See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/229753051

Workplace isolation: Exploring the construct and its

measurement

Article  in  Psychology and Marketing · March 2007

DOI: 10.1002/mar.20158

CITATIONS READS

114 5,947

3 authors, including:

Jay Mulki
Northeastern University
44 PUBLICATIONS   4,188 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Impact of Customer Orientation, Inducements and Ethics on Loyalty to the Firm: Customers’ Perspective View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jay Mulki on 14 July 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Workplace Isolation:
Exploring the Construct
and Its Measurement
Greg W. Marshall
Rollins College

Charles E. Michaels
University of South Florida

Jay P. Mulki
Northeastern University

ABSTRACT

Virtual offices are a growing trend in today’s work environment and

are expected to influence marketing roles dramatically, especially
selling. These conditions may lead to perceptions of isolation, both
socially and organizationally. Workplace isolation is a two-dimen-
sional construct that represents individuals’ perceptions of isolation
from others at work and includes perceived isolation from both col-
leagues and from the company’s support network. This article reports
the results of a four-sample study to develop and validate a self-
report scale for measuring the two facets of workplace isolation. The
scale’s usefulness for future research and management applications
are discussed. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

As the field of marketing becomes more fragmented, various marketing

functions continue to evolve to either virtual (remote) office or outsourced
settings (Webster, Malter, & Ganesan, 2003). No aspect of marketing has
been more impacted by this trend than selling. In the current team sell-
ing environment, salespeople are required to orchestrate the efforts
among different organization members, and thus are likely to perceive

Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 24(3): 195–223 (March 2007)

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com)
© 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/mar.20158
195
availability of co-worker support as a critical factor to their success
(Dixon, Gassenheimer, & Barr, 2002). Research suggests that percep-
tions of nonavailability of support and not being part of the group can cre-
ate negative feelings in salespeople, particularly in field settings (Wiesen-
feld, Raghuram, & Garud, 2001).
Researchers have identified isolation perceptions as one of the major
issues for employees in remote offices and have discussed its implica-
tions on workers (e.g., Cooper & Kurland, 2002; Kurland & Cooper, 2002;
Vega & Brennan, 2000). An evolutionary perspective suggests that
humans have long perceived physical and social separation from the
group as negative, because it means deprivation of support and protec-
tion, which are critical for survival (Buss, 1996). This study postulates
that availability of support (or lack thereof) is a critical factor leading to
isolation perceptions in today’s organizational settings. An employee’s
workplace isolation results from her/his perceptions of lack of availabil-
ity of support and recognition, missed opportunities for informal inter-
actions with co-workers, and not being part of the group. Of course, oppor-
tunities for interactions and networking can diminish further when
employees are located in remote offices. Although inherently physical
distance plays into availability, and thus would likely exacerbate isola-
tion perceptions, it is proposed that isolation perceptions emanate from
availability, not just spatial separation.
Virtual offices are a growing trend in today’s work environment and
are expected to influence personal selling and sales management dra-
matically in the new millennium (Anderson, 1996; Cascio, 2000). Com-
panies such as Procter & Gamble, IBM, Hewlett-Packard, AT&T, and
Compaq have partially or fully eliminated traditional offices for field
sales and customer service personnel (Davenport & Pearlson, 1998).
Researchers believe that in general the proportion of virtual workers in
the overall workforce will grow exponentially. It is expected that 90 mil-
lion Americans, representing about 45% of workforce, will be engaged
in some virtual office arrangement by 2030 (Kepczyk, 1999). Virtual
offices at customer sites or in close proximity to target markets enable
companies to maintain competitive presence with customers by reduc-
ing costs and enhancing the productivity of customer interactions (Ander-
son, 1996).
Research shows that virtual office arrangements afford benefits to
both employees and organizations (Gainey, Kelley, & Hill, 1999; Kon-
radt, Schmook, & Mälecke, 2000). In spite of the benefits, sales managers
are concerned about virtual employees developing perceptions of isola-
tion from the organization, which in turn may lead to lower job satis-
faction and reduced organizational commitment (Kirkman et al., 2002;
Wiesenfeld et al., 2001). A review of studies on virtual work shows that
the most frequently cited employee concern is perceived isolation from
co-workers and office social networks (Mann, Varey, & Button, 2000; Pin-
sonneault & Boisvert, 2001). Nevertheless, results of the research on vir-
tual office arrangements provide mixed evidence of the impact of virtual
196 MARSHALL, MICHAELS, AND MULKI
Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
work on employee attitudes and behaviors (Bailey & Kurland, 2002; Pin-
sonneault & Boisvert, 2001).
One reason postulated for the mixed findings of prior research is the
absence of an agreed-upon definition of virtual work (e.g., Bailey & Kur-
land, 2002; Pinsonneault & Boisvert, 2001). Another potential reason is
poor conceptualization of workplace isolation as a construct and no val-
idated scale to measure it. Even though the issue of perceived isolation
in virtual settings has been discussed widely both in the academic and
trade press (e.g., Andres, 2002; Bailey & Kurland, 2002; Wiesenfeld et al.,
2001), an extensive literature search revealed no adequate definition of
workplace isolation. Although several scales exist to measure different
kinds of loneliness and social isolation across multiple conceptualiza-
tions, no instrument measures employee perceptions of workplace iso-
lation. Robinson, Shaver, and Wrightsman (1991) in the handbook of
scales Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes included
eight kinds of scales to measure loneliness (Shaver & Brennan, 1991,
Chap. 6). These are summarized below:

• The UCLA Loneliness Scale (Russell & Cutrona, 1988; Russell,

Cutrona, & Peplau, 1980) is widely used for measuring loneliness and
focuses on the quality of a respondent’s relationship with others.
• State versus Trait Loneliness Scales (Gerson & Perlman, 1979;
Shaver, Fuhrman & Buhrmester, 1985) were based on the UCLA
scale and were “. . . constructed to distinguish short-term, situa-
tionally induced loneliness when traveling alone to a new city from
chronic dispositionally based loneliness” (Shaver & Brennan, 1991,
p. 249).
• On the other hand, with the Loneliness Rating Scale (LRS), Scalise,
Ginter, and Gerstein (1984) focus on the emotional state of loneli-
ness, not on its presumed social–relational causes.
• Shaver and Brennan (1991) state that the fourth scale, the Rasch-
Type Loneliness Scale (de Jong-Gierveld & van Tilburg, 1990) is
based on a three-dimensional conceptualization of loneliness. The
dimensions are type of deprivation, time perspective, and emotional
characteristics.
• The fifth scale is the Differential Loneliness Scale (DLS) (Schmidt
& Sermat, 1983), and focuses on romantic/sexual relationships,
friendships, etc.
• The sixth and seventh scales, the Emotional versus Social Loneli-
ness scales (Russell, Cutrona, Rose, & Yuko, 1984 and Wittenberg,
1986) and Emotional/Social Loneliness Inventory (ESL), are scales
that measure social and emotional loneliness.
• The eighth scale, the Children’s Loneliness Scale (SLS) (Asher,
Hymel, & Renshaw, 1984), focuses on children’s perceptions of iso-
lation and rejection.
WORKPLACE ISOLATION 197
Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
 An excellent source for details on the above and other extant scales to
measure loneliness and social isolation is Shaver and Brennan (1991).
In addressing ways to develop beneficial relationships between acade-
micians and practioners, researchers have suggested concerted effort is
needed in mutually beneficial focal areas (Nataraajan, Henthorne, &
LaTour, 1998). In view of the growing practice of locating salespeople in vir-
tual settings close to customer locations, sales managers are increasingly
interested in identifying issues that can impact salesperson attitudes and
behaviors. Academic researchers also have called for the study of issues that
impact the effectiveness of a sales force in today’s decentralized office envi-
ronment (Leigh & Marshall, 1999; Marshall & Michaels, 2001). The pres-
ent study defines the workplace-isolation construct, argues that it is the
perception of isolation—not necessarily true physical proximity—that is crit-
ical, demonstrates the distinction between workplace isolation and lone-
liness and social isolation, and develops a psychometrically valid and reli-
able scale to measure employee perceptions of workplace isolation.

