less avoidance coping with stress, independent of threat and self-efficacy appraisals. Journal of
Personality, 85, 716–729. doi:10.1111/jopy.2017.85.issue-5
Eck, J, & Riva, P. (2016). Bridging the gap between different psychological approaches to understanding and reducing
the impact of social exclusion. In P. Riva & J. Eck (Eds.), Social Exclusion (pp. 277–289) . Springer International
Publishing.
Ferris, D. L., Brown, D. J., Berry, J. W., & Lian, H. (2008). The development and validation of the Workplace
Ostracism Scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1348–1366. doi:10.1037/a0012743
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, 279–297. doi:10.5465/amj.2011.0347
Fetterman, A. K., Robinson, M. D., Ode, S., & Gordon, K. H. (2010). Neuroticism as a risk factor for behavioral
dysregulation: A mindfulness-mediation perspective. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 29, 301–321.
doi:10.1521/jscp.2010.29.3.301
Fisher, D. M., Kerr, A. J., & Cunningham, S. (2019). Examining the moderating effect of mindfulness on the
relationship between job stressors and strain outcomes. International Journal of Stress Management, 26, 78–88.
doi:10.1037/str0000090
Garland, E. L., Gaylord, S. A., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2011). Positive reappraisal mediates the stress-reductive effects of
mindfulness: An upward spiral process. Mindfulness, 2, 59–67. doi:10.1007/s12671-011-0043-8
Glomb, T. M., Duffy, M. K., Bono, J. E., & Yang, T. (2011). Mindfulness at Work. In A. Joshi, J. Martocchio, & H. Liao
(Eds.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management (pp. 115–157). Research in Personnel and Human
Resources Management; Vol. 30. doi:10.1108/S0742-7301(2011)0000030005
Good, D. J., Lyddy, C. J., Glomb, T. M., Bono, J. E., Brown, K. W., Duffy, M. K., … Lazar, S. W. (2016). Contemplating
mindfulness at work: An integrative review. Journal of Management, 42, 114–142. doi:10.1177/0149206315617003
Gross, J. J., & Levenson, R. W. (1997). Hiding feelings: The acute effects of inhibiting negative and positive emotion.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 95–103. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.106.1.95
Grossman, P. (2008). On measuring mindfulness in psychosomatic and psychological research. Journal of
Psychosomatic Research, 64, 405–408. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2008.02.001
Guo, L., Decoster, S., Babalola, M. T., De Schutter, L., Garba, O. A., & Riisla, K. (2018). Authoritarian leadership and
employee creativity: The moderating role of psychological capital and the mediating role of fear and defensive
silence. Journal of Business Research, 92, 219–230. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.07.034
Haas, M. R., Criscuolo, P., & George, G. (2015). Which problems to solve? Online knowledge sharing and attention
allocation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 58, 680–711. doi:10.5465/amj.2013.0263
 THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 13

Halbesleben, J. R., Neveu, J. P., Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., & Westman, M. (2014). Getting to the “COR” under-
standing the role of resources in conservation of resources theory. Journal of Management, 40, 1334–1364.
doi:10.1177/0149206314527130
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based
approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Hülsheger, U. R., Alberts, H. J., Feinholdt, A., & Lang, J. W. (2013). Benefits of mindfulness at work: The role of
mindfulness in emotion regulation, emotional exhaustion, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98,
310–325. doi:10.1037/a0031313
Hyland, P. K., Lee, R. A., & Mills, M. J. (2015). Mindfulness at work: A new approach to improving individual and
organizational performance. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8, 576–602. doi:10.1017/iop.2015.41
Jaramillo, F., Mulki, J. P., & Marshall, G. W. (2003). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational
commitment and salesperson job performance: 25 years of research. Journal of Business Research, 58, 705–714.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2003.10.004
Jimenez, S. S., Niles, B. L., & Park, C. L. (2010). A mindfulness model of affect regulation and depressive symptoms:
Positive emotions, mood regulation expectancies, and self-acceptance as regulatory mechanisms. Personality and
Individual Differences, 49, 645–650. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.041
Jones, E. E., Wirth, J. H., Ramsey, A. T., & Wynsma, R. L. (2019). Who is less likely to ostracize? Higher trait
mindfulness predicts more inclusionary behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45, 105–119.
doi:10.1177/0146167218780698
King, B. S., & Beehr, T. A. (2017). Working with the stress of errors: Error management strategies as coping.
