Anxiety, Stress, & Coping

An International Journal

ISSN: 1061-5806 (Print) 1477-2205 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gasc20

Workplace ostracism And workplace behaviors: A

moderated mediation model of perceived stress
and psychological empowerment

Yang Woon Chung

To cite this article: Yang Woon Chung (2018) Workplace ostracism And workplace behaviors: A
moderated mediation model of perceived stress and psychological empowerment, Anxiety, Stress,
& Coping, 31:3, 304-317, DOI: 10.1080/10615806.2018.1424835

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2018.1424835

Published online: 11 Jan 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 373

View Crossmark data

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gasc20
ANXIETY, STRESS, & COPING, 2018
VOL. 31, NO. 3, 304–317
https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2018.1424835

Workplace ostracism And workplace behaviors: A moderated

mediation model of perceived stress and psychological
empowerment
Yang Woon Chung
Department of Business Administration, University of Suwon, Hwaseong, Republic of Korea

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Background and objectives: Workplace ostracism research has examined Received 29 August 2016
numerous underlying mechanisms to understand the link between Revised 4 January 2018
workplace ostracism and behavioral outcomes. Ostracism has been Accepted 4 January 2018
suggested to be an interpersonal stressor; however, research has not
KEYWORDS
investigated workplace ostracism from a stress perspective. Therefore, Workplace ostracism;
the study investigated the mediating effect of perceived stress for the perceived stress;
relationships between workplace ostracism and helping behavior, psychological empowerment;
voicing behavior, and task performance. The study also investigated the helping behavior; voicing
moderating effect of psychological empowerment for the relationships behavior; task performance;
between perceived stress and behavioral outcomes. moderated mediation
Design: The study design was a three-wave self-reported questionnaire.
Method: The study sampled 225 full-time employees in South Korea and
regression analyses with bootstrapping were conducted to test the
moderated mediation models.
Results: The bootstrapped 95% CI around the indirect effects did not
contain zero; therefore, perceived stress mediated the relationship
between workplace ostracism and helping behavior (–.06), voicing
behavior (–.07), and task performance (–.07). Further, the moderated
mediation analyses found perceived stress mediated the relationships
between workplace ostracism and behavioral outcomes only when
individuals perceived low levels of psychological empowerment.
Conclusion: The findings suggest that workplace ostracism is a stressor
and psychological empowerment can mitigate the negative effects of
ostracism on behavioral outcomes.

Due to the significant amount of time organizational members spend with one another, the social
context has become an important organizational facet that can greatly affect job attitudes and beha-
viors. Positive interpersonal relations with organizational members have been found to positively
affect job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and job performance (e.g., Farmer, Van Dyne, &
Kamdar, 2015; Waismel-Manor, Tziner, Berger, & Dikstein, 2010). However, the workplace has
become a social context where ostracism exists (Fox & Stallworth, 2005), thereby negatively affecting
interpersonal relationships among organizational members. Workplace ostracism is “when an individ-
ual or group omits to take actions that engage another organizational member when it is socially
appropriate to do so” (Robinson, O’Reilly, & Wang, 2013, p. 207). Studies have consistently found
workplace ostracism to result in detrimental organizational outcomes such as reduced levels of
job satisfaction, organizational commitment, person–organization fit, and organizational citizenship
behavior (e.g., Chung, 2017; Ferris, Brown, Berry, & Lian, 2008; Hitlan & Noel, 2009) and increased

CONTACT Yang Woon Chung jywchung@suwon.ac.kr

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 ANXIETY, STRESS, & COPING 305

levels of aggression, counterproductive behavior, harassment, and conflict (e.g., Chung, 2015; Zhao,
Peng, & Sheard, 2013).
Workplace ostracism has gained attention and studies have investigated beyond the direct effects
of workplace ostracism and have found mediating variables such as interpersonal conflict, person-
organizational fit, organizational identification, self-esteem, and envy that associate workplace ostra-
cism and behavioral outcomes (e.g., Chung, 2015, 2017; Ferris, Lian, Brown, & Morrison, 2015; Wu, Liu,
Kwan, & Lee, 2016; Scott, Tams, Schippers, & Lee, 2015; O’Reilly, Robinson, Berdahl, & Banki, 2015). For
instance, Chung (2017) reported person–organization fit to mediate the relationships between work-
place ostracism and deviant behavior and organizational citizenship behavior, Ferris et al. (2015) indi-
cated self-esteem to associate workplace ostracism and job performance, and organizational
identification was found to mediate workplace ostracism and organizational citizenship behavior
(Wu et al., 2016). Surprisingly, although Williams (1997, 2001) has argued that ostracism is an inter-
personal stressor that can result in psychological distress, little is known about the relationship
between workplace ostracism and stress and studies have yet to link workplace ostracism and job
performance from the stress perspective. Numerous studies have suggested job performance is
multi-dimensional and that it consists of other behaviors such as contextual behaviors (e.g.,
Borman & Motowidlo, 1997; Rotundo & Sackett, 2002). Contextual behaviors such as helping and
voicing behaviors can play an important role in organizational effectiveness as they can help solve
work-related problems (Janssen, de Vries, & Cozijnsen, 1998). In this regard, the study empirically
tested the mediating effects of perceived stress for the relationships between workplace ostracism
and helping behavior, voicing behavior, and task performance.
Furthermore, since ostracism is an interpersonal stressor, the study further examined the moder-
ating effects of psychological empowerment for the relationships between perceived stress and
helping behavior, voicing behavior, and task performance. Seibert, Wang, and Courtright (2011)
suggested that psychological empowerment can buffer the stressor–strain relationship because
psychological empowerment is motivational in nature as it allows individuals to feel capable to
control one’s work environment. Therefore, the study model was developed into a moderated
mediation model as it examines perceived stress as the mediating mechanism and psychological
empowerment as a moderating variable for the mediated relationships.