WORKPLACE ISOLATION

From an evolutionary perspective, isolation has elicited alarm in humans

and they responded by seeking the company of others (Bowlby, 1973).
Tribes realized that group membership was essential for survival and used
physical as well as social isolation to punish errant members (Buss, 1996;
Jex, 2002). In modern organizations, employees see group membership as
vital and perceive physical or social isolation as a source of hardship and
stress (House, 1981). This is because group membership provides norms
of acceptable behavior, helps reduce anxiety, contributes to performance,
and enables workers to reach goals that would have been otherwise very
difficult or impossible (Beehr, Jex, Stacy, & Murray, 2000). For example, a
salesperson’s ability to access resources and obtain the needed assistance
to convert opportunities into sales is greater as a team member (Moon &
Gupta, 1997). This study conceptualizes workplace isolation as a psycho-
logical construct that describes employees’ perceptions of isolation from
the organization and from co-workers. Isolation perceptions are formed
by the absence of support from co-workers and supervisors and the lack of
opportunities for social and emotional interactions with the team.
At this point it is important to examine briefly the construct of lone-
liness and highlight the difference between it and workplace isolation.
Loneliness is described as the unpleasant experience a person goes
through when his/her network of social relations is deficient (Shaver &
Brennan, 1991). Weiss (1973) believes that “…loneliness is caused not
by being alone but by being without some definite needed relationship
or set of relationships” (p. 17). Two broad types of loneliness have been
identified in the literature. Social-isolation loneliness results from a
lack of satisfying friendship relationships or a lack of access to social net-

198 MARSHALL, MICHAELS, AND MULKI

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
works (Russell et al., 1984; Weiss, 1973). The second type, emotional-
isolation loneliness, is the result of a lack of satisfying romantic rela-
tionships or the absence of close emotional attachments (Russell et al.,
1984; Weiss, 1973). Social-isolation loneliness appears to be dominated
by a feeling of exclusion and boredom, whereas emotional-isolation lone-
liness is marked by anxiety and apprehension (Weiss, 1973). In con-
trast, workplace isolation is discernibly different from loneliness and
reflects the employee’s desire to be part of the network of colleagues
who provide help and support in specific work-related needs. It repre-
sents employees’ perceptions of availability of co-workers, peers, and
supervisors for work-based social support.
The sales literature has recognized that for salespeople as boundary
spanners, the perception of availability of support is crucial to success
(Dubinsky, Yammarino, Jolson, & Spangler, 1995). Isolation perceptions
based on availability of support may be compounded for field salespeo-
ple because they primarily rely on electronic communication such as e-
mail and telephone as their link with the traditional office in almost all
aspects of their job (Anderson, 1996). Studies have shown that various
forms of electronic communication generally lack the richness and social
presence associated with face-to-face communication (Andres, 2002; Scott
& Timmerman, 1999). Information richness is the extent to which any
communication medium is able to bridge different frames of reference,
carry multiple cues, reduce equivocation, and minimize ambiguity (Daft,
Lengel, & Trevino, 1987). Both e-mail and telephone communications
are ranked below face-to-face communication in terms of information
richness (Mann et al., 2000; Workman, Kahnweiler, & Bommer, 2003).
Social presence is the degree to which any communication medium
conveys the physical presence, nonverbal signals, and social cues of the
participants (Daft et al., 1987). Not surprisingly, electronic communica-
tion (especially e-mail and fax—highly used by salespeople) provides a
weak indicant of social position, and is lower in social presence because
it is devoid of facial expressions, gestures, and vocal intonation (Daft &
Lengel, 1986; Meyrowitz, 1985; Walther, 1995). Lack of attentiveness,
misinterpretations, and absence of contextual cues and norms resulting
from reliance on electronic communication can lead to feelings of frus-
tration and negligible interpersonal affect in interdependent groups such
as salespeople (Bordia, 1997; Daft et al., 1987). The above findings sug-
gest that salespeople in virtual settings are more likely to develop per-
ceptions of being left out and isolated based on their reliance on elec-
tronic communication and the resulting poor information richness and
social presence (Pinsonneault & Boisvert, 2001).
Previous research on virtual work leads one to expect that virtual
employees will experience two types of isolation: social isolation and
organizational isolation. First, from a social perspective, these employ-
ees miss the social interaction of informal chats, spontaneous discus-
sions, and meetings around the water cooler (Cooper & Kurland, 2002).

WORKPLACE ISOLATION 199

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
They generally are not privy to the company grapevine (Kurland & Bai-
ley, 1999; Wiesenfeld, Raghuram, & Garud, 1999). Their need for affilia-
tion and social support is impacted by the virtual office setting (Wiesen-
feld et al., 2001). Lack of a home base and physical separation only serve
to exacerbate feelings of being out of touch (Scott & Timmerman, 1999).
The lack of informal interaction, affective bond, and emotional support,
along with the reduction in intimacy, results in virtual office employees
feeling socially isolated (Mann et al., 2000).
Second, at an organizational level, virtual employees fear being “out
of sight and out of mind” for rewards (Kurland & Bailey, 1999). They
tend to believe that their efforts are not recognized or valued (Cooper &
Kurland, 2002) and that their chances for career advancement are less
than their traditional office counterparts (Bailey & Kurland, 2002; Kur-
land & Cooper, 2002). Virtual office employees often hold the belief that
their supervisors consider them less committed to their tasks, thus assign-
ing them less visible projects, providing minimal feedback, and giving
negligible mentoring (Fitzgerald, 1994). Some virtual employees may
feel that they receive less career support overall from their supervisors
(Pinsonneault & Boisvert, 2001). In addition, due to spatial separation
feedback from supervisors is generally scripted, which minimizes infor-
mal networking, reduces opportunities for relationship development, and
leads to isolation perceptions (Sarbaugh-Thompson & Feldman, 1998;
Thompson, 1967). Thus, the employee’s perceived lack of support and
the desire for organizational identification contribute to their percep-
tions of organizational isolation.
Based on the above, workplace isolation is conceptualized as a con-
struct that has two dimensions: Colleagues and Company. Colleagues
represents the perceptions of isolation from co-workers when the need
for casual interactions, friendship, and camaraderie is not met. Com-
pany represents the perception of isolation from the company when
the need for work-based support from both supervisors and the organ-
ization is not met. Employee perceptions that they are not a member
of the team or the departmental network and that their achievements
are not being acknowledged by the company only increase their sense
of workplace isolation.

OVERVIEW OF CURRENT STUDY

The study to develop a workplace-isolation scale utilized four different

respondent samples in four phases. In the first phase, items were devel-
oped for the scale and exploratory factor analysis was performed to iden-
tify the underlying structure, facets of the scale, and internal consis-
tency reliability of the facets with the use of a sample of employed
students (hereafter, called the exploratory sample). In the second phase,
confirmatory factor analysis was performed to confirm the factors iden-

200 MARSHALL, MICHAELS, AND MULKI

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
tified in the exploratory stage with the use of a second sample of virtual
workers (hereafter called the confirmatory sample). This analysis was con-
ducted to verify that the scale actually measures two dimensions of work-
place isolation. The third phase, to establish nomological validity, focused
on investigating the relationship of the workplace-isolation scale to a
network of work attitude variables. This validation was conducted with
the use of another sample of virtual workers (hereafter called the nomo-
logical validity sample). Finally, to provide evidence that the workplace-
isolation scale is measuring aspects different from loneliness, in a fourth
phase discriminant validity of the subscales was tested with Witten-
berg’s (1986) measures of social and emotional loneliness with the use of
a sample of employed students (hereafter called the discriminant valid-
ity sample). The demographics for the samples used in these four phases
of the study are shown in Table 1.

METHOD

Initial Scale-Item Generation

A pool of 65 items was developed from four sources: A review of the lit-
erature on isolation and virtual office employees; items from existing
scales measuring constructs such as loneliness, alienation, and social
isolation; interviews with virtual office employees who considered them-
selves isolated; and interviews with traditional employees to understand
their experiences with virtual office colleagues. The items were then
reviewed to ensure that the themes of isolation from co-workers and
from the company network derived from the literature were included.
Following established methods (cf. Babin & Burns, 1998), subject-mat-
ter experts from management, marketing, and industrial/organizational
psychology reviewed the appropriateness of the 65 items and provided
feedback as to the format, verbiage, and sentence structure. Professors
and doctoral students in these fields acted as judges and rated the favor-
ableness of the items to the construct of interest (workplace isolation).
A 7-point Likert-type scale was employed, where 1 ⫽ strongly unfavor-
able and 7 ⫽ strongly favorable, with 4 ⫽ neutral. The judges also checked
elements of the items for duplication and ease of understanding. Short
sentences were used to maintain clarity and readability. From the judges’
responses, the intercorrelations between all pairs of items were calculated.
The intercorrelations for the original 65 items are shown in Appendix A.
The items with a low correlation ultimately were removed using a cut-
off of 0.40. For the 43 items that remained, the mean of the upper and
lower quartiles of the judges’ scores were calculated and p tests were
computed for each to ascertain how well the items discriminated. With
the use of an alpha level of 0.05, the significant items were retained for
use in the test instrument. This process resulted in 28 statements that

WORKPLACE ISOLATION 201

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
 202
Table 1. Summary Demographics for Samples Used in the Study.

Work Experience Number of Total Hours

Age (years) Gender (Years) Co-workers Worked

Study Phase Sample Size Mean SD Male Female Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Exploratory factor analysis 1 398 29.3 6.9 233 163 7.6 6.4 262 354 39.2 11.5
Confirmatory
Factor analysis 2 460 39.5 11.4 1 445 15.8 10.3 0.5 2.2 33.6 18.8
Nomological validity 3 309 40.6 11.2 3 306 17.2 10.4 8.7 12.2 43.9 16.1
Discriminant validity 4 177 38.0 10.4 82 93 6.0 7.5 170 318 38.0 10.4

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

MARSHALL, MICHAELS, AND MULKI
reflect the extent to which individuals perceive themselves as interact-
ing with co-workers and being part of the company network. The results
of the item selection process and the respective p values are reflected in
Appendix B.

Phase One: Exploratory Factor Analysis

This phase was conducted with the use of 435 evening MBA and senior
undergraduate business students at three urban universities in the
United States. Most of these evening graduate and undergraduate stu-
dents (79%) were employed full time. Printed copies of questionnaires with
the 28 items along with demographic questions were distributed in the
classes along with a short introduction. Of the 28 statements in the ques-
tionnaire, 7 were negatively worded. As previously, a Likert-type scale was
used, where 1 ⫽ strongly disagree, 7 ⫽ strongly agree, and 4 ⫽ neither
agree nor disagree. After eliminating questionnaires with partial
responses, respondents with no work experience, and those currently not
working, a total of 398 responses were coded for analysis. The sample
was reasonably gender diverse (about 59% male and 41% female) and con-
sisted of both salespeople and non-salespeople working for various-sized
firms. Four of the respondents worked alone, approximately 20% had 10
or fewer staff members, and 16% reported they had more than 1,000 co-
workers at their physical location.
Exploratory factor analysis of the 28 items with the use of principal
factor analysis was conducted to identify the number of factors associated
with the construct. Factor loadings indicated a two-factor solution with
eigenvalues for the first factor of 9.83 and the second factor of 1.90, with
cumulative variance explained of 82.6% percent. Eigenvalues (more than
1.0) and a scree plot were used to confirm the presence of two factors
(Faranda, 2001). A factor loading of 0.40 was used as the cutoff level for
item retention. Varimax rotation produced a structure with 19 items
cleanly loading on either of two factors. Two subscales were thus identi-
fied to measure the two factors defined by this analysis.
Internal consistency reliability analysis of each subscale was conducted
with the use of the 19 items from the above step. Items were examined
for correlation with the subscale total score and were deleted if their inclu-
sion failed to increase ␣ reliability. In addition, individual items were
reviewed for content and the correlation of each item with the total score
was examined to minimize inclusion of redundant items in the scale. This
was done so long as eliminating an item did not appear to sacrifice rep-
resentation of the overall domain of the construct. This process resulted
in two subscales, each with six items. Statements in Subscale 1 reflect
the perception of availability of co-workers for working through problems,
discussing issues, and developing friendships. This subscale, representing
workplace social isolation, is labeled Colleagues. Items in the second sub-
scale deal with perceptions concerning communication with management,
being informed about company events, and how well the company takes
WORKPLACE ISOLATION 203
Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
note of individual achievements. This subscale, representing workplace
organizational isolation, is labeled Company. Internal consistency relia-
bilities (Cronbach’s alpha) of the Colleague and Company subscales were
0.88 and 0.81, respectively, indicating acceptable levels of reliability (Nun-
nally & Bernstein, 1994). The scale items, descriptive statistics, correla-
tion matrix, and item-to-total correlations for each item for the two sub-
scales are shown in Tables 2 and 3.

Phase Two: Confirmatory Factor Analysis

In this phase, a data-collection effort on a concentrated group of virtual
employees outside traditional office settings was facilitated by corpo-
rate sponsorship of the project. The sponsoring organization is a direct-
selling firm comprised of a large number of salespeople working from
their homes. Salespeople of this type are formal representatives of the

Table 2a. Descriptive Statistics for the “Colleagues” Subscale.

Item-to-Total
Item Mean SD Correlation

Q1 I have friends available to me at work. 2.73 1.74 0.69

Q3 I have one or more co-workers available who
I talk to about day-to-day problems at work. 2.64 1.66 0.66
Q5 I have co-workers available whom I can depend
on when I have a problem. 2.51 1.54 0.77
Q7 I have enough people available at work with
whom I can talk about my job. 2.58 1.58 0.74
Q9 I have people around me at work. 2.10 1.46 0.57
Q11* I have people I can turn to at work. 2.54 1.43 0.71

Table 2b. Descriptive Statistics for the “Company” Subscale.

Item-to-Total
Item Mean SD Correlation

Q2 I am well integrated with the department/

company where I work. 2.42 1. 52 0.62
Q4 I am kept in the loop regarding company
social events/functions. 2.59 1.64 0.58
Q6 I am part of the company network 2.86 1.56 0.63
Q8 Upper management knows about my
achievements 2.90 1.70 0.60
Q10 My supervisor communicates my achievements
to upper management 3.27 1.74 0.58
Q12* I am regularly part of my company’s social
group events. 3.02 1.70 0.60
* Item later deleted from final workplace isolation scale based on confirmatory factor analysis.
Notes: The scale employs a Likert-type scale, where 1 ⫽ strongly disagree, 7 ⫽ strongly agree, and 4 ⫽
neither agree nor disagree. Scores were reversed before computing correlations and descriptive statistics
(Hirschfeld & Feild, 2000).

204 MARSHALL, MICHAELS, AND MULKI

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
Table 3. Correlation Matrix for Scale Items.

Q1 Q3 Q5 Q7 Q9 Q11* Q2 Q4 Q6 Q8 Q10 Q12*

Q1 1.00 0.66 0.72 0.68 0.70 0.81 0.50 0.48 0.54 0.47 0.34 0.54
Q3 0.57 1.00 0.66 0.58 0.58 0.64 0.34 0.39 0.46 0.40 0.34 0.44
Q5 0.58 0.62 1.00 0.79 0.69 0.72 0.44 0.49 0.53 0.45 0.39 0.49
Q7 0.56 0.49 0.68 1.00 0.76 0.74 0.46 0.52 0.56 0.46 0.45 0.48
Q9 0.54 0.54 0.64 0.70 1.00 0.77 0.48 0.47 0.50 0.44 0.40 0.50
Q11* 0.48 0.45 0.51 0.41 0.52 1.00 0.49 0.45 0.53 0.49 0.38 0.55
Q2 0.42 0.31 0.42 0.39 0.43 0.32 1.00 0.50 0.51 0.48 0.39 0.49
Q4 0.31 0.21 0.36 0.37 0.37 0.23 0.54 1.00 0.49 0.51 0.36 0.53
Q6 0.35 0.26 0.36 0.34 0.36 0.20 0.50 0.47 1.00 0.56 0.39 0.49
Q8 0.20 0.15 0.21 0.22 0.26 0.05 0.41 0.30 0.44 1.00 0.57 0.50
Q10 0.26 0.24 0.27 0.29 0.32 0.12 0.42 0.35 0.37 0.75 1.00 0.40
Q12 * 0.38 0.30 0.34 0.33 0.37 0.21 0.46 0.56 0.55 0.36 0.35 1.00
* Item later deleted from the final workplace isolation scale based on confirmatory factor analysis.
Note: Data below the diagonal are for the exploratory sample; data above the diagonal are for the
confirmatory sample.

company but are independent, paid by commission, and have a fluid

organizational structure with little formal hierarchy (Brodie & Stan-
worth, 1998). They have very few face-to-face meetings with corporate
management. The company representative they are most frequently in
contact with is their own field sales director. This sales director is respon-
sible for ensuring the unit adheres to the overall policies of the firm.
Informal working groups of independent representatives are created
and members of the group meet frequently to exchange information and
selling tips, assist each other by loaning inventory, and hold sales work-
shops to create shared opportunities (Sparks & Schenk, 2001). This
group’s potential for perceptions of isolation is common to most virtual
office settings.
The researchers provided the questionnaire to the company contact
executive and it was posted on a company Web site. Two thousand ran-
domly selected independent sales representatives from across the United
States received an e-mail from their corporate headquarters stressing the
importance of the project to the firm and requesting their participation.
To ensure responses were within the context of their role as independ-
ent sales representatives, participants received the e-mail via the com-
pany e-mail system with typical logo headings and other familiar icons
of the firm. The appeal from the sponsoring executive stated specifically
that the participants should base their responses on perceptions related
to fellow independent agents and the firm. Also, survey instructions were
worded to connote the respondent’s role within the company (e.g., the
words independent representative).
A password was provided to each of the respondents to give them
access to the questionnaire on the Web. The company collected the
responses and transmitted them directly to the researchers electroni-
cally. A total of 460 responses were coded for analysis, an effective response