International Journal of Stress Management, 24, 18–33. doi:10.1037/str0000022
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Coping and adaptation. In W. D. Gentry (Ed.), The handbook of behavioral
medicine (pp. 282–325). New York, NY: Guilford.
Leiter, M. P., Laschinger, H. K. S., Day, A., & Oore, D. G. (2011). The impact of civility interventions on employee
social behavior, distress, and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 1258–1274. doi:10.1037/a0024442
Leroy, H., Anseel, F., Dimitrova, N. G., & Sels, L. (2013). Mindfulness, authentic functioning, and work engagement:
A growth modeling approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 82, 238–247. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2013.01.012
Li, J. J., Wong, I. A., & Kim, W. G. (2017). Does mindfulness reduce emotional exhaustion? A multilevel analysis of
emotional labor among casino employees. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 64, 21–30. doi:10.1016/
j.ijhm.2017.03.008
Lin, Y. C., Yu, C., & Yi, C. C. (2014). The effects of positive affect, person-job fit, and well-being on job performance.
Social Behavior and Personality: an International Journal, 42, 1537–1547. doi:10.2224/sbp.2014.42.9.1537
Liu, J., Kwan, H. K., Lee, C., & Hui, C. (2013). Work-to-family spillover effects of workplace ostracism: The role of
work-home segmentation preferences. Human Resource Management, 52, 75–93. doi:10.1002/hrm.v52.1
Lustenberger, D. E., & Jagacinski, C. M. (2010). Exploring the effects of ostracism on performance and intrinsic
motivation. Human Performance, 23, 283–304. doi:10.1080/08959285.2010.501046
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of
the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99–128. doi:10.1207/
s15327906mbr3901_4
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation.
Psychological Review, 98, 224–253. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224
Maslach, C., Leiter, M. P., & Jackson, S. E. (2012). Making a significant difference with burnout interventions:
Researcher and practitioner collaboration. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 296–300. doi:10.1002/job.784
Maxwell, S. E., & Cole, D. A. (2007). Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation. Psychological Methods,
12, 23–44. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.23
Molet, M., Macquet, B., Lefebvre, O., & Williams, K. D. (2013). A focused attention intervention for coping with
ostracism. Consciousness and Cognition, 22, 1262–1270. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2013.08.010
Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic
world. Academy of Management Review, 25, 706–725. doi:10.5465/amr.2000.3707697
O’Reilly, J., & Banki, S. (2016). Research in work and organizational psychology: Social exclusion in the workplace . In
P. Riva & J. Eck (Eds.), Social exclusion: Psychological approaches to understanding and reducing its impact (pp.133–
155). Cham: Springer.
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, 833–855. doi:10.1002/job.v38.6
Perry-Smith, J. E. (2006). Social yet creative: The role of social relationships in facilitating individual creativity.
Academy of Management Journal, 49, 85–101. doi:10.5465/amj.2006.20785503
Pinder, C. C., & Harlos, K. P. (2001). Employee silence: Quiescence and acquiescence as responses to perceived
injustice. In (ed.) Research in personnel and human resources management, 20, 331–369. Emerald Group Publishing
Limited. doi:10.1016/S0742-7301(01)20007-3.