Ostracism
Ostracism leads to numerous negative consequences because it causes a sense of “social pain” (Ferris
et al., 2008). Comparable to brain structures after an individual experiences physical pain, social rejec-
tion stimulates similar brain activation (Eisenberger, Lieberman, & Williams, 2003). Further, ostracism
can simultaneously threaten the four fundamental needs: the need for self-esteem, the need to
belong, the need to control, and the need for a meaningful existence (Williams, 1997, 2001, 2007),
thus resulting in negative outcomes.
Ostracism can come in many forms such as the silent treatment or avoiding contact and exile and
banishment (Ferris et al., 2008). Ostracism can be purposeful when individuals are aware of their inac-
tions to socially engage another individual and do so with intentions that can hurt the target or assist
in the process of exclusion. A passive aggressive method such as the silent treatment may be used to
intentionally punish, retaliate, or hurt the target person as well as to avoid conflict, social awkward-
ness, or unpleasant emotions (Robinson et al., 2013). In contrast, ostracism may not always be inten-
tional or punitive as individuals sometimes ignore others because they are too engaged with their
own work. Inactions can lead to unintentionally ignoring people and their responses (Williams,
2001). Moreover, ostracism without intent can occur when individuals are unaware that they are
engaging in behaviors that socially exclude others (Robinson et al., 2013). This form of ostracism is
quite common because individuals are not always conscious of their own inactions (Sommer, Wil-
liams, Ciarocco, & Baumeister, 2001). For instance, people can forget to include another person’s
email address when sending group email messages thinking that it has already been added.
306 Y. W. CHUNG

Therefore, ostracism can also be ambiguous since an individual may or may not know whether one is
purposely being ostracized (Williams, 1997). In this regard, motive may not be part of the definition as
this form of ostracism is not necessarily intended to cause harm (Robinson et al., 2013). Despite of
these aspects, ostracism is defined as being harmful regardless of the absence of malicious intention
or even without any intention since it results in a painful experience (Williams, 1997).

The mediating role of perceived stress

Research has not investigated the relationship between workplace ostracism and perceived stress,
thus this study empirically tested the mediating role of perceived stress in associating workplace
ostracism and workplace behaviors. Extant literature has found workplace ostracism to be negatively
related to organizational citizenship behavior and in-role behavior and positively related to deviant
behavior (e.g., Chung, 2015, 2017; Ferris et al., 2008). Ostracism results in these outcomes because
ostracism negatively affects an individual’s ability to self-regulate or adapt one’s behaviors to
comply with social norms (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Baumeister, DeWall, Ciarocco, & Twenge,
2005). Self-regulation is required in order to maintain persistence and effort in performing and
accomplishing one’s tasks. When individuals are excluded, their cognitive state becomes negatively
affected which minimizes self-awareness, emphasizes the present state, and decreases concerns for
long-term goals (Twenge, Catanese, & Baumeister, 2003).
Workplace ostracism also negatively affects an individual because it is a painful and aversive
experience (Ferris et al., 2008). Research has found ostracism to be associated with negative affect
(Williams et al., 2002) and negative emotional states such as sadness, depression, loneliness, jealousy,
guilt, shame, embarrassment, and social anxiety (e.g., Gruter & Masters, 1986; Leary, Koch, & Hechen-
bleikner, 2001). Furthermore, Williams (1997, 2001) suggested that ostracism can be argued to be an
interpersonal stressor, therefore, resulting in stress.
Stress literature has been well established in explaining the stressor–strain relationships. Stressors
are the stimuli that induce the stress process and increases anxiety, tension, and exhaustion (Jex,
1998). Strain is an outcome of the stress process that can be psychological (e.g., job dissatisfaction,
turnover intention), physical (e.g., somatic symptoms such as headache, physiological changes
such as increased blood pressure, and long-term pathology), or behavioral (e.g., smoking, withdrawal
from work). Strain is undesirable and it activates negative emotions and cognitions that result in
emotional and physical withdrawal from work. Subsequently, negative emotions have been found
to be negatively be related to cooperation and organizational citizenship behavior (e.g., Bachrach
& Jex, 2000; De Cremer & Van Hiel, 2006).
In addition, stress negatively influences an individual’s productivity, effectiveness, and one’s
quality of work (Savery & Luk, 2001). Individuals with high levels of stress experience cognitive
fatigue which results in draining an individual’s energy which is needed for task performance.
Stress also generates unfavorable conditions such as information overload that require a significant
amount of one’s attention (Cohen, 1980). As a result, when individuals experience stress, they are
likely to underperform on tasks that need tolerance for frustration, accuracy, and the ability to
avoid distractions (Motowidlo, Packard, & Manning, 1986).
Stress can also affect contextual behaviors such as helping behavior and voice behavior. Stress
negatively affects these behaviors because individuals are motivated to acquire, protect, and
retain resources such as time, physical and emotional energy, and attention when experiencing
stress. Conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989, 2002) suggests that individuals want to be
in situations that are pleasurable for themselves and avoid situations that further result in a loss of
resources. In this perspective, individuals under stress will be less likely to consume their resources
and rather conserve their energy because engaging in helping and voice behavior further consumes
their resources (e.g., Bolino & Turnley, 2005; Detert & Burris, 2007). Therefore, understanding the
relationships between workplace ostracism, stress, and workplace behaviors, the following is
proposed:
 ANXIETY, STRESS, & COPING 307

Hypothesis 1: Perceived stress will mediate the relationship between workplace ostracism and helping behavior,
voicing behavior, and task performance.