WORKPLACE ISOLATION 205

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
rate of 23%. The sponsoring organization indicated that this response
rate is consistent with typical response parameters within their firm.
The contact executive reviewed the demographic profile of the sample and
reported back that it is representative of the diversity of their overall
population of independent sales representatives. Because of strong com-
pany concerns about anonymity and confidentiality (common in their
industry), it was not possible to assess nonresponse bias. The issue is
moot, because the data were collected very quickly by electronic means
(i.e., a Web-based survey over 5 days); thus assessment of early versus
late respondents is not warranted. Because of the nature of the products
sold by the organization, nearly all the respondents in Phase 2 were
female. In total, 370 (80%) had no co-worker in their location, 39 (9%) had
1, and 6 (1%) had 10 or more co-workers.
With the use of confirmatory factor analysis, a single-factor model was
first tested with all 12 items in the scale. The analysis was then repeated
with a two-factor model. Comparison of the results from the analyses
indicated that the two-factor model fit significantly better than the sin-
gle-factor model. Further examination of the standardized residuals and
the content of statements suggested that the model fit could be improved
by deleting items. Specifically, it appeared that two statements could be
removed to improve the fit. One item (I have people I can turn to at work)
from the Colleagues subscale was removed as was one item (I am regu-
larly part of my company’s social group events) from the Company sub-
scale. The CFA procedure was repeated with the two five-item subscales.
The results of this analysis revealed an improved fit.
Absolute and relative fit indices, ␹2df 34 ⫽ 108 (p ⬍ .01), GFI ⫽ 0.95,
AGFI ⫽ 0.93, CFI ⫽ 0.97, and RMSEA ⫽ 0.069 (CI90% ⫽ 0.055–0.085) for
the two-factor model are all higher than those for the single-factor model,
indicating a better fit with a two-factor model (Hair, Anderson, Tatham,
& Black, 1998). In contrast, the use of a one-factor model to represent all
10 items resulted in a poorer fit: ␹2df 35 ⫽ 275 (p ⬍ .01), GFI ⫽ 0.87, AGFI
⫽ 0.79, CFI ⫽ 0. 91, and RMSEA ⫽ 0.125 (CI90% ⫽ 0.116–0.139). The
⌬␹2df 1 ⫽ 167 (critical ␹2 ⫽ 6.63, p ⬍ .01) was significant, providing sup-
port for the two-factor model.
Figure 1 portrays the two subscales along with the path coefficients and
error variance of the items, as well as the covariance between the Col-
leagues and Company subscales. The path coefficients reveal that the
Colleagues subscale explains 54–81% of the variance in the five items of
the subscale. The explained variance by the Company subscale is some-
what lower (33–54%). However, all path coefficients for both subscales are
large and statistically significant with t values exceeding 10 (p ⬍ .01).
It is important to reiterate here that workplace isolation is a percep-
tion, in the eyes of the beholder. As such it is an abstract concept. The five
items in the Colleague subscale are designed to measure the perception
of availability of co-workers, peers, and supervisors for work-based social
support. The items used (e.g., “I have enough people available at work with

206 MARSHALL, MICHAELS, AND MULKI

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
whom I can talk about my job”) are quite comparable to items used in
established scales that measure similar perceptual/abstract concepts.
For example, when the item above is compared to an item in the cynicism
scale used in a Psychology & Marketing study by Rosenbaum and Kuntze
(2003) (e.g., “Most public officials [people in public office] are not really
interested in the problem of the average man”), the similarity is obvious.
Other comparisons: (1) an item in the alienation scale used by Jessor
and Jessor (1977) (e.g., “Hardly anyone I know is interested in how I
really feel inside”); and (2) an item in the trustworthiness scale used by
Schuessler (1982) (e.g., “There are few people in this world you can trust,
when you get right down to it”).

Phase Three: Nomological Validity

The direct-selling firm referred to above again provided a sample for
Phase 3, this time with 1,500 virtual workers all different from the prior
sample. Data collection proceeded along the same lines as Phase 2. A
total of 309 completed responses were used in the analysis, representing
a 21% response rate. Similar to the confirmatory sample, the nomologi-
cal validity sample also had all female respondents except for three. The
constructs represented in the assessment of nomological validity were cho-
sen based on the expected relationship of these constructs in a virtual
organization setting, keeping in mind the practical limitation of ques-
tionnaire length (d’Astous & Levesque, 2003).
Published articles and previous research suggest that workplace iso-
lation may have an impact on constructs such as job satisfaction, self-
efficacy, job involvement, organizational commitment, and turnover inten-
tions (Sager & Johnston, 1989; Staples, Hulland, & Higgins, 1999;
Watson-Fritz, Narasimhan, & Rhee, 1998; Wiesenfeld et al., 1999). Appen-
dix C provides detail of the scales employed related to these organizational
outcome variables. The impact of virtual work arrangements on such
variables has been the subject of research projects across several domains
of inquiry [e.g., communication (Ilozor, Ilozor, & Carr, 2001; Watson-Fritz,
Narasimhan, & Rhee, 1998), satisfaction (Bailey & Kurland, 2002; Sta-
ples et al., 1999), organizational identity and commitment (Shapiro,
Furst, Spreitzer, & Glinow, 2002; Wiesenfeld et al., 1999), and efficacy
(Staples et al., 1999)]. The questionnaire for nomological validity con-
tained a total of 80 items including six demographic questions.
The correlations were estimated after partialling out current experi-
ence on the job to ensure that experience did not confound the validity
evidence. The resulting correlations are in the expected direction and mag-
nitude. A summary of the correlation analysis is shown in Table 4. As pre-
dicted, both the Colleagues and Company subscales show significant cor-
relations (p ⬍ 0.01) with each of the organizational outcome variables (job
satisfaction, organizational commitment, job involvement, and turnover
intentions), explaining between 7 and 31% of the variance of each.

WORKPLACE ISOLATION 207

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
Figure 1. Confirmatory factor analysis standardized path coefficients.

Phase Four: Discriminant Validity

To provide evidence of discriminant validity, the workplace-isolation scale
was tested for its correlation with the Emotional and Social Loneliness
scale (Wittenberg, 1986). Weiss (1973) discussed emotional and social iso-
lation as two types of loneliness. A lack of satisfying romantic relationships
or the absence of close emotional attachments would be classified as emo-
tional loneliness (Russell et al., 1984; Weiss, 1973). On the other hand,
social loneliness results from a lack of satisfying friendship relationships
or a lack of access to social networks (Russell et al., 1984; Weiss, 1973).

208 MARSHALL, MICHAELS, AND MULKI

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
Wittenberg’s (1986) scale was selected for use in this analysis because it
provides distinctiveness and clarity between the two subscales of lone-
liness (Shaver & Brennan, 1991).
Wittenberg’s (1986) 10-item measure in Likert format asks respon-
dents to identify how often they felt as described in the 10 statements.
A typical item in Wittenberg’s Emotional Loneliness subscale is: “There
is no one I have felt close to for a long time.” An example of an item from
the Social Loneliness subscale is: “I don’t get much satisfaction from the
groups I participate in.” Both facets of the Wittenberg (1986) loneli-
ness scale had internal consistency reliabilities (Cronbach’s ␣ ⫽ 0.74
and 0.78 for emotional loneliness and social loneliness, respectively)
as well as composite reliabilities (CR ⫽ 0.733, 0.727) above the 0.70
threshold deemed acceptable by DeVellis (1991) and Nunnally and
Bernstein (1994).
A total of 177 responses (after eliminating incomplete responses and
unemployed respondents) from evening MBA and senior undergraduate
students from two campuses were used for this study. Results of the
analysis showed that the Colleague and Company subscales had low cor-
relations (0.20 and 0.12, respectively) with emotional loneliness and mod-
erate correlations (0.44 and 0.38, respectively) with social loneliness,
providing evidence that the scales are measuring related but conceptu-
ally different constructs (Wang & Mowen, 1997). To provide additional
support, a CFA was conducted with the four subscales as a four-factor
model and as a single-factor model. The LISREL analysis of the four-
factor model versus one-factor model showed that the four-factor model
is a better fit (⌬␹2df 6 ⫽ 928.82, RMSEA ⫽ 0.083, RMSEA90% ⫽ 0.07–0.09,
CFI ⫽ 0.88, NNFI ⫽ 0.86).
Another CFA was conducted, and the fit of the two-factor model (i.e.,
colleagues and emotional isolation as one factor and company and social
loneliness as a second factor) was compared with the fit indices for a
four-factor model. The four-factor model had a better fit (␹2 ⫽ 352.71, df
⫽164, RMSEA ⫽ 0.083, CI90% 0.07–0.09, GFI ⫽ 0.82, CFI ⫽ 0.88, NFI ⫽
0.80, NNFI ⫽ 0.86) compared to a two-factor model (␹2 ⫽ 706.29, df ⫽ 170,
RMSEA ⫽ 0.138, CI90% ⫽ 0.127–0.149, GFI ⫽ 0.62, CFI ⫽ 0.67, NFI ⫽
0.61, NNFI ⫽ 0.62). The ␹2 ⫽ 353.58 (Critical ␹20.01,df ⫽ 6 ⫽ 16.81) was
significant, demonstrating that colleague and emotional loneliness as
well as company and social loneliness have discriminant validity.
Taken in sum, the above analyses provide evidence that the work-
place isolation subscales are measuring differing aspects of isolation, but
also discernibly different constructs from scales that measure loneli-
ness (Ping, 2004).

Factor Structure Verification

Because of the unique nature of the confirmatory sample, a post hoc
analysis was conducted to compare factor structures of the confirmatory
sample (female only – virtual workers – high in isolation) and the dis-
WORKPLACE ISOLATION 209
Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
 210
Table 5. Correlations with Work-Attitude Variables.

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1 Company (0.86) 2.68 1.41

2 Colleague (0.83) 2.62 1.39 .72*
3 Satisfaction with supervisor (0.94) 6.00 1.57 –.44* –.46*
4 Satisfaction with co-workers (0.78) 6.24 1.08 –.41* –.55* .42*
5 Satisfaction with communication (0.75) 5.86 1.25 –.49* –.52* .43* .48*
6 Overall job satisfaction (0.68) 6.35 1.05 –.27* –.33* .17* .38* .33*
7 General self-efficacy (0.85) 5.56 0.89 –.10 –.18* .09 .12 .20* .27*
8 Job involvement (0.93) 5.96 1.13 –.44* –.48* .33* .45* .36* .64* .30*
9 Organizational commitment (0.94) 6.01 1.23 –.39* –.46* .29* .47* .36* .66* .24* .77*
10 Turnover intentions 1.92 0.96 .21* .20* –.04 –.28* –.23* –.43* –.30* –.36* –.42*
11 Age 40.60 11.21 –.08 .00 .01 .03 .01 .05 .03 .08 .02 .08
12 Total job experience 17.19 10.39 .01 .07 .02 -.08 ?.11 –.02 .08 .02 .03 .05 .69*
13 Hours worked per week for the company 10.67 9.32 –.17* –.20* -.03 .12 .11 .24* .27* .32* .28* –.17* .13 .09
Note. n = 309. Scores for workplace isolation were reversed before computing correlations and descriptive statistics (Hirschfeld & Field, 2000). Correlations are reported after partialling
out current experience. *p < .01. Scale reliabilities are shown in parentheses next to the variable name.

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

MARSHALL, MICHAELS, AND MULKI
criminant validity sample (mixed gender – students – low in isolation).
Importantly, this analysis revealed that the factor structure is the same
for the two samples. Factorial invariance implies that items comprising
the measurement instrument should exhibit the same configuration
across different samples (Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1998). With the use
of the procedure recommended by Byrne (1998), workplace isolation was
conceptualized as a two-factor model that tested the assumption (with
LISREL 8) that the number of underlying factors is equivalent across the
confirmatory sample and the discriminant validity sample. The good-
ness of fit for the multi-group model yielded a reasonable fit to the data
(␹2df 68 ⫽ 176.14, p ⬍ 0.01, RMSEA ⫽ 0.075, with the 90% as a subscript
as shown. ⫽ 0.062–0.089, CFI ⫽ 0.97, NNFI ⫽ 0.96). Because both
absolute and relative fit indices were in the acceptable range (Hair,
Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998; Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1998), it
is possible to conclude that the structure of workplace isolation is most
appropriately described by a two-factor model, regardless of gender mix
(Byrne, 1998).

DISCUSSION

The purpose of the study was to develop a workplace-isolation scale to

effectively measure perceptions of social and organizational isolation
among employees. The analysis resulted in two subscales with evidence
provided for construct validity and adequate reliability. The two-factor
solution was verified by confirmatory factor analysis. Evidence of dis-
criminant validity was provided by correlation with Wittenberg’s (1986)
emotional and social loneliness subscales. Overall, the two workplace
isolation subscales appear to be conceptually sound and psychometri-
cally valid for measuring workplace isolation.
The direction and strength of the correlations of the workplace isola-
tion subscales are consistent with theory and prior research. The Col-
leagues subscale focuses on co-workers’ social support and measures
employee perceptions relating to having co-workers for working through
problems, discussing issues, and developing friendships. The Company
subscale focuses on workplace-based support and measures employee per-
ceptions relating to integration within the company/network, being
informed about company events and being involved in same, knowl-
edge/recognition of employee accomplishments, and connection to the com-
pany or departmental network. Evidence from the present study reveals
that employees can develop isolation perceptions in a traditional office
where they are in proximity to other co-workers, yet these co-workers are
not available to provide the work-based support the employee desires.
When employees perceive greater work-based social support and higher
recognition of their achievements by top management, their perceptions
of isolation from the organization should be lower, resulting in greater
identification with their organization and department and increased sat-
WORKPLACE ISOLATION 211
Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
isfaction with their supervisor (Challagalla, Shervani, & Huber, 2000;
Wiesenfeld et al., 2001). Higher satisfaction and commitment generally
lead to lower turnover intentions (Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topol-
nytsky, 2002). As reflected within the context of the Company subscale,
in self-directed environments such as a virtual workplace—common to
sales roles—supervisors are seen as representatives of the company and
thus, an extension of it (Cooper & Kurland, 2002; Pinsonneault &
Boisvert, 2001). Certainly, employees perceive supervisors as both sur-
rogates for the organization and responsible for making important deci-
sions affecting their lives (Challagalla et al., 2000; Eisenberger, Stingl-
hamber, Vandenberghe, Sucharski, & Rhoades, 2002). Consequently,
employees’ attitudes toward the organization are shaped primarily by the
perceptions they have about their supervisors (Bishop & Scott, 2000).
This identification with the supervisor is particularly salient for sales-
people because they usually spend most of their time outside the tradi-
tional office setting on customer-related activities (Dubinsky et al., 1995).
A salesperson’s primary connection to an organization is through the
supervisor—for information, support, and mentoring (Challagalla et al.,
2000; Eisenberger et al., 2002). Supervisors also act as agents of the
organization by directing and evaluating employee performance. In vir-
tual situations, salespeople often look to supervisors to provide an
ambiance of connectedness and structure to their day-to-day activities
(Challagalla et al., 2000). When virtual employees perceive the absence
of supervisory mentoring, help, or direction, it is likely their chances of
developing perceptions of isolation increases. This results in a negative
correlation between isolation and attitudes such as satisfaction and orga-
nizational commitment.
Referring back to Table 4, the lack of correlation between workplace
isolation and age or experience provides evidence that the construct is
not associated with these demographic variables. However, isolation is
negatively correlated with number of hours worked per week. As employ-
ees work longer hours their opportunities for interaction increase, which
can aid in the development of relationships with co-workers (and super-
visors). Such relationships in turn would be expected to positively influ-
ence co-worker and supervisor availability and ultimately mitigate per-
ceptions of isolation.
The new scale presented herein fills an important gap in the ability to
measure appropriately workplace isolation—a phenomenon that is per-
vasive among employees and is highly reflective of today’s work envi-
ronment. Although physical distance can certainly amplify perceptions
of isolation, as discussed earlier distance alone does not necessarily lead
to such perceptions. To verify this notion, the workplace-isolation scale
was tested with a sample of pharmaceutical salespeople (n ⫽ 344) with
the use of number of co-workers in the physical location as a demographic
variable. These salespeople generally work outside the traditional office
setting. Results showed that neither of the two facets of the workplace-

212 MARSHALL, MICHAELS, AND MULKI

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
isolation scale was significantly correlated with number of co-workers in
the physical location. However, both facets of the scale again demonstrated
statistically significant relationships with other constructs, such as job sat-
isfaction and organizational commitment, in a theoretically expected man-
ner and direction. In addition, impact of physical distance was tested on
the two facets of the workplace-isolation scale with a group of CPAs (n ⫽
538) located throughout the United States. The results for distance mir-
rored the results reported above for physical presence.
Based on the overall findings of this study, it is recommended that the
workplace-isolation scale developed herein be used to measure percep-
tions of isolation by employees in a variety of organizational settings.
For example, today the proliferation of remote call centers, where employ-
ees do business with customers by phone would be an intriguing setting
for examining workplace isolation. These workers often have very lim-
ited interface with other call-center employees—even though they may
be in close physical proximity, availability may be limited.
Ultimately, at the same time virtual offices have helped companies
reduce costs and increase customer contact effectiveness, they have also
led to employee perceptions of isolation from their own organizations.
As firms strive to attain competitive advantage in the marketplace, they
also need to pay attention to the impact of this isolation on employee
success and organizational effectiveness.

LIMITATIONS

One limitation of the present study is the use of subjective scales and self-
reports to assess attitudes and behaviors, which can inflate the correla-
tion between constructs due to common method bias. As Cote and Buck-
ley (1987) have suggested, this limitation is common to most survey-based
behavioral research. And as they recommended, steps were taken dur-
ing the data-collection process to mitigate the impact of common method
bias, such as guaranteeing anonymity and carefully dispersing reverse-
scored items.
The bidirectional path coefficient between the Company and Colleagues
subscales is 0.785 (confirmatory sample—see Figure 1), indicating that
these factors are related to each other. The correlation between the subscales
ranged from 0.45 to 0.72 when tested with the four samples used in the
study. The existence of correlations between dimensions of scales is con-
sistent with many studies that show dimensions may not be completely
independent of each other, but still can be sufficiently different to exhibit
a differential pattern of relationships with other constructs (Carr, Schmidt,
Ford, & DeShon, 2003; Lee & Allen, 2000; Tucker & MacCallum, 2002). In
the case of the workplace-isolation scale, despite the correlation between
the two subscales, results of the confirmatory factor analysis provide clear
evidence of the existence of two factors as opposed to single factor.

WORKPLACE ISOLATION 213

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
REFERENCES

Anderson, R. E. (1996, Fall). Personal selling and sales management in the new
millennium. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 16, 17–32.
Andres, H. (2002). A comparison of face-to-face and virtual software develop-
ment teams. Team Performance Management, 8, 39–48.
Asher, S. R., Hymel, S., & Renshaw, P. D. (1984). Loneliness in children. Child
Development, 55, 1456–1464.
Babin, L. A., & Burns, A. C. (1998). A modified scale for the measurement of
communication-evoked mental imagery. Psychology & Marketing, 15, 261–277.
Bailey, D. E., & Kurland, N. B. (2002). A review of telework research: Findings,
new directions, and lessons for the study of modern work. Journal of Orga-
nizational Behavior, 23, 383–400.
Beehr, T. A., Jex, S. M., Stacy, B. A., & Murray, M. A. (2000). Work stressors and
co-worker support as predictors of individual strain and job performance.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 391–405.
Bishop, J. W., & Scott, K. D. (2000). An examination of organizational and team
commitment in a self-directed team environment. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 85, 439–450.
Bordia, P. (1997). Face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication: A syn-
thesis of the experimental literature. Journal of Business Communication,
34, 99–120.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Separation: Anxiety and anger. New York: Basic Books.
Brodie, S., & Stanworth, J. (1998). Independent contractors in direct selling:
Self-employed but missing from official records. International Small Busi-
ness Journal, 16, 95–101.
Buss, D. M. (1996). The evolutionary psychology of human social strategies. In
E. T. Higgins & A.W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic
principles (pp. 3–28). New York: Guilford Press.
Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS,
and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Carr, J. Z., Schmidt, A. M., Ford, J. K., & DeShon, R. P. (2003). Climate percep-
tions matter: A meta-analytic path analysis relating molar climate, cognitive
and affective states, and individual level outcomes. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 88, 605–619.
Cascio, W. F. (2000). Managing a virtual workplace. Academy of Management
Executive, 14, 81–90.
Challagalla, G., Shervani, T., & Huber, G. (2000). Supervisory orientations and
salesperson work outcomes: The moderating effect of salesperson location.
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 20, 161–170.
Churchill, G. A., Jr., Ford, N. M., & Walker, O. C., Jr. (1974). Measuring the job
satisfaction of industrial salesmen. Journal of Marketing Research, 11,
254–260.
Cooper, C. D., & Kurland, N. B. (2002). Telecommuting, professional isolation, and
employee development in public and private organizations. Journal of Orga-
nizational Behavior, 23, 511–532.
Cote, J. A., & Buckley, M. R. (1987). Estimating trait, method, and error variance:
Generalizing across 70 construct validation studies. Journal of Marketing
Research, 24, 315–319.

214 MARSHALL, MICHAELS, AND MULKI

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media
richness and structural design. Management Science, 32, 554–572.
Daft, R. L., Lengel, R. H., & Trevino, L. K. (1987). Message equivocality, media
selection, and manager performance: Implications for information systems. MIS
Quarterly, 11, 355–366.
d’Astous, A., & Levesque, M. (2003). A scale for measuring store personality. Psy-
chology & Marketing, 20, 455–469.
Davenport, T. H., & Pearlson, K. (1998). Two cheers for the virtual office. Sloan
Management Review, 39, 51–65.
De Jong-Gierveld, J., & van Tilburg, T. G. (1990). De Jong Gierveld Rasch type lone-
liness scale. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures
of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes (pp. 262–266). San Diego: Aca-
demic Press.
DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theories and applications. London: Sage.
Dixon, A. L., Gassenheimer, J. B., & Barr, T. F. (2002). Bridging the distance between
us: How initial responses to sales team conflict help shape core selling team out-
comes. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 22, 247–258.
Dubinsky, A. J., Yammarino, F. J., Jolson, M. A., & Spangler, W. D. (1995). Trans-
formational leadership: An initial investigation in sales management. Journal
of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 15, 17–32.
Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L., & Rhoades,
L. (2002). Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organiza-
tional support and employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82,
565–573.
Faranda, W. T. (2001). A scale to measure the cognitive control form of perceived con-
trol: Construction and preliminary assessment. Psychology & Marketing, 18,
1259–1281.
Fitzgerald, K. M. (1994). Telecommuting and the law. Small Business Reports, 19,
14–18.
Gainey, T. W., Kelley, D. E., & Hill, J. A. (1999). Telecommuting’s impact on corpo-
rate culture and individual workers: Examining the effect of employee isolation.
SAM Advanced Management Journal, 64, 4–10.
Gerson, A. C., & Perlman, D. (1979). Loneliness and expressive communication.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 88, 258–261.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data
analysis (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hirschfeld, R. R., & Field, H. S. (2000). Work centrality and work alienation: Dis-
tinct aspects of a general commitment to work. Journal of Organizational Behav-
ior, 21, 789–800.
House, J. S. (1981). Work stress and social support. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hunt, S. D., Chonko, L. B., & Wood, V. R. (1985). Organizational commitment and
marketing. Journal of Marketing, 49, 112–127.
Ilozor, D. B., Ilozor, B. D., & Carr, J. (2001). Management communication strate-
gies determine job satisfaction in telecommuting. The Journal of Management
Development, 20, 495–507.
Jessor, R., & Jessor, S. L. (1977). Problem behavior and psychosocial development:
A longitudinal study of youth. New York: Academic Press.
Jex, S. M. (2002). Organizational psychology. New York: Wiley.
Kepczyk, R. H. (1999). Evaluating virtual office. Ohio CPA Journal, 58, 16–17.

WORKPLACE ISOLATION 215

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Gibson, C. B., Tesluk, P. E., & McPherson, S. O. (2002).
Five challenges to virtual team success: Lessons from Sabre, Inc. Academy of
Management Executive, 16, 67–78.
Konradt, U., Schmook, R., & Mälecke, M. (2000). Impact of telework on individ-
uals, organizations and families—A critical review. In C. L. Cooper & I. T.
Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psy-
chology. London: Wiley.
Kurland, N. B., & Bailey, D. E. (1999). Telework: The advantages and challenges
of working here, there, anywhere, and anytime. Organizational Dynamics, 28,
53–68.
Kurland, N. B., & Cooper, C. D. (2002). Manager control and employee isolation
in telecommuting environments. Journal of High Technology Management
Research, 13, 107–126.
Lassk, F. G., Marshall, G. W., Cravens, D. W., & Moncrief, W. C. (2001). Salesper-
son job involvement: A modern perspective and a new scale. The Journal of Per-
sonal Selling & Sales Management, 21, 291–302.
Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2000). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace
deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology,
85, 349–360.
Leigh, T. W., and G. W. Marshall (2001). Research priorities in sales strategy and
performance. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 21, 83–93.
Mann, S., Varey, R., & Button, W. (2000). An exploration of the emotional impact
of tele-working via computer-mediated communication. Journal of Manager-
ial Psychology, 15, 668–690.
Marshall, G. W., & Michaels, R. E. (2001). Research in selling and sales man-
agement in the next millennium: An agenda from the AMA faculty consor-
tium. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 21, 15–17.
Meyer, J. P. (Ed.). (1997). Organizational commitment (Vol. 12). West Sussex,
United Kingdom: Wiley.
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, Y., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective,
continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analy-
sis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behav-
ior, 61, 20–52.
Meyrowitz, J. (1985). No sense of place: The impact of electronic media on social
behavior. New York: Oxford University Press.
Moon, M. A., & Gupta, S. F. (1997). Examining the formation of selling centers: A con-
ceptual framework. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 17, 31–41.
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organi-
zational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224–247.
Nataraajan, R., Henthorne, T. L., & LaTour, M. S. (1998). Reinforcing the impor-
tance of the marketing practitioner-marketing academic interface. American
Business Review, 16, 109–112.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Ping, R. A., Jr. (2004). On assuring valid measures for theoretical models using
survey data. Journal of Business Research, 57, 125–141.
Pinsonneault, A., & Boisvert, M. (Eds.). (2001). The impacts of telecommuting on
organizations and individuals: A review of the literature. Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
Raghuram, S., Garud, R., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (2001). Factors contributing to vir-
tual work adjustment. Journal of Management, 27(3), 383–405.

216 MARSHALL, MICHAELS, AND MULKI

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L. S., Eds. (1991). Measures of
Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes. San Diego: Academic Press.
Rosenbaum, M. S., & Kuntze, R. (2003). The relationship between anomie and
unethical retail disposition. Psychology & Marketing, 20, 1067–1093.
Russell, D. W., & Cutrona, C. E. (1988). Development and evolution of the UCLA
Loneliness Scale. Unpublished manuscript. Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa,
Center for Health Services Research, College of Medicine.
Russell, D. W., Cutrona, C. E., & Peplau, L. (1980). The revised UCLA Loneli-
ness Scale: Concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 39, 472–480.
Russell, D., Cutrona, C. E., Rose, J., & Yurko, K. (1984). Social and emotional
loneliness: An examination of Weiss’s typology of loneliness. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 46, 1313–1321.
Ruyter, K. D., Wetzels, M., & Feinberg, R. (2001). Role stress in call centers: Its
effects on employee performance and satisfaction. Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 15, 23–35.
Sager, J. K., & Johnston, M. W. (1989). Antecedents and outcomes of organiza-
tional commitment: A study of salespeople. Journal of Personal Selling &
Sales Management, 9, 30–42.
Sarbaugh-Thompson, M., & Feldman, M. S. (1998). Electronic mail and orga-
nizational communication: Does saying “hi” really matter? Organization Sci-
ence, 9, 685–698.
Scalise, J. J., Ginter, E. J., & Gerstein, L. H. (1984). A multidimensional loneli-
ness measure: The Loneliness Rating Scale (LRS). Journal of Personality
Assessment, 48, 525–530.
Schmidt, N., & Sermat, V. (1983). Measuring loneliness in different relationships.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 1038–1047.
Schuessler, K. F. (1982). Measuring social life feelings. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Scott, C. R., & Timmerman, E. C. (1999). Communication technology use and
multiple workplace identifications among organizational teleworkers with
varied degrees of virtuality. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communi-
cation, 42, 240–260.
Shapiro, D. L., Furst, S. A., Spreitzer, G. M., & Glinow, M. A. V. (2002). Transna-
tional teams in the electronic age: Are team identity and high performance
at risk? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 455–467.
Shaver, P. R., & Brennan, K. A. (1991). Measures of depression and loneliness.
In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of per-
sonality and social psychological attitudes. San Diego: Academic Press.
Shaver, P., Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1985). Transition to college: Net-
work changes, social skills, and loneliness. In S. Duck & D. Perlman (Eds.),
Understanding personal relationships: An interdisciplinary approach (pp.
193–219). London: Sage.
Sherer, M., Maddux, J. E., Mercandante, B., Dunn, S. P., Jacobs, B., & Rogers,
R. W. (1982). The self-efficacy scale: Construction and validation. Psycho-
logical Reports, 51, 663–671.
Sparks, J. R., & Schenk, J. A. (2001). Explaining the effects of transformational
leadership: An investigation of the effects of higher-order motives in multi-
level marketing organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22,
849–869.

WORKPLACE ISOLATION 217

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
Spector, P. E. (1985). Measurement of human service staff satisfaction: Devel-
opment of the Job Satisfaction Survey. American Journal of Community Psy-
chology, 13, 693–713.
Staples, D. S., Hulland, J. S., & Higgins, C. A. (1999). A self-efficacy theory
explanation for the management of remote workers in virtual organizations.
Organization Science, 10, 758–776.
Steenkamp, J. B. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement
invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer
Research, 25, 78–90.
Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action: Social science bases of admin-
istrative theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Tucker, L., & MacCallum, R. (2002). Exploratory factor analysis. Available: //
www.unc.edu/~rcm /book/factornew.htm.
Vega, G., & Brennan, L. (2000). Isolation and technology: The human discon-
nect. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 13, 468–481.
Walther, J. B. (1995). Relational aspects of computer-mediated communication:
Experimental observations over time. Organization Science, 6, 186–203.
Wang, C. L., & Mowen, J. C. (1997). The separateness–connectedness self-
schema: Scale development and application to message construction. Psy-
chology & Marketing, 14, 185–207.
Watson-Fritz, M. B., Narasimhan, S., & Rhee, H. S. (1998). Communication and
coordination in the virtual office. Journal of Management Information Sys-
tems, 14, 7–28.
Webster, F. E., Malter, A. J., & Ganesan, S. (2003). Can marketing regain its seat
at the table? MSI Report No. 03-113. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science
Institute.
Weiss, R. S. (1973). The loneliness of social isolation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wiesenfeld, B. M., Raghuram, S., & Garud, R. (1999). Communication patterns
as determinants of organizational identification in a virtual organization.
Organization Science, 10, 777–790.
Wiesenfeld, B. M., Raghuram, S., & Garud, R. (2001). Organizational identifi-
cation among virtual workers: The role of need for affiliation and perceived
work-based social support. Journal of Management, 27, 213–229.
Wittenberg, M. T. (1986). Emotional and social loneliness: An examination of
social skills, attributions, sex role, and object relations perspectives. Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation, University of Rochester.
Workman, M., Kahnweiler, W., & Bommer, W. (2003). The effects of cognitive style
and media richness on commitment to telework and virtual teams. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 63, 199–219.

Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to: Greg W. Marshall, Crum-
mer Graduate School of Business, Rollins College, 1000 Holt Avenue—2722, Win-
ter Park, FL 32789-4499 (gmarshall@rollins.edu).

Funding for this study was provided by a grant from the Direct Selling Education
Foundation, Washington, DC. The authors thank the Editor of Psychology & Mar-
keting for his constructive guidance during the revision process. In addition, the
advice of Professor Paul Spector, University of South Florida, was invaluable.
Author listing is in alphabetical order.

218 MARSHALL, MICHAELS, AND MULKI

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
APPENDIX A. INTER-CORRELATIONS FOR THE
ORIGINAL 65 ITEMS

No Item Statement Inter-Correlation

1 I am separated from my co-workers. .4379

2 I often feel alone. .6636
3 I have people around me at work. .7762
4 I often feel I am no longer close to anyone. .7221
5 I often feel others do not share my interests and ideas. .5950
6 I often feel left out. .1863
7 I am isolated from others at work. .8496
8 I have friends available to me at work. .6563
9 I often feel emptiness around me. .6851
10 I often miss having people around me. .8175
11 I often miss good company around me. .8394
12 I often feel deserted. .4370
13 I engage in informal chats with co-workers at work. .4503
14 I have one or more co-workers available who I talk to about
day-to-day problems at work. .8457
15 I have co-workers around whom I can depend on when I have
a problem. .4217
16 I often feel that I have no company around me. .0517
17 I feel the people in my immediate work group are friendly. .4826
18 Informal discussions with co-workers are an important part
of my work. .8195
19 I feel the people in my immediate work group take a personal
interest in me. .2858
20 I am satisfied with the opportunities to interact with others
in the office. .4266
21 I look forward to being with the members of my immediate
work group each day. .4510
22 I am happy I don’t have to meet my co-workers. .9532
23 I am able to attend company social events. .4660
24 I am regularly part of my company’s social group events. .4164
25 I hear about company news through the company grapevine. .5694
26 I am part of the company network. .4958
27 Company conference calls are a good substitute for
face-to-face department meetings. .1505
28 I feel the evaluation of my performance will be fair and
consistent with other employees in the traditional office. .1245
29 I receive adequate resources and support. .4392
30 I discuss work related problems with my co-workers. .6355
31 My manager has always been fair in his/her dealings with me. .0298
32 I receive good support from the home office. -.2453
33 My manager sees that I am provided with adequate support
from other departments. -.0142
34 I miss the training opportunities that are available to the
home office employees. .7901
35 I am well integrated with the department/company where I work. .5661
36 The company directory has my name and telephone number. -.6804
37 I am kept in the loop regarding company social events/functions. .4628
(continued)

WORKPLACE ISOLATION 219

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
No Item Statement Inter-Correlation

38 I am invited to company events and picnics just like any

other employee. .4775
39 I am concerned about not getting equal face time with my boss. -.1218
40 I miss opportunities and leads for good projects. .1118
41 I miss the opportunity to meet other top management people in
the home office. .2283
42 Being away from the home office limits my opportunities for
advancement. .5267
43 Home office employees do not understand the workload in the
remote offices. .3518
44 I am satisfied with the amount of information I receive from
my supervisor about projects. .3617
45 My supervisor communicates my achievements to upper
management. .5517
46 Upper management knows about my achievements. .4417
47 I am satisfied with the freedom I have to do what I want to do
on the job. .2835
48 I have enough opportunities to interact with my co-workers. .4552
49 The virtual office provides me with enough opportunity for
independent thought and action. -.5489
50 I feel I am in tune with others in the office. .5132
51 I feel a lack of companionship. .2847
52 I have people I can turn to at work. .4339
53 I have enough people available at work with whom I can talk
about my job. .4677
54 I miss having people around me. .3673
55 I am able to communicate my emotions and feelings to my
manager through email. .5412
56 I am able to communicate my emotions and feelings to my
manager through telephone conversations. .7868
57 I am able to vent my anger or frustration through email. .0071
58 I wish I had the camaraderie of a larger office. .5970
59 I feel I am on my own if something goes wrong at work. .6304
60 My co-workers are able to come to my rescue when I have a
problem. .1913
61 I can get some help from my co-workers in the home office when
I get stuck. .6300
62 I miss the emotional support from co-workers. .6209
63 Visibility in the home office is important to career progression. -.3257
64 I am part of the informal information network of my office. .1712
65 As a remote office employee, I am not part of the network and
lose in resource allocation. .4762

220 MARSHALL, MICHAELS, AND MULKI

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
APPENDIX B. ITEM REDUCTION RESULTS WITH
RESPECTIVE P-VALUES

Item Number
After
In Original Initial
Set Reduction Statement P-Value

1 1 I am separated from my co-workers. .0477

8 2 I have friends available to me at work. .0000
13 3 I engage in informal chats with co-workers at work. .0477
30 4 I discuss work related problems with my co-workers. .0000
18 5 Informal discussions with co-workers are an
important part of my work. .0000
35 6 I am well integrated with the department/company
where I work. .0188
37 7 I am kept in the loop regarding company social
events/functions. .0477
58 8 I wish I had the camaraderie of a larger office. .0000
22 9 I am happy I don’t have to meet my co-workers. .0000
26 10 I am part of the company network. .0099
46 11 Upper management knows about my achievements. .0099
45 12 My supervisor communicates my achievements to
upper management. .0188
48 13 I have enough opportunities to interact with my
co-workers. .0477
23 14 I am able to attend company social events. .0000
59 15 I am on my own if something goes wrong at work. .0188
7 16 I am isolated from others at work. .0477
17 17 I feel the people in my immediate work group are
friendly. .0477
14 18 I have one or more co-workers available who I talk
to about day-to-day problems at work. .0000
15 19 I have co-workers around whom I can depend on
when I have a problem. .0000
38 20 I am invited to company events and picnics just
like any other employee. .0188
24 21 I am regularly part of my company’s social group
events. .0477
20 22 I am satisfied with the opportunities to interact
with others in the office. .0000
50 23 I am in tune with others in the office. .0099
10 24 I often miss having people around me. .0000
52 25 I have people I can turn to at work. .0000
53 26 I have enough people available at work with whom
I can talk about my job. .0099
3 27 I have people around me at work. .0000
62 28 I miss the emotional support from co-workers. .0000

WORKPLACE ISOLATION 221

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
APPENDIX C. ORGANIZATIONAL OUTCOME MEASURES

The following organizational outcome constructs were used for assessing

nomological validity:

1) Job satisfaction, simply stated, is the extent to which people like

their jobs (Spector, 1985). Two subscales (satisfaction with com-
munication and overall satisfaction) from Spector’s (1985) job sat-
isfaction scale and two subscales (satisfaction with supervisor and
satisfaction with co-workers) from Churchill, Ford, and Walker’s
(1974) job satisfaction scale were each correlated with the work-
place isolation subscales. Workplace isolation is expected to corre-
late negatively with these job satisfaction measures.
2) General self-efficacy determines the amount of effort an individ-
ual will exert on a task as well as his/her persistence (Staples et al.,
1999). People with higher self-efficacy generally have successful
experiences in their careers (Sherer et al., 1982) and generally exert
effort to master a challenge or a job. People with lower self-efficacy
may quit (Staples et al., 1999). Self-efficacy has been shown to play
an important role in influencing remote work effectiveness, ability
to cope, job satisfaction, and productivity (Staples et al., 1999). A gen-
eral self-efficacy scale (Sherer et al., 1982) was used, and work-
place isolation is expected to correlate negatively with self-efficacy.
3) Job involvement refers to an employee’s psychological identifica-
tion or commitment to the job (Lassk, Marshall, Cravens, & Mon-
crief, 2001). The Relationship Involvement facet of the job involve-
ment scale developed by Lassk et al. (2001) was used to assess the
impact of isolation from the firm and colleagues on job involvement.
Workplace isolation is expected to negatively correlate with rela-
tionship involvement.
4) Organizational commitment has been described as a psychological
bond that ties an employee to the organization, with implications
for the decision to continue employment with the firm (Meyer, 1997).
Organizational commitment is related to personal attributes, work
relationships, organizational socialization, and job characteristics
(Hunt, Chonko, & Wood, 1985). The nine-item organizational com-
mitment scale (Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979) was correlated to
the workplace isolation subscales. Workplace isolation is expected
to correlate negatively with organizational commitment.
5) Turnover intentions of employees are important to understand so
that organizations can devise interventions to retain good people.
Increased perceptions of isolation from one’s company and col-
leagues may impact employee identification with the organization
(Wiesenfeld, Raghuram, & Garud, 2001). Employees who feel iso-
(continued)

222 MARSHALL, MICHAELS, AND MULKI

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
 lated may exhibit lower organizational identification and higher
role stress (Ruyter, Wetzels, & Feinberg, 2001). Therefore, work-
place isolation is expected to have a positive correlation with
turnover intentions. Turnover intentions were measured using a
single item developed by Spector (1985).

The scales used for these organizational outcome variables to estab-

lish nomological validity for workplace isolation have been used extensively
for many years by organizational researchers. A confirmatory factor analy-
sis was conducted on all the scales to verify their unidimensionality. Only
the scale for measuring general-self efficacy had items loading on multi-
ple factors. A sample item from each of the scales is shown below:

Scale Sample Item

Overall job satisfaction All in all, I am satisfied with my job

Satisfaction with co-workers
Satisfaction with supervisor
Satisfaction with communication
General self-efficacy
Relationship job involvement
Organizational commitment
Turnover intentions
My fellow workers are pleasant.
My supervisor really tries to get our ideas
about things.
Communications seem good within this
organization.
If I can’t do a job the first time, I keep
trying until I can.
I view my job as more than the sales
process.
I am proud to tell others that I am part of
this organization.
How often have you seriously considered
quitting your present job?

WORKPLACE ISOLATION 223

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

View publication stats