14 S. JAHANZEB ET AL.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and
recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-
100452
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation
models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717–731. doi:10.3758/BF03206553
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Assessing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods,
and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185–227. doi:10.1080/00273170701341316
Quade, M. J., Greenbaum, R. L., & Petrenko, O. V. (2017). I don’t want to be near you, unless … : The interactive
effect of unethical behavior and performance onto relationship conflict and workplace ostracism. Personnel
Psychology, 70, 675–709. doi:10.1111/peps.2017.70.issue-3
Reibel, D., Greeson, J., Brainard, G., & Rosenzweig, S. (2001). Mindfulness based stress reduction and health-related
quality of life in a heterogeneous patient population. General Hospital Psychiatry, 23, 183–192. doi:10.1016/S0163-
8343(01)00149-9
Renn, R., Allen, D., & Huning, T. (2013). The relationship of social exclusion at work with self-defeating behavior and
turnover. The Journal of Social Psychology, 153, 229–249. doi:10.1080/00224545.2012.723642
Riva, P. (2016). Emotion regulation following social exclusion: Psychological and behavioral strategies. In P. Riva & J.
Eck (Eds.), Social exclusion: psychological approaches to understanding and reducing its impact (pp. 199–225). New
York, NY: Springer International Publishing.
Robinson, S. L., O’Reilly, J., & Wang, W. (2013). Invisible at work an integrated model of workplace ostracism. Journal
of Management, 39, 203–231. doi:10.1177/0149206312466141
Robinson, S.L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 574–99.
doi:10.2307/2393868
Scott, K. L., & Duffy, M. K. (2015). Antecedents of workplace ostracism: new directions in research and intervention.
(In P. L. Perrewé, J. R. B. Halbesleben, & C. C. Rosen (Eds.), Research in occupational stress and well-being, 13, 137–
165. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Shapiro, S. L., Carlson, L. E., Astin, J. A., & Freedman, B. (2006). Mechanisms of mindfulness. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 62, 373–386. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1097-4679
Sharpiro, S.L., & Carlson, L.E. (2009). The Art and science of mindfulness: Integrating mindfulness into psychology and
the helping professions. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Steinbauer, R., Renn, R. W., Chen, H. S., & Rhew, N. (2018). Workplace ostracism, self-regulation, and job
performance: Moderating role of intrinsic work motivation. The Journal of Social Psychology, 158, 767–783.
doi:10.1080/00224545.2018.1424110
Vakola, M., & Bouradas, D. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of organisational silence: An empirical
investigation. Employee Relations, 27, 441–458. doi:10.1108/01425450510611997
Van Dyne, L. V., Ang, S., & Botero, I. C. (2003). Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice as multi-
dimensional constructs. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1359–1392. doi:10.1111/joms.2003.40.issue-6
Visweswaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2000). Perspectives on models of job performance. International Journal of Selection
and Assessment, 8, 216–226. doi:10.1111/1468-2389.00151
Wang, Y. D., & Hsieh, H. H. (2014). Employees’ reactions to psychological contract breach: A moderated mediation
analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 85, 57–66. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2014.04.003
Whiteside, D. B., & Barclay, L. J. (2013). Echoes of silence: Employee silence as a mediator between overall justice and
employee outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics, 116, 251–266. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1467-3
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organiza-
tional citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601–617. doi:10.1177/014920639101700305
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, 362–378.
doi:10.1037/apl0000063
Xu, Y., Farver, J. A. M., & Pauker, K. (2015). Ethnic identity and self-esteem among Asian and European Americans:
When a minority is the majority and the majority is a minority. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 62–76.
doi:10.1002/ejsp.2061
Yang, J., & Treadway, D. C. (2018). A social influence interpretation of workplace ostracism and counterproductive
work behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 148, 879–891. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2912-x
Zhao, H., Peng, Z., & Sheard, G. (2013). Workplace ostracism and hospitality employees’ counterproductive work
behaviors: The joint moderating effects of proactive personality and political skill. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 33, 219–227. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.08.006
Zhu, H., Lyu, Y., Deng, X., & Ye, Y. (2017). Workplace ostracism and proactive customer service performance:
A conservation of resources perspective. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 64, 62–72. doi:10.1016/j.
ijhm.2017.04.004