The moderating role of psychological empowerment

Spreitzer (1995) defined psychological empowerment as a motivational construct that consists of four
cognitions: meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact. Meaning is the fit between the
requirements of a work role and an individual’s beliefs, values, and behaviors. Competence refers
to self-efficacy focusing one’s work, a belief that one is capable in performing work activities with
skill and is similar to agency beliefs, personal mastery, or effort-performance expectancy. Self-deter-
mination refers to autonomy over the initiation and continuation of work behavior and processes,
making decisions about work methods, pace, and effort. Last, impact is the degree that an individual
can influence strategic, administrative, or operating outcomes at work. The four cognitions together
reflect an active not a passive orientation to a work role. Furthermore, psychological empowerment is
not an enduring personality trait but rather is a set of cognitions influenced by the work environment
(Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Thus, psychological empowerment refers to one’s perceptions about
themselves in relationship to one’s work environment (Bandura, 1989). However, psychological
empowerment is not generalizable across different situations and roles but rather is specific to
one’s work domain (Spreitzer, 1995).
According to the demand-control model of occupational stress (Karasek, 1979), control can have
moderating effects on the relations between stressors and strains. Spector and Goh (2001) argued
that control can play a positive role in the stress process because control beliefs and perceptions
are associated with perceived stress and strains. They also suggested that control can moderate
the stressor–strain relationship, especially for strains that are under an individual’s cognitive or voli-
tional control such as workplace behaviors. Moreover, job control is a valuable job facet that can
provide individuals to adjust their demands according to their needs and situations (Karasek & The-
orell, 1990). In this regard, psychological empowerment can moderate the relationships between
stress and workplace behaviors because psychological empowerment increases an individual’s per-
ceptions of feeling competent and being able to influence one’s job and work environment, facili-
tates proactive behaviors, and shows initiative and allows one to act independently (Spreitzer,
1995; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990).
Although psychological empowerment can moderate the relationships between perceived stress
and workplace behaviors, the study goes beyond the moderating effect and posits that psychological
empowerment will moderate the mediated relationships between workplace ostracism, perceived
stress, helping behavior, voicing behavior, and task performance. As psychological empowerment
has been argued to buffer the stressor–strain relationship, feelings of empowerment will also con-
strain the mediated relationships because workplace ostracism can be considered to be a stressor.
Additionally, the indirect effects of workplace ostracism on the workplace behaviors via perceived
stress can be mitigated by psychological empowerment because psychological empowerment can
counter the threatened sense of control resulting from ostracism (Williams, 1997, 2001, 2007). In con-
trast, feeling unable to control one’s work environment will further increase the amount of stress for
ostracized individuals because low levels of psychological empowerment will strengthen the role of
perceived stress in explaining the relationships between workplace ostracism and helping behavior,
voicing behavior, and task performance. Moreover, the moderated mediation model is also in parallel
with Robinson et al.’s (2013) integrated workplace ostracism model, as resources and motivation can
moderate the mediated relationships between workplace ostracism and behavioral outcomes. There-
fore, proposing the following:
Hypothesis 2: Psychological empowerment will moderate the mediated relationships between workplace ostra-
cism and helping behavior, voicing behavior, and task performance through perceived stress, such that the
mediated relationships will be stronger under low levels of psychological empowerment than under high
levels of psychological empowerment.
308 Y. W. CHUNG

Figure 1. Hypothesized research model.

Figure 1 displays the hypothesized moderated mediation model where perceived stress mediates the
relationships between workplace ostracism and helping behavior, voicing behavior, and task per-
formance and psychological empowerment moderates the relationships between perceived stress
and the workplace behaviors.

Method
Procedure
Data were collected using a three-wave self-reported questionnaire in South Korea. A 7-week interval
was given between each wave, thereby separating the variables in order to prevent common method
variance (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). The questionnaires were administered in a
sealed envelope and were given in person to each respondent and later returned into a box to the
person of contact for each organization. The point of contact for each organization was individually
contacted by the researcher and was given a brief 15-minute explanation of the study design and the
purpose of the study. Afterwards, the point of contact verbally notified employees in his/her depart-
ment about the study and individually asked each employee to voluntarily participate in the study.
The participants orally consented to participate in the study. There is no ethical review board at the
University of Suwon.

Participants
For the first wave (T1), questionnaires were sent to 445 full-time employees in 12 organizations and
384 questionnaires were returned (86% response rate). Out of the 384 questionnaires, 357 were
usable as cases with missing data were excluded. The T1 questionnaires provided demographic infor-
mation and measured workplace ostracism and psychological empowerment. The second-wave (T2)
questionnaires were sent to 357 employees and 308 were returned (86% response rate). Out of the
308 questionnaires, 283 were usable due to missing data. The T2 questionnaires measured perceived
stress. The third-wave (T3) questionnaires were sent to 283 employees and 248 were returned (88%
response rate). The T3 questionnaires measured helping behavior, voicing behavior, and task per-
formance. Out of the 248 questionnaires, 225 were usable due to missing data. The average respon-
dent was 35 years old (SD = 6.97), average tenure was 7 years (SD = 7.00), and the average team
tenure was 2.7 years (SD = 2.66). Fifty-three percent of the respondents were male and 73% had a
 ANXIETY, STRESS, & COPING 309

college degree or higher. For organizational position, the three largest groups were the first three
organizational positions: entry level (29.3%), deputy section chief (26.2%), and deputy department
head (19.6%).

