Content uploaded by Jing Qian
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jing Qian on Sep 19, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Bin Wang
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Bin Wang on Feb 18, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
How and when workplace ostracism influences
task performance: Through the lens of
conservation of resource theory
Aijing Xia
1
|Bin Wang
2
|Baihe Song
1
|Wei Zhang
1
|Jing Qian
1
1
Business School, Beijing Normal University,
Beijing, China
2
Future of Work Institute, Curtin University,
Perth, Western Australia, Australia
Correspondence
Jing Qian, Business School, Beijing Normal
University, No. 19, XinJieKouWai St., HaiDian
District, Beijing 100875, China.
Email: jingqian@bnu.edu.cn
Funding information
National Natural Science Foundation of China,
Grant/Award Number: 71662017
Abstract
Drawing upon the conservation of resource (COR) theory,
this study examines how workplace ostracism negatively
affects task performance by reducing workers' physical
strength and emotional energy; it also captures the moder-
ating role of spousal support in the relationship between
ostracism, physical strength, and emotional energy. Using
matched data from 117 supervisors and 523 of their imme-
diate employees, results indicated that workplace ostracism
negatively related to physical strength and emotional
energy, which, in turn, decreased task performance. Addi-
tionally, spousal support mitigated the harmful impact of
workplace ostracism on individual emotional energy,
whereas its buffering effect on physical strength was not
significant. Theoretical and practical implications are
discussed.
KEYWORDS
conservation of resource (COR), emotional energy, physical strength,
spousal support, task performance, workplace ostracism
1|INTRODUCTION
Workplace ostracism refers to the extent to which an employee feels ignored or excluded by other employees in
the workplace (Ferris, Brown, Berry, & Lian, 2008). As Robinson, O'Reilly, and Wang (2013) proposed, a highly
stressful environment is more likely to induce workplace ostracism. With the growth of external competition,
ostracism is becoming more frequent and common in modern‐day workplaces (Robinson et al., 2013). Moreover,
previous studies have demonstrated the detrimental effects of perceived workplace ostracism on employees' psy-
chological states (e.g., anxiety and depression; Ferris et al., 2008; Matthew, Buontempo, & Block, 2013), job atti-
tudes (e.g., intention to quit and job satisfaction; Ferris et al., 2008), and behavioural outcomes (e.g., a reduction in
Received: 18 May 2018 Revised: 23 November 2018 Accepted: 24 November 2018
DOI: 10.1111/1748-8583.12226
Hum Resour Manag J. 2019;29:353–370. © 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltdwileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hrmj 353
prosocial behaviour; Balliet & Ferris, 2013). With this understanding of the consequences of workplace ostracism,
scholars have shifted their attention to its underlying mechanism. According to a recent review (Ferris, Chen, &
Lim, 2017), the need to belong, spirals of emotion/justice/incivility, and the interdependence theory/framework
are the dominant theoretical perspectives in previous studies, although research focusing on resources as the
underlying mechanism is still inadequate (Quinn, Spreitzer, & Lam, 2012; Ryan & Deci, 2008).
Thus, the current study employs the conservation of resource (COR) theory to explore the consequences of
workplace ostracism (Hobfoll, Freedy, Lane, & Geller, 1990; Hobfoll, Halbesleben, Neveu, & Westman, 2018).
One of the major advantages of applying COR theory is the ability to observe multiple potential factors affecting
the relationship between perceived workplace ostracism and subsequent outcomes. COR theory focuses on
both psychological and physical resources (e.g., Allen, Peltokorpi, & Rubenstein, 2016; Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon,
2002). For instance, in the process of investigating the COR theory, Vander Elst, Näswall, Bernhard‐Oettel, De
Witte, and Sverke (2016) discovered that job insecurity affects both mental and physical health. In fact, the lit-
erature on social exclusion has found solid evidence that social exclusion can lead to both “social pain”(emo-
tional reaction) and “physical pain”(physical reaction;e.g., Eisenberger,Lieberman,&Williams,2003).
However, as Heaphy and Dutton (2008) noted, a limited number of scholars have addressed the physical
aspects of social interactions at work. Thus, in contrast to the traditional theoretical approach emphasising psy-
chological factors, we are able to capture both emotional and physical aspects (especially emotional energy and
physical strength; Quinn et al., 2012).
Moreover, COR theory further enriches the literature's understanding of the mechanism behind work‐related
outcomes of workplace ostracism; these two types of resources play different roles in predicting an individual's
work‐related outcomes: emotional energy determines the level and duration of effort that one invests in his/her
work, whereas physical strength determines one's total capacity to do one's job (Quinn et al., 2012). In other words,
the resource perspective provides distinct, unique theoretical explanations that do not overlap with previous theories
such as social identity theory. Accordingly, the primary aim of the current study is to bridge the relationship between
workplace ostracism and subsequent work‐related outcomes (i.e., task performance) via the mechanism of emotional
energy and physical strength. Previous studies have examined the relationship between workplace ostracism and task
performance. As an example, Ferris, Lian, Brown, and Morrison (2015) found that workplace ostracism hurts
employees' global level of self‐esteem, thereby reducing job performance; however, scholars have neglected to
explain the phenomenon using the resource perspective. Our study will thus contribute to the literature on work-
place ostracism through the novel lens of individual resources.
The resource perspective could potentially also help to capture positive social interactions (e.g., social support)
that generate resources to buffer the detrimental impacts of perceived workplace ostracism (Hobfoll et al., 1990).
In the work domain, positive interpersonal interactions give employees resources (e.g., relational energy; Owens,
Baker, Sumpter, & Cameron, 2016). Scholars focusing on social exclusion in social psychology have also revealed
the buffering role of social support for ostracised people in a laboratory setting (Zhou & Gao, 2008). Nevertheless,
ostracised employees usually suffer from negative interactions in the workplace and thus have limited opportuni-
ties to obtain social support from their co‐workers or supervisors; subsequently, research into workplace ostracism
remains silent on the moderating role of social support. We contend that support from other domains therefore
merits more attention. Previous studies have shown that family life exerts a huge influence on employees; for
example, spousal resentment towards their partner's employer reduces the partner's organisational commitment
(Ferguson, Carlson, Boswell et al., 2016). On the other hand, spouses can provide emotional and instrumental sup-
port for employees (King, Mattimore, King, & Adams, 1995), and this can mitigate the negative relationship
between work overload and inter‐role conflict (Aryee, Luk, Leung, & Lo, 1999). Given the vital role a spouse plays,
we argue that spousal support could be regarded as an external resource that buffers the negative effects of
workplace ostracism.
Building on the COR theory, we aim to examine the relationship between perceived workplace ostracism and
task performance through the mechanism of resources (i.e., emotional energy and physical strength) by providing
354 XIA ET AL.
several theoretical and practical contributions. First, we propose a novel angle to dissect the consequences of
workplace ostracism. Scholars have predominantly studied the relationship between ostracism and work‐related
outcomes through the prism of employees' need to belong, spirals of emotion/justice/incivility, and the interde-
pendence theory (Ferris et al., 2017). Drawing upon COR theory, we argue that experiencing workplace ostracism
reduces employees' resources (including both physical and emotional aspects), which, in turn, will further influence
work‐related outcomes such as performance. Although some researchers have made an effort to explain work-
place consequences through the resources perspective, they failed to capture the fluctuation of resources in this
process (e.g., Leung, Wu, Chen, & Young, 2011). By identifying the decline of physical strength and emotional
energy after ostracism, we reveal that workplace ostracism not only influences employees' cognition and mood,
as mentioned in previous studies, but will also deeply hurt fundamental resources. Besides, extensively examining
both physical and emotional resources in the theoretical model will also make scholars and managers more aware
of the dangers of workplace ostracism because it can endanger employees physically.
Furthermore, beyond focusing on the resource depletion caused by ostracism, we suggest that external
resource (i.e., spousal support) may buffer the negative impacts of workplace ostracism on human energy. The
buffer role of social support for ostracised individuals was proposed by social psychologists Zhou and Gao
(2008); however, this assumption has still not been examined in the workplace. The current study will elucidate
the mobility of resources between the family domain and the work domain under conditions of workplace ostra-
cism, whilst providing instructions for managers to mitigate the detrimental impacts of ostracism on employees.
Our theoretical model is illustrated in Figure 1.
2|THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES
2.1 |Mediating roles of physical strength and emotional energy
According to COR theory, resources play a crucial role in predicting work‐related outcomes, and negative work
events (e.g., workplace ostracism) will hurt individuals' resources (Hobfoll et al., 2018). Applying this theory in the
context of workplace ostracism, we suggest that perceived ostracism exerts a negative influence on employees' task
performance by depleting their resources, which is regarded as a cardinal resource for employees (Halbesleben,
Neveu, Paustian‐Underdahl, & Westman, 2014; Quinn et al., 2012). Following Quinn et al.' (2012) work, we focus
on two fundamental resources: physical strength (which refers to the capacity to do work) and emotional energy
(which refers to the degree to which individuals feel energised).
From the resource perspective, workplace ostracism is something that depletes resources (Halbesleben et al.,
2014; Robinson et al., 2013). When workplace ostracism occurs, ostracised employees may perceive it as a signal that
they have lost the trust of their co‐workers or supervisors (Robinson et al., 2013). Ostracised employees are likely to
worry that they will experience the loss of other job resources such as work‐related information and career advance-
ment opportunities (Robinson et al., 2013), which leads to stress for employees at work (Qian, Yang, Wang, Huang, &
Song, 2017; Williams, 2007). Ostracised employees under stress are more likely to be in a worse physical state
(Melamed, Shirom, Toker, Berliner, & Shapira, 2006). For example, previous studies have suggested that workplace
FIGURE 1 Theoretical model
XIA ET AL.355
ostracism can have physical effects, such as interference with sleep (e.g., Robinson et al., 2013). Moreover, the
negative emotional experience that ostracism entails leads to physiological arousal. For instance, Duffy, Ganster,
and Pagon (2002) found that employees who suffer from negative interpersonal experiences at work (which, in their
study, was social undermining) report more somatic complaints. Because of this, ostracised employees cannot obtain
enough physical strength from their daily recovery (e.g., sleep). This accumulated effect may further contribute to
health problems in the long term; thus, they have lower levels of physical strength.
In addition, workplace ostracism has been found to generate a series of negative emotional outcomes
(Robinson et al., 2013), including anger (Chow, Tiedens, & Govan, 2008), emotional distress (Ferris et al., 2008),
depression (Ferris et al., 2008), and emotional exhaustion (Wu, Yim, Kwan, & Zhang 2012). COR theory argues
that individuals must invest more resources to both recover from a previous loss of resources and to protect
themselves from a future loss (Halbesleben et al., 2014). Ostracised employees will likely have to invest more
of their own emotional energy to recover from the negative emotions generated by workplace ostracism
(Mahfooz, Arshad, Nisar, Ikram, & Azeem, 2017). To avoid continued ostracism and the consequent future loss
of resources, ostracised employees may take strategic measures to be socially acceptable, such as regulating their
emotions or moderating their attitudes (Zhou & Gao, 2008); this will exacerbate their consumption of emotional
energy over time. In addition to the unique argument generated from COR theory, the self‐determination theory
literature draws similar conclusions (Deci, Olafsen, & Ryan, 2017; Ryan & Deci, 2008). Because ostracised
employees have limited social connections, not only is their relatedness impaired, and but they are thus also
unable to obtain useful information or help from colleagues, which further harms their competence needs
(Robinson et al., 2013). An individual feels less energised once his or her basic psychological needs are impaired
(Ryan & Deci, 2008). Accordingly, we propose the following:
Hypothesis 1. Workplace ostracism is negatively related to employees' (a) physical strength and (b) emo-
tional energy.
Employees' resources (i.e., physical strength and emotional energy in the current study) are an essential compo-
nent needed for an individual to perform tasks, and this ability has a key role in influencing employees' activity and
decision‐making in organisations (Quinn et al., 2012); namely, both physical strength and emotional energy are
required for employees to accomplish tasks. On the one hand, to complete tasks, employees must exert physical
strength to be able to engage in intentional activities, such as conscious thinking, mindful conversation, and active
listening (Quinn et al., 2012); for example, participants with lower levels of physical strength (e.g., lower glucose in
Quinn et al.'s study) performed worse in a self‐control task than participants with higher levels of physical strength
(Gailliot et al., 2007). In other words, employees with low physical strength cannot behave appropriately, which
may negatively affect their performance. Moreover, physical strength is positively related to cognitive functions; spe-
cifically, the activation of the human brain decreases when a person lacks physical strength (e.g., when he or she suf-
fers from sleep deprivation; Mullins, Cortina, Drake, & Dalal, 2014), which in turn reduces the efficiency of
information processing and related task performance.
On the other hand, emotional energy reflects a person's energetic activation, such as feelings of vitality, vigour,
and enthusiasm (Quinn et al., 2012). