International Journal of Hospitality Management 30 (2011) 836–844
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
International Journal of Hospitality Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhosman
The impact of workplace ostracism in service organizations
Alicia S.M. Leung a,∗ , L.Z. Wu b , Y.Y. Chen a , Michael N. Young a
a
b
Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong
Shanghai University of Finance and Economics, China
a r t i c l e
i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Keywords:
Workplace ostracism
Work engagement
Service performance
Neuroticism
This study examines the effects of personal and situational determinants on work engagement and service performance. Drawing on Conservation of Resources (COR) Theory, we hypothesize that workplace
ostracism will reduce work engagement and service performance and that highly neurotic individuals are more susceptible to ostracism. To test the model, we collect longitudinal data from 304
supervisor–subordinate dyads in 19 Chinese hotels. As predicated, we find that: (1) workplace ostracism
is negatively related to service performance; (2) workplace ostracism negatively impacts employee service performance via work engagement; and (3) neuroticism strengthens workplace ostracism’s direct
effect on work engagement and indirect effect on service performance. The implications of these findings,
the strengths and limitations of the study, and directions for future research are discussed.
© 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
workplace (Wright and Hobfoll, 2004). Personal resources provide
emotional resilience in the face of adversity and give individuals
a sense of control over their environment (Hobfoll, 1989; Hobfoll
et al., 2003) whereas job resources are the physical, psychological
and social aspects of a job (Hakanen et al., 2008). Resources are
motivational in nature and thus contribute to work engagement
(Hakanen et al., 2008; Karatepe and Olugbade, 2009; Xanthopoulou
et al., 2007).
As ostracism likely depletes employees’ resources, we expect
that it will negatively affect work engagement and service performance. Beyond this direct effect, we predict that neurotic
individuals are more susceptible to the negative effects of workplace ostracism for two reasons. First, neuroticism has been
linked to interpersonal rejection sensitivity (Mor and Inbar, 2009;
Brookings et al., 2003) so neurotic individuals are more likely
to perceive ostracism – either real or imagined. And second, we
expect that neurotic individuals will have a greater reaction toward
ostracism to influence outcomes. For example, Hitlan and Noel
(2009) found that highly neurotic individuals experienced higher
levels of ostracism and were less likely to constrain negative behavior.
In addressing these shortcomings in the literature, we have
three objectives: (1) to explore the relationship between workplace ostracism and service performance; (2) to investigate the
mediating effect of work engagement on the relationship between
workplace ostracism and service performance; and (3) to examine the moderating influence of neuroticism on the workplace
ostracism–employee engagement relationship. The theoretical
model to be tested is presented in Fig. 1.
In developing and testing this model, we make two contributions to the extant literature. First, studies of ostracism typically
focus on general social situations; these studies often use stu-
It is important for employees in service industries to be willing and able to have friendly interaction with customers. Thus,
employee engagement is a key factor in organizational productivity
and service performance (Karatepe and Olugbade, 2009; Liao and
Chuang, 2004; Salanova et al., 2005). One factor that may affect
employee engagement is workplace ostracism. Ostracism refers to
the act of being ignored or excluded. When individuals perceive
ostracism, they experience stress which, in extreme cases, can contribute to cognitive and functional impairment (Williams, 1997). In
the workplace, ostracism can adversely affect interpersonal behavior and harm job performance (Ferris et al., 2008; Hitlan et al.,
2006).
Despite the negative implications that ostracism has for performance in service organizations, its impact on work engagement
and service productivity has yet to be examined in the extant literature. Furthermore, it is unknown whether neuroticism moderates
the relationship between workplace ostracism and work engagement. We aim to fill these gaps in the literature by building and
testing a model of workplace ostracism that draws on Conservation
of Resources (COR) Theory which posits that resources are salient
in enhancing well-being (Hobfoll, 1989, 1998).
According to COR theory, resources are things that people value
and therefore they strive to protect and sustain. Research shows
that both personal resources (e.g., self-esteem) and job resources
(e.g., co-worker support) facilitate employees’ effectiveness in the
∗ Corresponding author at: Hong Kong Baptist University, Department of Management, Kowloon Tong, Kowloon, Hong Kong.
E-mail address: [email protected] (A.S.M. Leung).
0278-4319/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.01.004
A.S.M. Leung et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 30 (2011) 836–844
Workplace
ostracism
Work
engagement
Service
performance
Neuroticism
Fig. 1. Theoretical model.
dents as study participants in what are often laboratory-type
experiments. Relatively fewer empirical investigations have been
conducted in field-settings examining work situations. Thus, this
study is an investigation of workplace ostracism, and it focuses
specifically on the impact of ostracism on employee work engagement and performance. Second, little research has been conducted
on individual differences (such as neuroticism) in employees’ reactions to workplace ostracism. Taken together, the study enhances
our understanding of how, and to what extent, workplace ostracism
affects employee outcomes. The findings have practical implications for managers in the service industry, where workplace
engagement is of particular importance.
2. Theoretical background
2.1. Conservation of Resources (COR) Theory
Resources are defined as “. . .those objects, personal characteristics, conditions, or energies that are valued by the individual or that
serve as a means for attainment of these objects, personal characteristics, conditions or energies” (Hobfoll, 1989, p. 516). According
to COR, stress will occur if there is a loss of resources, a perceived
threat of loss, or a lack of resource gain following an investment
of resources (Hobfoll, 1989, 1998). For these reasons, individuals
attempt to conserve resources in order to deal with threatening
conditions and prevent themselves from negative outcomes such
as emotional exhaustion.
When organizations create environments that enable employees to conserve and protect resources, they can deal more
effectively with work demands, which will prevent negative outcomes (Wright and Hobfoll, 2004). Conversely, COR theory posits
that resource-poor employees will attempt to protect their remaining resources by depersonalization, reducing wok engagement, and
decreasing their performance efforts. Wright and Hobfoll (2004)
explain that depersonalization is an attempt to minimize the
resource losses that may result from interacting with clients.
The COR explanation for the effects of workplace ostracism
is similar to the need-threat model of ostracism developed by
Williams (2001). According to Williams, continued exposure to
ostracism can deplete resources necessary to motivate individuals.
In order to guard against further depletion, it is likely that ostracized individuals will deploy strategies to conserve their remaining
resources. But guarding against further losses may be stressful
in itself because energy is expended, favors are used up, and
self-esteem is at stake (Hobfoll, 1998). This makes resource-poor
individuals more susceptible to further resource losses as they
are less resilient and have fewer resources to guard against further losses (Wright and Hobfoll, 2004). When individuals invest
resources and do not reap the anticipated benefits, stress ensues
and grows (Hobfoll, 2001). Hence, COR helps explain the work of
Williams and Sommer (1997), who state: “if an individual endures
long-term ostracism, attempts to regain these needs may give way
to despair and helplessness” (p. 694–695).