Measures
All of the measures were first translated into Korean and later back translated into English in order to
validate the quality of the translations. All of the measure items used a 7-point Likert scale from 1,
“strongly disagree,” to 7, “strongly agree.”
Workplace ostracism was measured with Ferris et al.’s (2008) 10-item scale. Sample items included:
“Others at work do not invite me or ask me when they go out for a break” and “Others do not talk to
me at work.” The reliability of this scale was .97.
Perceived stress was measured with Cohen, Kamarck, and Mermelstein’s (1983) 14-item scale.
Sample items included: “In the last month, I have often been angered because of things that hap-
pened that were outside of my control” and “In the last month, I have often felt that I was unable
to control the important things in my life.” The reliability of this scale was .88.
Psychological empowerment was measured with Spreitzer’s (1995) 12-item scale. Sample items
included: “I have significant autonomy in determining how I do my job” and “I have considerable
opportunity for independence and freedom in how I do my job.” The reliability of this scale was .94.
Helping behavior was measured with Van Dyne and LePine’s (1998) 6-item scale. Sample items
included: “I volunteer to do things for my work group” and “I assist others in the group with their
work for the benefit of the work group.” The reliability of this scale was .94.
Voicing behavior was measured with Van Dyne and LePine’s (1998) 6-item scale. Sample items
included: “I develop and make recommendations concerning issues that affect the work group”
and “I speak up and encourage others in the group to get involved in issues that affect the
group.” The reliability of this scale was .94.
Task performance was measured with Williams and Anderson’s (1991) 7-item measure. Sample
items included: “I adequately complete assigned duties” and “I fulfill my responsibilities specified
in my job description.” The reliability of this scale was .96.

Results
Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics and correlations for the study variables. Confirmatory factor
analysis was first conducted using AMOS 18 to assess the empirical distinction between the study
variables. The normed fit index (NFI, Bentler & Bonett, 1980), incremental fit index (IFI, Bollen,
1989), comparative fit index (CFI, Bentler, 1990), and the root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA, Browne & Cudeck, 1993) were estimated to assess the fit of the models. Numerous
models were compared starting from a one-factor model to the hypothesized six-factor model. Con-
sequently, the six-factor model showed a strong degree of fit (Χ²(716) = 1197.84, NFI = .89, IFI = .95,
CFI = .95, RMSEA = .06) compared to the other models, therefore, suggesting the study variables
are empirically distinct.
To test the hypotheses, regression analyses were conducted. Gender, age, education, position,
tenure, and team tenure were controlled for and were entered for all of the regression analyses.
Mediation analyses were conducted with Preacher and Hayes’ (2004) recommendations which
includes the steps by Baron and Kenny (1986) but also consists of bootstrapping tests of the esti-
mated indirect effect which does not generalize the assumption that the indirect effects are normally
distributed (Preacher & Hayes, 2008).
Hypothesis 1 proposed that perceived stress will mediate the relationship between workplace
ostracism and helping behavior, voicing behavior, and task performance. Workplace ostracism was
found to have an indirect effect on helping behavior (–.06), voicing behavior (–.07), and task perform-
ance (–.07) and the bootstrap results with a bootstrapped 95% CI around the indirect effect did not
 310
Y. W. CHUNG
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations.
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1.Gender 0.47 0.50 1
2.Age 34.96 6.97 –0.24** 1
3.Education 2.94 0.63 –0.09 0.11 1
4.Position 2.60 1.52 –0.15* 0.70** –0.06 1
5.Tenure 6.98 7.00 –0.06 0.65** –0.12 0.46** 1
6.Team tenure 2.68 2.66 –0.05 0.27** –0.04 0.28** 0.30** 1
7.Workplace ostracism 1.57 0.87 –0.05 0.12 0.01 0.11 0.15* 0.21** 1
8.Perceived stress 3.34 0.84 0.12 –0.16* 0.07 –0.09 –0.03 0.03 0.16* 1
9.Psychological empowerment 4.82 1.14 –0.16* 0.30** –0.11 0.23** 0.28** 0.10 –11 –0.58** 1
10.Helping behavior 5.32 0.83 –0.11 0.39** –0.05 0.24** 0.34** 0.22** –0.17** –0.42** 0.47** 1
11.Voicing behavior 4.93 0.97 –0.12 0.37** 0.03 0.27** 0.25** 0.16* –0.17** –0.44** 0.51** 0.73** 1
12.Task performance 5.23 0.83 -0.13 0.21** 0.08 0.17** 0.19** 0.15* –19** –0.44** 0.50** 0.62** 0.61** 1
Note: n = 225; *p < .05; **p < .01.
 ANXIETY, STRESS, & COPING 311

Table 2. Regression results for simple mediation.

B SE t p
Direct and total effects
Helping behavior regressed on workplace ostracism –.25 .06 –4.32 .000
Voicing behavior regressed on workplace ostracism –.27 .07 –3.87 .000
Task performance regressed on workplace ostracism –.25 .06 –3.99 .000
Perceived stress regressed on workplace ostracism .16 .07 2.47 .014
Helping behavior regressed on perceived stress, controlling for workplace ostracism –.35 .06 –6.29 .000
Helping behavior regressed on workplace ostracism, controlling for perceived stress –.20 .05 –3.59 .000
Voicing behavior regressed on perceived stress, controlling for workplace ostracism –.43 .07 –6.49 .000
Voicing behavior regressed on workplace ostracism, controlling for perceived stress –.20 .06 –3.09 .002
Task performance regressed on perceived stress, controlling for workplace ostracism –.40 .06 –6.93 .000
Task performance regressed on workplace ostracism, controlling for perceived stress –.18 .06 –3.19 .002
M SE LL 95% CI UL 95% CI
Bootstrap results for indirect effect
Effect on helping behavior –.06 .03 –.13 –.01
Effect on voicing behavior –.07 .04 –.15 –.01
Effect on task performance –.07 .03 –.14 –.01
Note: Bootstrap size = 5000. LL = lower limit: CI = confidence interval; UL = upper limit.

contain zero for helping behavior (–.13, –.01), voicing behavior (–.15, –.01), and task performance
(–.14, –.01), thus supporting Hypothesis 1 (Table 2).
Hypothesis 2 predicted that the mediated relationships would be stronger when psychological
empowerment was low, meaning that the conditional indirect effect of workplace ostracism on
helping behavior, voicing behavior, and task performance through perceived stress would be stronger
when an individual perceived low psychological empowerment. To test for moderated mediation,
Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes’ (2007) regression-based method was conducted to estimate the conditional
indirect effects of the moderator. As recommended by Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes (2007), high and low
levels of the moderator were operationalized at one standard deviation above and below the mean.
Table 3 shows that the conditional indirect effect for workplace ostracism on helping behavior was
significant when psychological empowerment was low (workplace ostracism = -.074, p < .05) but not
significant when psychological empowerment was high (workplace ostracism = –.019; ns). Likewise,
the conditional indirect effect for workplace ostracism on voicing behavior was significant when
psychological empowerment was low (workplace ostracism = –.068, p < .05) while not significant
when psychological empowerment was high (workplace ostracism = –.028; ns) and the conditional
indirect effect for workplace ostracism on task performance was significant when psychological
empowerment was low (workplace ostracism = –.071, p < .05) but not significant when psychological
empowerment was high (workplace ostracism = –.020; ns), therefore supporting Hypothesis 2.

Discussion
The study investigated the mediating effects of perceived stress on the relationship between work-
place ostracism and helping behavior, voicing behavior, and task performance and the moderating

Table 3. Moderated mediation results for workplace ostracism across levels of psychological empowerment for helping behavior,
voicing behavior, and task performance.
Workplace ostracism
Level Conditional indirect effect SE z p
Psychological empowerment on helping behavior Low –.074 .042 –1.78 .048
High –.019 .018 –1.04 .299
Psychological empowerment on voicing behavior Low –.068 .038 –1.78 .049
High –.028 .023 –1.20 .230
Psychological empowerment on task performance Low –.071 .035 –1.99 .047
High –.020 .018 –1.12 .260
Note: Bootstrap size = 5000.
312 Y. W. CHUNG

effects of psychological empowerment for the mediated relationships. First, the study findings
suggest that the social context can greatly affect the psychological well-being of organizational
members. As Ferris et al. (2008) found workplace ostracism to be positively associated with anxiety
and depression, this study found workplace ostracism to be positively related to perceived stress.
Exclusion and being ignored from other organizational members can generate negative self-percep-
tions and negative emotions and can further allow an individual to feel a lack of control and a loss of
resources. When individuals are ostracized individuals, they will perceive a lack of social support from
other organizational members as social support has been argued to be a critical resource in stressful
situations (Hobfoll, 1989). Due to the negative experiences, ostracized individuals will be likely to per-
ceive stress; thus suggesting that workplace ostracism can be another source of stress from the
workplace.
Second, the study found perceived stress to be significantly related to helping behavior, voicing
behavior, and task performance. Stress has been suggested to reduce proactive behaviors and per-
formance as stressors produce strain, reduce morale, motivation, and performance while increasing
employee withdrawal (e.g., Boswell, Olson-Buchanan, & LePine, 2004; Cavanaugh, Boswell, Roehling,
& Boudreau, 2000; Podsakoff, LePine, & LePine, 2007). Perceived stress was found to be negatively
related to helping behavior, voicing behavior, and task performance, thus the study is consistent
with extant literature on the stressor–strain relationship. Together, these findings suggest that per-
ceived stress mediates the relationships between workplace ostracism and helping behavior,
voicing behavior, and task performance.
Last, the integrated moderated mediation analyses show support for how low psychological
empowerment affected the relationships between workplace ostracism and the three outcome
measures. The study found that perceived stress mediates the relationships between workplace
ostracism and helping behavior, voicing behavior, and task performance only when individuals per-
ceived low levels of psychological empowerment. This suggests that when employees did not feel
they had capabilities to control their work environment, it further exacerbated the negative effects
of workplace ostracism on helping behavior, voicing behavior, and task performance via perceived
stress. In addition, the results can suggest that the lack of psychological empowerment can have
negative effects on the motivational impact of perceived stress on workplace behaviors which is con-
sistent with previous studies that have found empowerment to be associated to stress (Butts, Van-
denberg, DeJoy, Schaffer, & Wilson, 2009; Spreitzer, Kizilos, & Nason, 1997; Thomas & Tymon,
1994). Therefore, the study demonstrated that the indirect effects of workplace ostracism on
helping behavior, voicing behavior, and task performance through perceived stress significantly
differ by the levels of psychological empowerment.
Therefore, the study found perceived stress to mediate the relationships between workplace
ostracism and helping behavior, voicing behavior, and task performance. These findings further
extend literature by linking workplace ostracism and behavioral outcomes from a stress perspective.
Furthermore, moderated mediation was found for the study model and that the indirect effects of
psychological empowerment further develop extant literature on boundary conditions for workplace
ostracism and its consequences.

Implications
As the study proposed that perceived stress is a proximal mechanism that can associate the distal
relationships between workplace ostracism and helping behavior, voicing behavior, and task per-
formance and that psychological empowerment can moderate the mediated relationships, the mod-
erated mediation model addresses the gaps within workplace ostracism and stress literature. First,
recent studies have identified numerous underlying mechanisms that link workplace ostracism
and behavioral outcomes (e.g., Chung, 2015, 2017; Ferris et al., 2015; O’Reilly et al., 2015; Scott
et al., 2015; Wu et al., 2016) and the study further extends literature as it found perceived stress
mediated the relationships between workplace ostracism and helping behavior, voicing behavior,
 ANXIETY, STRESS, & COPING 313

and task performance. Second, workplace ostracism can also be noted as a job stressor which adds to
literature regarding the stressor–strain relationship. Last, although Robinson et al.’s (2013) workplace
ostracism model did not mention moderated mediation relationships, the study found psychological
empowerment moderated the mediated relationships between workplace ostracism and the behav-
ioral outcomes. This suggests that psychological empowerment has significant indirect effects on the
outcomes of workplace ostracism through perceived stress and this finding advances not only Robin-
son et al.’s conceptual framework but also explains why and under what conditions workplace ostra-
cism and perceived stress are linked to helping behavior, voicing behavior, and task performance.
Due to the significant impact of the social context on employees and organizations, organizations
and managers must realize the significance of positive interpersonal relationships among organiz-
ational members. Feelings of exclusion can psychologically harm employees which can further
affect workplace behaviors. In order to manage the psychological well-being of organizational
members, organizations need to increase the awareness of workplace ostracism through training
starting from onboarding practices so that employees understand how to prevent, report, and
cope with workplace ostracism. Additionally, organizations and managers should consider imple-
menting high-performance managerial practices such as participative decision–making, decentraliza-
tion, and extensive training as employees can positively respond in numerous ways. For instance,
workplace flexibility such as in work hours and schedules have resulted in increased life and job sat-
isfaction and less mental health problems (e.g., Bond, Thompson, Galinsky, & Prottas, 2002; Butler,
Grzywacz, Ettner, & Liu, 2009; Origo & Pagani, 2008) and employees were able to better meet their
needs on and off the job when organizations practiced workplace flexibility (Galinsky, Bond, & Hill,
2004). Furthermore, high-performance practices are argued to positively influence empowerment
because they can affect the cognitive states of psychological empowerment (Thomas & Velthouse,
1990), thus alleviating the effects of workplace ostracism on workplace behaviors via perceived stress.

Limitations and future directions

The study is not without any limitations. First, common method variance may be of concern since the
questionnaires were self-rated. Even though the study was designed using a three-wave approach in
order to separate the measurement of the study variables by implementing time lags to decrease the
biases relating to single sources and common methods (Podsakoff et al., 2003), the use of multi-raters
such as peers and supervisors should also be considered for workplace behaviors such as helping
behavior and task performance (e.g., Stewart, Bing, Davison, Woehr, & McIntyre, 2009). However,
the study can be justified as Harman’s single-factor test was conducted. The results explained
38.51% in variance which shows that common method variance was not a considerable issue.
Second, cultural characteristics may have significantly influenced the study results because the
study was conducted in South Korea. As a collectivistic society, solidarity, harmony, and having a
concern for others are considered to be pertinent cultural values. For instance, collectivistic societies
may be more sensitive toward ostracism (Powell, Francesco, & Yan, 2009) compared to Western
societies that emphasize individualism and self-achievement. Hence, the results may not be general-
izable and the study should also be replicated in Western cultures. Third, the control variables should
be reconsidered as variables such as personality and negative affect may prove to be more significant
for workplace ostracism, perceived stress, and workplace behaviors (e.g., Berkowitz, 1989; Williams
et al., 2002).
Since ostracism also exists in the workplace, research needs to address how organizations and
managers can help prevent workplace ostracism. As studies have identified numerous underlying
mechanisms that explain the relationships between workplace ostracism and behavioral outcomes,
future studies should explore antecedents that can mitigate the effects of workplace ostracism. For
example, studies should examine whether positive organizational practices such as organizational
socialization and employee onboarding programs can help employees adapt to the social context
and help individuals perceive cohesion and unity with other organizational members as
314 Y. W. CHUNG

organizational socialization has been found to be positively associated with social integration (e.g.,
Gruman, Saks, & Zweig, 2006). In addition, studies that include boundary conditions are quite
limited (e.g., Wu, Yim, Kwan, & Zhang, 2012) and studies should investigate under what contexts
can help offset the negative effects of workplace ostracism. For example, justice perceptions, organ-
izational support, work-based social network services, and task interdependence may help mitigate
the effects. Research should also continue and explore what other underlying mechanisms can link
workplace ostracism and workplace behaviors such as organization-based self-esteem, team commit-
ment, and team-member exchange as they are associated with the fundamental needs of workplace
ostracism.
In conclusion, workplace ostracism has a significant impact on psychological, behavioral, and
organizational outcomes and this study found perceived stress to mediate the relationships
between workplace ostracism and helping behavior, voicing behavior, and task performance.
Further, psychological empowerment was found to moderate the mediated relationships; thus sup-
porting the proposed moderated mediation framework and extending extant literature on workplace
ostracism and stress.

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

Funding
This work was supported by University of Suwon.

ORCID
Yang Woon Chung http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3165-2282

References
Bachrach, D. G., & Jex, S. M. (2000). Organizational citizenship and mood: An experimental test of perceived job breadth.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 641–663. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02500.x
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44, 1175–1184. doi:10.1037//0003-
066x.44.9.1175
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research:
Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
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
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human
motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246. doi:10.1037//0033-
2909.107.2.238
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures.
Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.88.3.588
Berkowitz, L. (1989). Frustration-aggression hypothesis: Examination and reformulation. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 59–73.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.106.1.59
Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2005). The personal costs of citizenship behavior: The relationship between individual
initiative and role overload, job stress, and work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 740–748. doi:10.
1037/0021-9010.90.4.740
Bollen, K. A. (1989). A new incremental fit index for general structural equation models. Sociological Methods & Research,
17, 303–316. doi:10.1177/0049124189017003004
Bond, J. T., Thompson, C., Galinsky, E., & Prottas, D. (2002). Highlights of the national study of the changing workforce.
New York, NY: Families and Work Institute.
 ANXIETY, STRESS, & COPING 315

Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: The meaning for personnel
selection research. Human Performance, 10, 99–109. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1002_3
Boswell, W. R., Olson-Buchanan, J. B., & LePine, M. A. (2004). Relations between stress and work outcomes: The role of felt
challenge, job control, and psychological strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 165–181. doi:10.1016/s0001-8791
(03)00049-6
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing struc-
tural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Butler, A. B., Grzywacz, J. G., Ettner, S. L., & Liu, B. (2009). Workplace flexibility, self-reported health, and health care util-
ization. Work & Stress, 23, 45–59. doi:10.1080/02678370902833932
Butts, M. M., Vandenberg, R. J., DeJoy, D. M., Schaffer, B. S., & Wilson, M. G. (2009). Individual reactions to high involvement
work processes: Investigating the role of empowerment and perceived organizational support. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 14, 122–136. doi:10.1037/a0014114
Cavanaugh, M. A., Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V., & Boudreau, J. W. (2000). An empirical examination of self-reported work
stress among U.S. managers. Journal of Applied Pscyhology, 85, 65–74. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.85.1.65
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, 366–
385. doi:10.1108/IJCMA-01-2014-0001
Chung, Y. W. (2017). The role of person-organization fit and perceived organizational support in the relationship between
workplace ostracism and behavioral outcomes. Australian Journal of Management, 42, 328–349. doi:10.1177/
0312896215611190
Cohen, S. (1980). Aftereffects of stress on human performance and social behavior: A review of research and theory.
Psychological Bulletin, 88, 82–108. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.88.1.82
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 24, 385–396. doi:10.2307/2136404
De Cremer, D., & Van Hiel, Al. (2006). Effects of another person’s fair treatment on one’s own emotions and behaviors: The
moderating role of how much the other cares for you. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100,
231–249. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.10.002
Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of
Management Journal, 50, 869–884. doi:10.5465/amj.2007.26279183
Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science,
302, 290–292. doi:10.1126/science.1089134
Farmer, S. M., Van Dyne, L., & Kamdar, D. (2015). The contextualized self: How team-member exchange leads to coworker
identification and helping OCB. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 583–595. doi:10.1037/a0037660
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 performance: When do we selfverify
and when do we self-enhance? Academy of Management Journal, 58, 279–297. doi:10.5465/amj.2011.0347
Fox, S., & Stallworth, L. E. (2005). Racial/ethnic bullying: Exploring links between bullying and racism in the US workplace.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 438–456. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2004.01.002
Galinsky, E., Bond, J. T., & Hill, E. J. (2004). When work works: A status report on workplace flexibility: Who has it? Who wants
it? What difference does it make? New York, NY: Families and Work Institute.
Gruman, J. A., Saks, A. M., & Zweig, D. I. (2006). Organizational socialization tactics and newcomer proactive behaviors: An
integrative study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 90–104. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2006.03.001
Gruter, M., & Masters, R. D. (1986). Ostracism as a social and biological phenomenon: An introduction. Ethology and
Sociobiology, 7, 149–158. doi:10.1016/0162-3095(86)90043-9
Hitlan, R. T., & Noel, J. (2009). The influence of workplace exclusion and personality on counterproductive work beha-
viours: An interactionist perspective. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 18, 477–502. doi:10.
1080/13594320903025028
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513–
524. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513
Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General Psychology, 6, 307–324. doi:10.
1037/1089-2680.6.4.307
Janssen, O., de Vries, T., & Cozijnsen, A. J. (1998). Voicing by adapting and innovating employees: An empirical study on
how persoanlity and environment interact to affect voice behavior. Human Relations, 51, 945–967. doi:10.1177/
001872679805100705
Jex, S. M. (1998). Stress and job performance: Theory, research, and implications for managerial practice. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 24, 285–308. doi:10.2307/2392498
Karasek, R. A., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy work: Stress, productivity, and the reconstruction of working life. New York, NY:
Basic Books.
316 Y. W. CHUNG

Leary, M. R., Koch, E. J., & Hechenbleikner, N. R. (2001). Emotional responses to interpersonal rejection. In M. R. Leary (Ed.),
Interpersonal rejection (pp. 145–166). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Motowidlo, S. J., Packard, J. S., & Manning, M. R. (1986). Occupational stress: Its causes and consequences for job perform-
ance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 618–629. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.71.4.618
O’Reilly, J., Robinson, S. L., Berdahl, J. L., & Banki, S. (2015). Is negative attention better than no attention? The comparative
effects of ostracism and harassment at work. Organization Science, 26, 774–793. doi:10.1287/orsc.2014.0900
Origo, F., & Pagani, L. (2008). Workplace flexibility and job satisfaction: Some evidence from Europe. International Journal
of Manpower, 29, 539–566. doi:10.1108/01437720810904211
Podsakoff, N. P., LePine, J. A., & LePine, M. A. (2007). Differential challenge stressor-hindrance stressor relationships with
job attitudes, turnover intentions, turnover, and withdrawal behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,
92, 438–454. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.438
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A
critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. doi:10.1037/
0021-9010.88.5.879
Powell, G. N., Francesco, A. M., & Yan, L. (2009). Toward culture-sensitive theories of the work-family interface. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 30, 597–616. doi:10.1002/job.568
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., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in
multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and
prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185–227. doi:10.1080/00273170701341316
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
Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. (2002). The relative importance of task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance to
global ratings of job performance: A policy-capturing approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 66–80. doi:10.1037/
0021-9010.87.1.66
Savery, L. K., & Luk, J. A. (2001). The relationship between empowerment, job satisfaction and reported stress levels: Some
Australian evidence. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 22, 97–104. doi:10.1108/01437730110389247
Scott, K. L., Tams, S., Schippers, M. C., & Lee, K. (2015). Opening the black box: Why and when workplace exclusion affects
social reconnection behaviour, health, and attitudes. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24, 239–
255. doi:10.1080/1359432x.2014.894978
Seibert, S. E., Wang, G., & Courtright, S. H. (2011). Antecedents and consequences of psychological and team empower-
ment in organizations: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 981–1003. doi:10.1037/a0022676
Sommer, K. L., Williams, K. D., Ciarocco, N. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (2001). When silence speaks louder than words:
Explorations into the intrapsychic and interpersonal consequences of social ostracism. Basic and Applied Social
Psychology, 23, 225–243. doi:10.1207/S15324834BASP2304_1
Spector, P. E., & Goh, A. (2001). The role of emotions in the occupational stress process. The role of emotions in the occu-
pational stress process. In P. L. Perrewe & D. C. Ganster (Eds.), Research in occupational stress and well-being: Vol. 1:
Exploring theoretical mechanisms and perspectives (pp. 195–232). Greenwich, CT: JAI. doi:10.1016/s1479-3555
(01)01013-7
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation.
Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442–1465. doi:10.2307/256865
Spreitzer, G. M., Kizilos, M., & Nason, S. (1997). A dimensional analysis of the relationship between psychological empow-
erment and effectiveness, satisfaction, and strain. Journal of Management, 23, 679–704. doi:10.1016/s0149-2063
(97)90021-0
Stewart, S. M., Bing, M. N., Davidson, H. K., Woehr, D. J., & McIntyre, M. D. (2009). In the eyes of the beholder: A non-self-
report measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 207–215. doi:10.1037/a0012605
Thomas, K. W. & Tymon, W. G. (1994). Does empowerment always work: Understanding the role of intrinsic motivation
and personal interpretation. Journal of Management Systems, 6(1), 39–54.
Thomas, K. W. & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An “interpretive” model of intrinsic task
motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15, 666–681. doi:10.2307/258687
Twenge, J. M., Catanese, K. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2003). Social exclusion and the deconstructed state: Time perception,
meaninglessness, lethargy, lack of emotion, and self-awareness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 409–
423. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.409
Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity.
Academy of Management, 41, 108–119. doi:10.2307/256902
Waismel-Manor, R., Tziner, A., Berger, E., & Dikstein, E. (2010). Two of a kind? Leader-member exchange and organizational
citizenship behaviors: The moderating role of leader-member similarity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 167–
181. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00568.x
 ANXIETY, STRESS, & COPING 317

Williams, K. D. (1997). Social ostracism. In R. M. Kowalski (Ed.), Aversive interpersonal behaviors (pp. 133–170). New York, NY:
Plenum. doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-9354-3_7
Williams, K. D. (2001). Ostracism: The power of silence. New York, NY: Guilford.
Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 425–452. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085641
Williams, L. J. & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational
citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601–617. doi:10.1177/014920639101700305
Williams, K. D., Govan, C. L., Croker, V., Tynan, D., Cruickshank, M. & Lam, A. (2002). Investigations into differences between
social and cyberostracism. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 65–77. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.6.1.65
Wu, C., Liu, J., Kwan, H. K., & Lee, C. (2016). Why and when workplace ostracism inhibits organizational citizenship beha-
viors: An organizational identification perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 362–378. doi:10.1037/
apl0000063
Wu, L., Yim, F. H., Kwan, H. K., & Zhang, X. (2012). Coping with workplace ostracism: The roles of ingratiation and political
skill in employee psychological distress. Journal of Management Studies, 49, 178–199. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2011.
01017.x
Zhao, H., Peng, A., & Sheard, G. (2013). Workplace ostracism and hospitality employees’ counterproductive work beha-
viors: 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