837
2.2. Workplace ostracism and service performance
Drawing from research on social ostracism (e.g., Williams,
2001, 2007), Ferris et al. (2008) define workplace ostracism as
the extent to which a person perceives that he or she is ignored
or excluded by others in the workplace. Workplace ostracism
includes actions such as refusing to interact with or avoiding
eye contact with the ostracized individual. In colloquial terms,
ostracism is referred to with expressions such as “giving the cold
shoulder”, “the silent treatment” or “freezing out”. Ostracism, in
one of its many forms, is more widespread than is commonly
realized (Williams, 2001).
Workplace ostracism is related to other interpersonal psychological mistreatments that reflect the “darker” side of
organizational behavior, such as abusive supervision, incivility, or
outright bullying. Although these activities may entail some form
of exclusionary behavior, they are active forms of aggression or
abuse, while workplace ostracism is a form of passive aggression
aimed at the organization or its employees (Hitlan et al., 2006).
In other words, workplace ostracism, compared to other forms of
overt, direct, and visible undermining behaviors (e.g., verbal abuse),
is often subtle or covert (e.g. silence or no response to greeting).
In addition, workplace ostracism has perceptual components that
vary according to the individual; what one person perceives as
ostracism may not be perceived as such by someone else (Williams
and Zadro, 2001).
Individuals often react to workplace ostracism by attempting to fortify threatened fundamental human needs. Experimental
research has shown that the reaction to ostracism can be in the form
of pro-social behaviors such as higher conformity and cooperation
(Williams and Sommer, 1997) or the reaction can be in the form
of anti-social behaviors such as aggression or hostility (Warburton
et al., 2006). Williams (2009) has further argued that pro-social
behaviors reflect attempts to improve inclusionary status (need
for belonging) and to regard oneself positively (need for selfesteem) whereas anti-social behaviors reflect attempts to regain
personal control over the environment (need for control) or to
make a contribution (need for a meaningful existence). Attempts to
adapt through pro-social behaviors to re-connect may successfully
reduce the likelihood of continued workplace ostracism (Williams,
2001). But if the ostracized individuals are not successful, they may
perceive further rejection and avoid attempts at creating social
ties; they may even begin to regard with suspicion those who
are not ostracizing them. Research also reveals a positive relationship between social ostracism and unhealthy, destructive behavior,
including impaired mental performance (Baumeister et al., 2002),
increased aggression (Warburton et al., 2006), and a tendency to
engage in unintentional self-defeating behavior (Twenge et al.,
2002).
As such, it stands to reason that workplace ostracism will have a
negative effect on employee contributions. When ostracized individuals are excluded from conversations and social activities and
perceive that they are not part of the larger group, they are likely
to discount their contribution to the organization. If it continues, workplace ostracism can lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy in
which the ostracized individual becomes a low-value employee.
For example, Sommer and Baumeister (2002) found that when
individuals with low self-esteem feel their egos are threatened,
they approach their tasks with less confidence, which decreases
performance. Based on the tenets of COR theory, it is predicted
when individuals perceive ostracism at work, they will attempt
to further conserve resources, which will result in poor service
performance.
Hypothesis 1. Workplace ostracism is negatively related to service performance.
838
A.S.M. Leung et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 30 (2011) 836–844
2.3. The mediating role of work engagement
Work engagement refers to a positive, fulfilling, affectivemotivational state of work-related well-being; it is characterized
by vigor, dedication, and absorption (Bakker et al., 2008). Vigor
refers to high levels of energy and mental resilience, the willingness to exert high effort in one’s task, and persistence in the face of
difficulties. Dedication refers to a sense of significance, enthusiasm,
inspiration, pride, and challenge. Absorption refers to a state where
one is highly focused on and happily engrossed in one’s work; when
highly absorbed, time passes quickly and one finds it difficult to
detach oneself from work. Vigor and dedication can be thought
of as the opposite poles of the burnout dimensions of exhaustion
and cynicism, respectively. Vigor and exhaustion span an “energy”
continuum, while dedication and cynicism span an “identification”
continuum (González-Roma et al., 2006). In brief, engaged employees work hard (display vigor), are involved (dedicated), and are
engrossed (absorbed) in their work.
There have been few studies examining the relationship
between work engagement and performance, but existing results
have been positive (see Bakker and Demerouti, 2008, for an
overview). For example, Bakker et al. (2004) found that highly
engaged employees were ranked higher by colleagues on in-role
and extra-role performance. Similarly, in a survey of army personnel, Britt et al. (2005) found that soldiers who were more
engaged were less affected by stress and reported less negative
consequences from long hours at difficult tasks. Moreover, research
suggests that job resources, such as social support from colleagues
or supervisors, increases motivation and work engagement. For
instance, Salanova et al. (2005) found that abundant job resources
increases motivation, which improves work engagement and leads
to higher levels of performance and customer loyalty.
Conversely, we argue that workplace ostracism depletes victims’ resources, creating adverse psychological conditions. This
notion is consistent with COR theory as mentioned earlier. When
individuals lack adequate resources to meet work demands, they
are then more likely to disengage from work, which will impact
work outcomes. Burnout is one such stress outcome due to a
chronic loss of resources without counterbalancing resource gains
or replenishment (Maslach et al., 2001). Hitlan et al. (2006)
found that perceived workplace ostracism decreases co-worker
and supervisor satisfaction and harms psychological health. Given
that workplace ostracism impacts the well-being of individuals
and decreases motivation (Ferris et al., 2008), we hypothesize that
work engagement acts as a mediating variable in the relationship
between workplace ostracism and performance outcome:
Hypothesis 2. Work engagement mediates the relationship
between workplace ostracism and service performance.
sible explanation for this phenomenon is that “employees high in
neuroticism perceive their work environment as more threatening” (Langelaan et al., 2006, p. 529). These negative reactions are
likely to increase during interpersonal conflicts (such as perceived
ostracism), leading to stress and lower work engagement.
As such, personality might function to constrain individual
behavior (Carver, 2005) such that at low levels of neuroticism,
work engagement will be similar across all levels of perceived
ostracism. However, at high levels of neuroticism, work engagement varies widely according to the extent to which an individual is
experiencing ostracism. For example, Hitlan and Noel (2009) found
more counterproductive behavior for employees whose personality traits – including high neuroticism – exerted less self control
over their behavior. As a result, the relationship between workplace ostracism and counterproductive behavior was strongest for
employees whose personality exhibited less behavioral constraints.
Thus, we expect an interaction effect, suggesting that the lowest
levels of work engagement will emerge for highly neurotic individuals experiencing high levels of ostracism.
Taken together, we expect that individuals low on neuroticism
will have weaker reactions to ostracism, and ostracism will have
little effect on their work engagement. In contrast, there are more
pronounced changes in work engagement in highly neurotic individuals whose personality exerts less control over their behavior.
Hence, building on the work of Hitlan and Noel (2009), we suggest
that the negative relationship between workplace ostracism and
work engagement will be more pronounced among highly neurotic individuals who are more reactive to workplace ostracism. As
such, we hypothesize that highly neurotic individuals who experience high levels of workplace ostracism will have the lowest levels
of work engagement.
Hypothesis 3. Neuroticism moderates the negative relationship
between workplace ostracism and work engagement such that the
relationship is stronger when neuroticism is higher.
As mentioned earlier, work engagement is likely to meditate the
influence of workplace ostracism on service performance in that
ostracized individuals will become disengaged from their work,
which will harm service performance. Furthermore, the personality trait of neuroticism may moderate the impact of perceived
ostracism on work engagement in that highly neurotic individuals tend to react more negatively to ostracism. For example, in a
meta-analysis, Judge and Ilies (2002) found that neuroticism is the
strongest and most consistent correlate of performance motivation. With respect to this study, this means that if highly neurotic
employees perceive they are being ostracized, they will be less
motivated and less engaged in their work. Hence, we further predict
that the decreased work engagement resulting from the interaction between workplace ostracism and neuroticism will, in turn,
undermine service performance:
2.4. The moderating role of neuroticism
Neuroticism is the tendency to experience negative emotions
such as fear, sadness, and anger (Costa and McCrae, 1987). Highly
neurotic individuals are characterized by traits such as nervousness, moodiness, and sensitivity to negative stimuli (Nevid and
Rathus, 2005). High neuroticism implies higher trait anxiety,
emotional instability, and maladjustment. Individuals high in neuroticism are more prone to experience negative emotions such as
anxiety and depression, and tend to be impulsive and self-conscious
(Costa and McCrae, 1987; Schmitz et al., 2003), and are more likely
to engage in interpersonal conflicts and find such conflicts emotionally draining (Bolger and Zuckerman, 1995). In a study of employees
in quick-service restaurants, Kim et al. (2009) found that among
the Big Five personality variables, neuroticism was the most highly
correlated with burnout and reduced work engagement. One pos-
Hypothesis 4. Work engagement mediates the interactive effect
of workplace ostracism and neuroticism on service performance.
3. Methodology
3.1. Sample and procedures
To test the model, we collected survey data from 19 hotels in
southern China in three stages. For each of the measures, data
were collected from two separate sources. In the first stage (T1 ),
employees provided demographic information, their perceptions
of workplace ostracism, and rated their neuroticism, while HR managers provided basic information on their firms and the service
climate. In the second stage (T2 ), employees reported their degree
of work engagement. In the third stage (T3 ), employees’ supervi-
A.S.M. Leung et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 30 (2011) 836–844
sors were asked to evaluate their subordinates’ customer service
performance. With data collected at three different stages from
two different sources, common method variance is not an issue.
Data were collected with the assistance of the firms’ HR managers, who briefed the potential participants (both employees and
their supervisors) about the purpose of the study and the procedures for collecting data. Each participant received a cover letter
outlining the details of the study, the voluntary nature of participation, an assurance of anonymity, as well as a questionnaire and
a return envelope. The HR manager from each operation randomly
selected 30–40 employees with considerable personal interaction
with customers; the supervisors of these employees evaluated
their subordinates’ service performance in a separate questionnaire. The employee questionnaires (T1 and T2 ) were matched
to the responses of their supervisors (T3 ) using a coding system
based on information provided by the HR manager for each operation. The questionnaires were conducted in Chinese but they
were initially drafted in English before being translated into Chinese following the back-translation procedure recommended by
Brislin (1980).
We received 420 usable subordinate questionnaires and 19
usable HR manager questionnaires in the first stage of the surveys. During the second stage of the data collection, which
took place three months later, we received 344 usable subordinate questionnaires. The effective response rate for the
first two stages of the subordinate survey was 51.7%. In the
third stage, 120 questionnaires were distributed to the subordinates’ supervisors, resulting in a usable response rate of
91.6% for supervisors. The final sample consisted of 19 HR
managers and 110 supervisors, or 304 supervisor–subordinate
dyads.
Of the 19 hotels invited to participate, 42.1% were classified as state-owned. The average number of years of operation
was 14.53 (S.D. = 5.54), and the number of employees for each
hotel ranged from 87 to 323. In terms of hotel ratings, 10.5%
were two-star hotels, 42.1% were three-star, 26.3% were four-star,
and 21.1% were five-star. Of the 304 subordinates, 60.9% were
female. The average respondent was 29.91 years old (S.D. = 5.42)
and the average organizational tenure was 5.07 years (S.D. = 2.57).
In terms of education, 36.8% were high school graduates, 52%
held a university degree, and 11.2% had a master’s degree or
above.
839
disturbed.” We conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to
test the unidimensional structure of this measure. Results indicated
that the fit indexes fell within an acceptable range (2 (35) = 125.32,
p < .01; RMSEA = .09; CFI = .93; TLI = .91). The reliability of this scale
was .89.
Work engagement: A nine-item scale developed by Schaufeli
et al. (2006) was used to measure work engagement. Response
options ranged from 1, “strongly disagree,” to 7, “strongly agree.”
Sample items included: “At work, I feel bursting with energy
(vigor),” “When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work
(dedication),” and “I am immersed in my work (absorption).” We
conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test the threedimensional structure of this measure. The fit indexes for three
first-order factors plus one second-order factor fell within a good
range (2 (24) = 62.17, p < .01; RMSEA = .07; CFI = .97; TLI = .95). The
subscale’s reliability was .76 for vigor, .84 for dedication, and .84
for absorption, and the aggregate reliability of the scale was .87.
Following previous studies, we aggregated the 9 items to create
a single index of workplace engagement (e.g., Sonnentag, 2003;
Xanthopoulou et al., 2008).
Service performance: A seven-item scale developed by Liao
and Chuang (2004) was used to measure service performance.
Response options ranged from 1, “strongly disagree,” to 5,
“strongly agree.” Items included: “This employee is friendly and
helpful to customers,” “This employee approaches customers
quickly,” and “This employee is able to help customers when
needed.” The fit indexes were good (2 (14) = 43.50, p < .01;
RMSEA = .08; CFI = .96; TLI = .95). The reliability of this scale
was .86.
Control variables: Previous research indicates that employee
demographics (i.e., age, gender, organizational tenure and education level), workplace characteristics (i.e., hotel age, size, ownership
type, and star rating), and workplace service climate (i.e., perceptions of service quality) are likely to be associated with employee
work engagement and service performance (e.g., Bakker and
Demerouti, 2008; De Jong et al., 2005; Hyvönen et al., 2009; Liao
and Chuang, 2004, 2007; Liao et al., 2009; Salanova et al., 2005;
Xanthopoulou et al., 2008). Hence, we control for these factors in
this research. Service climate was measured with a five-item scale
developed by Schneider et al. (2000); the response options ranged
from 1, “strongly disagree,” to 5, “strongly agree.” The reliability of
this scale was .78.
3.2. Measures
Workplace ostracism: A ten-item scale developed by Ferris
et al. (2008) was used to measure workplace ostracism. Response
options ranged from 1, “strongly disagree,” to 7, “strongly agree.”
Sample items included: “Others ignore me at work,” “Others
leave the area when I arrive,” and “My greetings have gone
unanswered at work.” A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was
conducted to test the unidimensional structure of this measure.
The model’s overall Chi-square, the comparative fit index (CFI,
Bentler, 1990), the Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI, Tucker and Lewis,
1973), and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA,
Browne and Cudeck, 1993) were used to assess model fit. Convention suggests that a value over .90 for CFI and TLI and a
value below .08 for RMSEA are indicative of a good fit between
the proposed model and the observed data (Bagozzi and Yi,
1988). By these criteria, the fit is quite good (2 (35) = 92.02,
p < .01; RMSEA = .07; CFI = .97; TLI = .96). The reliability of this scale
was .92.
Neuroticism: A ten-item scale developed by Goldberg (1990)
was used to measure neuroticism. Response options ranged from
1, “strongly disagree,” to 7, “strongly agree.” Sample items included
“I worry about things,” “My mood changes a lot,” and “I am easily
3.3. Data analysis
Since 110 supervisors provided service performance ratings for
304 subordinates, there is the possibility of nesting effects (i.e., the
supervisor’s rating of one subordinate may influence his/her rating
of another). We tested for this potential problem by calculating
the size of the design effect (Ukoumunne et al., 1999). The results
(design effect = 1.53) scored below the conventional cutoff value of
2. Hence, we can conclude that the nesting effects are not likely a
problem.
We used hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) to analyze the
cross-level data. HLM takes into account the individual-level error
in estimating firm-level coefficients. It can simultaneously estimate
two models: one identifies the relationships within each firm, while
the other represents how these within-firm relationships vary
among themselves (Bryk and Raudenbush, 1992). The relationships
among workplace ostracism, neuroticism, work engagement, and
service performance were modeled at the individual level; whereas
hotel demographics and hotel service climate were modeled at the
firm level to explain inter-firm variations in work engagement and
service performance.
840
A.S.M. Leung et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 30 (2011) 836–844
5.5
4.1. Descriptive statistics
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and zero-order
correlations for all of the key variables. As shown in the table,
the correlations of the key variables are in the expected direction. We found that workplace ostracism was negatively correlated
with work engagement (r = −.37, p < .01) and service performance
(r = −.23, p < .01). Moreover, work engagement and service performance were positively correlated (r = .39, p < .01).
4.2. Tests of hypotheses
Work engagement
4. Results
5.0
(r = -.15, p <.05)
4.5
(r = -.46, p <.01)
4.0
low
high
Workplace ostracism
For employees low in neuroticism
For employees high in neuroticism
HLM analyses were conducted to test the first two Hypotheses.
We entered the variables into the model at three steps: In step 1,
we entered control variables; in step 2 we entered the main effect
variable of workplace ostracism; in step 3 we entered the work
engagement variable to test the mediation effect. As indicated in
Table 2, we found that workplace ostracism is negatively related
to service performance (ˇ = −.15. p < .05; Model 6), thus supporting
Hypothesis 1.
Hypothesis 2 predicted that work engagement mediates the
influence of workplace ostracism on service performance. According to Baron and Kenny (1986), full mediation is supported if
four conditions are met: (1) the independent variable (workplace
ostracism) is significantly related to the mediator (work engagement); (2) the independent variable is significantly related to the
dependent variable (service performance); (3) the mediator is significantly related to the dependent variable; and (4) when mediator
is entered into the model, the relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable becomes nonsignificant.
Evidence in support of Hypothesis 2 is shown in Table 2. The
results indicate that (1) workplace ostracism was negatively related
to work engagement (ˇ = −.26, p < .01, Model 2); (2) workplace
ostracism was negatively related to service performance (ˇ = −.15,
p < .05, Model 6); (3) work engagement was positively related to
service performance (ˇ = .23, p < .01, Model 7); and (4) the relationship between workplace ostracism and service performance
became nonsignificant (ˇ = −.09, p > .05, Model 7) when workplace
ostracism was entered. Thus, Hypothesis 2 was fully supported.
To examine the moderation and the mediated moderation
predicted by Hypotheses 3 and 4, respectively, we adopted the
moderated causal step approach of analysis (Muller et al., 2005).
Five steps were carried out: control variables were first entered,
followed by the predictor (workplace ostracism) and the moderator (neuroticism) in the second and third step. The workplace
ostracism–neuroticism interaction was entered in the fourth step.
Finally, the mediator (work engagement) was entered in the last
step while controlling for the neuroticism–work engagement interaction. All interaction variables were mean-centered to minimize
multicollinearity (Aiken and West, 1991).
Hypothesis 3 predicted that neuroticism moderates the relationship between workplace ostracism and work engagement. As
shown in Table 2, the interaction between workplace ostracism and
neuroticism was negatively related to work engagement (ˇ = −.11,
p < .01, Model 4), thus supporting Hypothesis 3. We further plotted
the interaction effects using Stone and Hollenbeck’s (1989) procedure; we computed slopes using one standard deviation above
and below the mean of the moderating variable. Fig. 2 shows the
interaction patterns, which are consistent with the hypothesis.
Specifically, workplace ostracism has a stronger, negative relationship with work engagement when neuroticism is high. We further
conducted a simple slope test. The results further confirmed that
workplace ostracism is more negatively related to work engagement when neuroticism is high (rhigh = −.46, p < .01) rather than
Fig. 2. Interactive effects of workplace ostracism and neuroticism on work engagement.
low (rlow = −.15, p < .05; rhigh-low = −.31, p < .01). Thus, there is solid
support for Hypothesis 3.
To further test the mediated moderation, we followed the procedure of Muller et al. (2005). According to Muller and colleagues,
the full mediated moderation is supported if four conditions are
met: (1) the interaction between the independent variable and
the moderator (in this case, workplace ostracism × neuroticism) is
significantly related to the mediator (in this case, work engagement) as indicated by Hypothesis 3; (2) if after controlling for
other predictors, the interaction is also significantly related to the
dependent variable (in this case, service performance); (3) if after
controlling for the mediator × moderator term (in this case, work
engagement × neuroticism) and other predictors, the mediator is
significantly related to the dependent variable; and (4) if after controlling for the mediator, the effect of the interaction between the
independent variable and the moderator on the dependent variable
becomes nonsignificant.
We found support for Hypothesis 4; the results showed that
(1) workplace ostracism × neuroticism was significantly related to
work engagement as indicated above for Hypothesis 3; (2) workplace ostracism × neuroticism was significantly related to service
performance (ˇ = −.06, p < .05, Model 9); (3) after controlling for the
interaction between work engagement and neuroticism and other
predictors, work engagement (ˇ = .22, p < .01, Model 10) was found
to be positively related to service performance; and (4) the interaction effect of workplace ostracism and neuroticism on service
performance became nonsignificant (ˇ = −.04, n.s., Model 10) after
entering work engagement while controlling for the interaction
between work engagement and neuroticism and other predictors.
We further plotted the interactive effect of workplace ostracism
and neuroticism on service performance and conducted a simple slope test. Fig. 3 shows the interaction patterns which were
consistent with our hypothesis. Workplace ostracism was negatively related to service performance when neuroticism was high
(r = −.30, p < .01) but was not related to service performance when
neuroticism was low (r = −.10, n.s.).
Although the procedures of Baron and Kenny (1986) and Muller
et al. (2005) are widely used to test the mediation, they cannot
determine whether the mediation is significantly different from
zero (MacKinnon et al., 2002; Shrout and Bolger, 2002). Thus, we
performed two Sobel tests to examine the significance of indirect effects (Sobel, 1982). Results substantiated that the mediating
effect of work engagement is significant in the relationship between
workplace ostracism and service performance (Z = 2.98, p < .01), and
in the relationship between workplace ostracism × neuroticism
interaction on service performance (Z = 2.29, p < .05). Therefore,
Hypotheses 3 and 4 received further support.
A.S.M. Leung et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 30 (2011) 836–844
841
Table 1
Correlations, means, standard deviations and correlations of all variables in the study.
Variables
1. Employee age
2. Employee gender
3. Employee tenure
4. Employee education
5. Firm age
6. Firm size
7. Ownership style
8. Firm star rating
9. Firm service climate
10. Workplace ostracism
11. Neuroticism
12. Work engagement
13. Service performance
Mean
Standard deviation
1
.04
.54**
.02
−.03
−.13*
.07
−.08
−.05
−.11
.01
.11
.04
29.91
5.42
2
3
4
.01
.06
.09
−.07
.04
−.01
.06
.03
.03
.03
.09
−.09
.00
−.01
.12*
−.09
−.02
−.04
−.03
.07
.04
−.05
.09
.00
.13*
.13*
.03
−.05
.06
.06
5.07
2.57
1.74
.65
.61
.49
5
−.16
−.11
−.02
−.29
.05
−.04
.15*
.07
14.53
5.54
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
−.14
.32
.41
−.18**
−.06
.12*
.15**
−.27
.06
.05
.00
.08
−.07
.51*
−.04
.08
.12*
.14*
(.78)
−.27*
−.17**
.28**
.26**
(.92)
.18**
−.37**
−.23**
(.89)
−.25**
−.21**
(.87)
.39**
(.86)
3.58
.96
3.59
.58
2.40
.82
3.27
.86
4.85
.70
3.72
.62
2.26
.17
.58
.51
Notes: Gender: “0” – Male; “1” – Female Education: “1” – high school or below; “2” – junior college; “3” – bachelor or above Firm size: number of employees (log) Ownership
style: “0” – public hotel; “1” – non public hotel Firm star rating: “0” – non star; “1” – one star; “2” – two star; “3” – three star; “4” – four star; “5” – five star The values in
bold (variables 5–9) indicate correlations at the firm level, N = 19; the rest are at individual level, N = 304. Alpha internal reliability coefficients appear in parentheses along
the main diagonal.
*
p < .05 (two-tailed).
**
p < 0.01 (two-tailed).
5. Discussion
In this study, we used a longitudinal research design to examine the impact of workplace ostracism on work engagement and
performance. Although there is a large body of literature exploring
how ostracism influences outcomes in different laboratory settings,
little field research has been done on ostracism in actual work situations. One of our objectives was to address this gap by examining
how workplace ostracism and one’s personality contribute to work
engagement and service performance. Our model and hypotheses
were based on COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989, 1998). The results sup-
port the contention that workplace ostracism negatively affects
service performance. The results also suggest that work engagement mediates the relationship between workplace ostracism and
service performance.
In addition, we found that neuroticism moderates the relationship between workplace ostracism and engagement, and work
engagement mediates the interactive effect of workplace ostracism
and neuroticism on service performance; in the sample, highly
neurotic employees are more negatively affected by workplace
ostracism. This is consistent with Hitlan and Noel’s (2009) argument that personality can function to constrain, or not constrain,
Table 2
Results for hypotheses testing using HLM.
Work engagement
M1
M2
Service performance
M3
M4
M5
M6
M7
Level 1 control variables
Employee age
Employee gender
Employee tenure
Employee education
.01 (.01)
−.03 (.06)
.00 (.01)
.01 (.08)
Level 2 control variables
Firm age
Firm size
Ownership style
Firm star rating
Firm service climate
.02 (.01)
.02 (.01)
.02 (.01)
.02 (.01)
−.16 (.36) −.16 (.36) −.16 (.36) −.16 (.36)
.09 (.11)
.09 (.11)
.09 (.11)
.09 (.11)
−.01 (.07) −.01 (.07) −.01 (.07) −.01 (.07)
.36** (.09) .36** (.09) .36** (.09) .36** (.09)
.01 (.01) .01 (.01)
.01 (.01)
−.02 (.34) −.02 (.34) −.02 (.34)
−.09 (.13) −.09 (.13) −.09 (.13)
−.00 (.06) −.00 (.06) −.00 (.06)
27* (.10)
.27* (.10)
−.26** (.08) −.25** (.07) −.25** (.06)
−.15* (.07) −.09 (.05)
Independent variable
Workplace ostracism
.01 (.01)
.00 (.07)
.01 (.01)
.04 (.08)
Moderator
Neuroticism
.01 (.01)
.01 (.07)
.00 (.01)
.03 (.08)
.00 (.01)
.01 (.07)
.00 (.01)
.02 (.07)
.00 (.00) −.00 (.00) −.00 (.00)
.11 (.07) .13 (.07)
.13* (.06)
.01 (.01) .01 (.01)
.01 (.01)
−.03 (.05) −.01 (.05) −.02 (.05)
M8
M9
−.00 (.00) −.00 (.00) −.00 (.00)
.13* (.06) .13* (.07) .13* (.07)
.01 (.01)
.01 (.01)
.01 (.01)
−.02 (.05) −.02 (.05) −.02 (.05)
.01 (.01)
.01 (.01)
.01 (.01)
−.02 (.34) −.02 (.34) −.02 (.34)
−.09 (.13) −.09 (.13) −.09 (.13)
−.00 (.06) −.00 (.06) −.00 (.06)
27* (.10)
.27* (.10) .27* (.10)
−.14* (.07) −.14* (.06) −.09 (.05)
−.12** (.04) −.11** (.03)
−.06* (.03) −.05 (.03) −.03 (.03)
−.11** (.03)
−.06* (.03) −.04 (.03)
Interaction
Workplace ostracism × neuroticism
Mediation
Work engagement
.23** (.07)
.22** (.07)
Interaction (controlled)
Neuroticism × engagement
Sigma square
Tau
Chi-square
Pseudo R2 change (level 1)
M10
.04 (.05)
.41
.05
36.76**
(13)
–
.37
.05
40.80**
(13)
10%
.36
.05
41.63**
(13)
12.2%
.35
.05
42.71**
(13)
14.6%
.32
.06
48.77**
(13)
–
Notes: The values in brackets are standard errors (S.E.) for corresponding estimates. *p < .05; **p < .01.
.31
.06
50.77**
(13)
3%
.29
.06
54.00**
(13)
9%
.30
.06
50.96**
(13)
6%
.30
.06
51.41**
(13)
6%
.29
.06
54.16**
(13)
9%
842
A.S.M. Leung et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 30 (2011) 836–844
Service Performance
4.5
4.0
(r = -.10, n.s.)
3.5
(r = -.30, p <.01)
3.0
low
high
Workplace ostracism
For employees low in neuroticism
For employees high in neuroticism
Fig. 3. Interactive effects of workplace ostracism and neuroticism on service performance.
behavior. Their findings reported that the weakest constraint on
behavior emerged with individuals who are highly neurotic and
experience high levels of exclusion.
5.1. Theoretical implications
This study contributes to the literature in three ways. First,
drawing upon COR, we develop a model to explain the consequences of workplace ostracism. The model predicts that workplace
ostracism undermines resources and decreases motivation. Second,
the model provides understanding of the mediating role that work
engagement plays between workplace ostracism and service performance. The findings support our hypothesis that a reduction in
work engagement is a reaction to workplace stress. People disengage from their work because they lack energy and motivation,
which becomes depleted as they perceive they are being ostracized.
Hence, the overall results offer additional evidence of the psychological strain caused by workplace ostracism. Finally, the study
reinforces the idea that individual differences affect the degree
of engagement and have other behavioral outcomes. As Hobfoll
(2001) points out, positive personality traits can be thought of as
positive personal resources, while negative personality traits can
be a drain on personal resources. Thus, highly neurotic individuals
are more likely to perceive they are being ostracized and are likely
to feel more threatened by workplace ostracism which magnifies
its negative impact.
5.2. Managerial implications
Workplace ostracism has received little empirical attention in
the tourism and hospitality literature, which makes our findings
all the more salient. Our findings suggest that there are potentially
high costs to service organizations where employees experience
workplace ostracism. In view of increasing competition among service providers, our findings suggest that steps should be taken to
prevent workplace ostracism or to quickly end it when it first surfaces. This is especially the case for service and hospitality firms
which depend upon quality interaction with customers. There are
several traditional approaches to eliminating workplace ostracism,
such as holding formal and informal gatherings that facilitate interpersonal understanding and interaction. Managers can also nurture
positive organizational resources to help mitigate the potentially
negative impact of workplace ostracism, such as fostering a work
climate with a strong service orientation (e.g., Liao and Chuang,
2004; Liao et al., 2009; Salanova et al., 2005) and a strong culture of
trust to enhance the employee–customer interface (Lam and Lau,
2008).
Furthermore, a preventive work environment would take corrective measures before employees become de-motivated and/or
disengaged from work. Individuals who perceive ostracism are
more likely to interpret other events in a threatening manner
and this can escalate into a self-perpetuating cycle (Zadro et al.,
2006). In this context, a proactive response system for detecting
ostracism can reduce its likelihood and continuation. When workplace ostracism has been observed, managers should determine
who ostracizes and why. Moreover, the targets and their immediate
supervisors can work together to replenish the affected individuals’
organizational resources (e.g., professional development training)
to help improve their inclusionary status or cope with ostracism.
These organizational attributes can not only increase cooperation
among individuals and their contributions to their work unit, but
also foster interdependence among employees.
In addition, managers should consider the impact of employee
neuroticism, as suggested by the moderating effect that we identified. Specifically, professional training, advice, and workshops
can be provided to maintain employees’ psychological well-being.
When the negative effects of neuroticism are weakened, the negative influence of workplace ostracism on work engagement will be
lessened or mitigated.
5.3. Strengths, limitations, and future research
This study has several strengths worth noting. Data were collected from three different sources (employees, supervisors, and HR
managers) which lessen problems with common method variance
(Podsakoff et al., 2003). Moreover, we collected data at three distinct points in time, lending additional support to the causal nature
of the model (Cook and Campbell, 1979).
Nevertheless, there are also some limitations. First, ostracism
may be a bigger factor in countries high in collectivism, such as
China. Collectivism refers to “a set of feelings, beliefs, behavioral
intentions, and behaviors related to solidarity and concern for others” (Hui, 1988, p. 17). Collectivistic cultures put heavy emphasis
on close and harmonious interpersonal relationships. Therefore,
employees and organizations in collectivistic cultures may be more
affected by workplace ostracism (Powell et al., 2009; Wilkins and
Dyer, 1988). Since our research setting was southern China, the
findings may not be generalizable to more individualistic cultures.
Our findings are consistent with the theoretical predictions of COR
theory, which has found support in different countries over a wide
range of organizational settings (e.g., Bakker and Demerouti, 2008;
Hobfoll, 1989, 2001; Schaufeli and Salanova, 2007). Nonetheless,
future researchers may wish to replicate this study in other settings.
Second, service climate is a collective and shared phenomenon
(Salanova et al., 2005). As the use of work teams increases, collective
engagement at the team level may be an important source of competitive advantage (Salanova et al., 2003, 2005). Some behavioral
issues at the team level may become increasingly important. For
example, how do individuals attempt to regain control when they
perceive ostracism in the workplace? Do they increase conformity
in an attempt to bring themselves in line with the group? Or do
they further isolate themselves to further conserve resources. What
determines the course of action taken by a particular individual?
These issues present interesting topics for future research.
6. Conclusion
Drawing on COR theory, this research examines whether workplace ostracism depletes an employee’s resources, which, in turn,
decreases work engagement and service performance. The results
support the initial hypotheses and suggest that the negative
impacts could be differentiated on the basis of personality; we find
A.S.M. Leung et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 30 (2011) 836–844
that neuroticism strengthens workplace ostracism’s direct effect
on work engagement and indirect effect on service performance.
Highly neurotic individuals are more likely to perceive that they are
victims of, and are likely to be more negatively impacted by, workplace ostracism. In summary, this study suggests that workplace
ostracism can be harmful to organizational performance. Hopefully
this study will encourage future researchers to focus attention on
this negative organizational phenomenon as well as assist management and practitioners in reducing its occurrence and harmful
effects.
References
Aiken, L.S., West, S.G., 1991. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y., 1988. On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science 16 (1), 74–94.
Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., 2008. Towards a model of work engagement. Career
Development International 13 (3), 209–223.
Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., Verbeke, W., 2004. Using the job demands: resources
model to predict burnout and performance. Human Resource Management 43
(1), 83–104.
Bakker, A.B., Schaufeli, W.B., Leiter, M.P., Taris, T.W., 2008. Work engagement: an
emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work & Stress 22 (3),
187–200.
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 61 (6), 1173–1182.
Baumeister, R.F, Twenge, J.M., Nuss, C., 2002. Effects of social exclusion on cognitive processes: anticipated aloneness reduces intelligent thought. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 83 (4), 817–827.
Bentler, P.M., 1990. Comparative fit indices in structural models. Psychological Bulletin 107 (2), 238–246.
Brislin, R.W., 1980. Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials.
In: Triandis, H.C., Berry, J.W. (Eds.), Handbook of Cross-cultural Psychology, vol.
2. Allyn and Bacon, Boston, pp. 389–444.
Britt, T.W., Castro, C.A., Adler, A.B., 2005. Self-engagement, stressors, and health:
a longitudinal study. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 31 (11),
1475–1486.
Brookings, J.B., Zembar, M.J., Hochstetler, G.M., 2003. An interpersonal
circumplex/five-factor analysis of the rejection sensitivity questionnaire.
Personality and Individual Differences 34 (3), 449–461.
Browne, M.W., Cudeck, R., 1993. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen,
K.A., Long, J.S. (Eds.), Testing Structural Equation Models. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA,
pp. 136–162.
Bolger, N., Zuckerman, A., 1995. A framework for studying personality in the stress
process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69 (5), 890–902.
Bryk, A.S., Raudenbush, S.W., 1992. Hierarchical Linear Models for Social and Behavioral Research: Applications and Data Analysis Methods. Sage, Newbury Park,
CA.
Carver, C.S., 2005. Impulse and constraint: perspectives from personality psychology, convergence with theory in other areas, and potential for integration.
Personality and Social Psychology Review 9 (4), 312–333.
Cook, T.D., Campbell, D.T., 1979. Quasi Experimentation: Design and Analytical
Issues for Field Settings. Rand McNally, Chicago, IL.
Costa, P.T., McCrae, R.R., 1987. Neuroticism, somatic complains, and disease: is the
bark worse than the bite? Journal of Personality 55 (2), 299–316.
De Jong, A., de Ruyter, K., Wetzels, M., 2005. Antecedents and consequences of group
potency: a study of self-managing service teams. Management Science 51 (11),
1610–1625.
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 (6), 1348–1366.
Goldberg, L.R., 1990. An alternative ‘description of personality’: the big-five factor
structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59 (6), 1216–1229.
González-Roma, V., Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A., Lloret, S., 2006. Burnout and engagement: independent factors or opposite poles? Journal of Vocational Behavior 68
(1), 165–174.
Hakanen, J.J., Schaufeli, W.B., Ahola, K., 2008. The job demands-resources model: a
three-year cross-lagged study of burnout, depression, commitment, and work
engagement. Work & Stress 22 (3), 224–241.
Hitlan, R.T., Cliffton, R.J., DeSoto, C., 2006. Perceived exclusion in the workplace:
the moderating effects of gender on work-related attitudes and psychological
health. North American Journal of Psychology 8 (2), 217–236.
Hitlan, R.T., Noel, J., 2009. The influence of workplace exclusion and personality on counterproductive work behaviors: an interactionist perspective.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 18 (4), 477–
502.
Hobfoll, S.E., 1989. Conservation of resources: a new attempt at conceptualizing
stress. American Psychologist 44 (3), 513–524.
Hobfoll, S.E., 1998. Stress, Culture and Community: The Psychology and Philosophy
of Stress. Plenum Press, New York.
843
Hobfoll, S.E., 2001. The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the
stress process: advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology
an International Review 50 (3), 337–421.
Hobfoll, S.E., Johnson, R.J., Ennis, N., Jackson, A.P., 2003. Resource loss, resource gain,
and emotion outcomes among inner city women. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 84 (3), 632–643.
Hui, C.H., 1988. Measurement of individualism-collectivism. Journal of Research in
Personality 22 (1), 17–36.
Hyvönen, K., Feldt, T., Salmela-Aro, K., Kinnunen, U., Mäkikangas, A., 2009. Young
managers’ drive to thrive: a personal work goal approach to burnout and work
engagement. Journal of Vocational Behavior 75 (2), 183–196.
Judge, T.A., Ilies, R., 2002. Relationship of personality to performance motivation: a
meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology 87 (4), 797–807.
Karatepe, O.M., Olugbade, O.A., 2009. The effects of job and personal resources on
hotel employees’ work engagement. International Journal of Hospitality Management 28 (4), 504–512.
Kim, H.J., Shin, K.H., Swanger, N., 2009. Burnout and engagement: a comparative
analysis using the Big Five personality dimensions. International Journal of Hospitality Management 28 (1), 96–104.
Lam, L., Lau, D., 2008. Work climate and customer satisfaction: the role of trust in
retail context. Journal of Management and Organization 14 (2), 141–154.
Langelaan, S., Bakker, A.B., Van Doornen, L.J., Schaufeli, W.B., 2006. Burnout and
work engagement: do individual differences make a difference? Personality and
Individual Differences 40 (3), 521–532.
Liao, H., Chuang, A., 2004. A multilevel investigation of factors influencing employee
service performance and customer outcomes. Academy of Management Journal
47 (1), 41–58.
Liao, H., Chuang, A., 2007. Transforming service employees and climate: a multi-level
multi-source examination of transformational leadership in building long-term
service relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology 92 (4), 1006–1019.
Liao, H., Toya, K., Lepak, D.P., Hong, Y., 2009. Do they see eye to eye? Management
and employee perspectives of high-performance work systems and influence
processes on service quality. Journal of Applied Psychology 94 (2), 371–390.
MacKinnon, D.P., Lockwood, C.M., Hoffman, J.M., West, S.G., Sheets, V., 2002. A comparison of methods to test the significance of the mediated effect. Psychological
Methods 7 (1), 83–104.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W.B., Leiter, M.P., 2001. Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology 52 (1), 397–422.
Mor, N., Inbar, M., 2009. Rejection sensitivity and schema-congruent
information processing biases. Journal of Research in Personality,
doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2009.01.001.
Muller, C.M., Yzerbyt, V.Y., Judd, C.M., 2005. When moderation is mediated and
mediation is moderated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89 (6),
852–863.
Nevid, J.S., Rathus, S.A., 2005. Psychology and the Challenges of Life: Adjustment in
the New Millennium, 9th ed. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-S., Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Common method
biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (5), 879–903.
Powell, G.N., Francesco, A.M., Yan, L., 2009. Toward culture-sensitive theories of the
work-family interface. Journal of Organizational Behavior 30 (5), 597–616.
Salanova, M., Agut, S., Peiró, J.M., 2005. Linking organizational resources and work
engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: the mediating role
of service climate. Journal of Applied Psychology 90 (6), 1217–1227.
Salanova, M., Llorens, S., Cifre, E., Martinez, I., Schaufeli, W.B., 2003. Perceived collective efficacy, subjective well-being and task performance among electronic
work groups: an experimental study. Small Group Research 34 (1), 43–73.
Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B., Salanova, M., 2006. The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: a cross-national study. Educational and
Psychological Measurement 66 (4), 701–716.
Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., 2007. Efficacy or inefficacy, that’s the question:
burnout and engagement, and their relationships with efficacy beliefs. Anxiety,
Coping & Stress 20 (2), 177–196.
Schmitz, N., Kugler, J., Rollnik, J., 2003. On the relation between neuroticism,
self-esteem, and depression: results from the National Comorbidity Survey.
Comprehensive Psychiatry 44 (3), 169–176.
Schneider, B., Bowen, D.E., Erhart, M.G., Holcombe, K.M., 2000. The climate for service: evolution of a construct. In: Ashkanasy, N.M., Wilderom, C.P., Peterson, M.F.
(Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate. Sage, Thousand Oaks,
CA, pp. 21–36.
Shrout, P.E., Bolger, N., 2002. Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental
studies: new procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods 7 (4),
422–445.
Sobel, M.E., 1982. Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural
equation models. In: Leinhardt, S. (Ed.), Sociological Methodology. American
Sociological Association, pp. 290–312.
Sommer, K.L., Baumeister, R.F., 2002. Self-evaluation, persistence, and performance
following implicit rejection: the role of trait self-esteem. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin 28 (7), 926–938.
Sonnentag, S., 2003. Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: a new look
at the interface between work and non-work. Journal of Applied Psychology 88
(3), 518–528.
Stone, E.F., Hollenbeck, J.R., 1989. Clarifying some controversial issues surrounding
statistical procedures for detecting moderator variables: empirical evidence and
related matters. Journal of Applied Psychology 74 (1), 3–10.
844
A.S.M. Leung et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 30 (2011) 836–844
Tucker, L.R., Lewis, C., 1973. The reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor
analysis. Psychometrika 38 (1), 1–10.
Twenge, J.M., Catanese, K.R., Baumeister, R.F., 2002. Social exclusion causes selfdefeating behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83 (3), 606–615.
Ukoumunne, O.C., Gulliford, M.C., Chinn, S., Sterne, J.A., Burney, P.G., 1999. Methods
for evaluating area-wide and organization-based interventions in health and
health care: a systematic review. Health Technology Assessment 3 (5), iii92.
Warburton, W.A., Williams, K.D., Cairns, D.R., 2006. When ostracism leads to aggression: the moderating effects of control deprivation. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology 42 (2), 213–220.
Wilkins, A., Dyer Jr., W., 1988. Toward culturally sensitive theories of cultural change.
Academy of Management Review 13 (4), 522–533.
Williams, K.D., 1997. Social ostracism. In: Kowalski, R.M. (Ed.), Aversive Interpersonal Behaviors. Plenum, New York, pp. 133–170.
Williams, K.D., 2001. Ostracism: The Power of Silence. The Guilford Press, New York.
Williams, K.D., 2007. Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology 58, 425–452.
Williams, K.D., 2009. Ostracism: effects of being excluded and ignored. In: Zanna,
M.P. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 41. Academic Press,
New York, pp. 275–314.
Williams, K.D., Sommer, K.L., 1997. Social ostracism by one’s coworkers: does rejection lead to loafing or compensation? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
23 (7), 693–706.
Williams, K.D., Zadro, L., 2001. Ostracism: on being ignored excluded and rejected.
In: Leary, M.R., Leary (Eds.), Interpersonal Rejection. Oxford University Press,
New York, pp. 21–53.
Wright, T.A., Hobfoll, S.E., 2004. Commitment, psychological well-being and job performance: an examination of conservation of resources (COR) theory and job
burnout. Journal of Business and Management 9 (4), 389–406.
Xanthopoulou, D, Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., Schaufeli, W.B., 2007. The role of personal resources in the job demands-resources model. International Journal of
Stress Management 14 (2), 121–141.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B., Heuven, E., Demerouti, E., Schaufeli, W.B., 2008.
Working in the sky: a dairy study among flight attendants. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 13 (4), 345–356.
Zadro, L., Boland, C., Richardson, R., 2006. How long does it last? The persistence of
the effects of ostracism in the socially anxious. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology 42 (5), 692–697.
Alicia Leung is an Associate Professor of Management at the Hong Kong Baptist
University. She holds a Ph.D. in Management Learning from the University of Lancaster, U.K. Her research interests include gender issues and feminist methodology,
business ethics, social psychology, and cross-cultural psychology.
Longzeng Wu is an assistant professor in the school of international business administration of Shanghai University of Finance and Economics. His research interests
include workplace harassment, leadership and organizational politics.
Yuan Yi Chen is a researcher in the Chinese case research center of Hong Kong Baptist University. Her research interests include cross-border mergers and acquisitions,
political skills, and leadership.
Michael N. Young is an Associate Professor of Management at the Hong Kong Baptist
University. He holds a Ph.D. in Management from University of Connecticut. His
research interests include Chinese and Asian management practice, and corporate
governance and state-owned enterprise reform.
本文献由“学霸图书馆-文献云下载”收集自网络，仅供学习交流使用。
学霸图书馆（www.xuebalib.com）是一个“整合众多图书馆数据库资源，
提供一站式文献检索和下载服务”的24 小时在线不限IP 图书馆。
图书馆致力于便利、促进学习与科研，提供最强文献下载服务。
图书馆导航：
图书馆首页
文献云下载
图书馆入口
外文数据库大全
疑难文献辅助工具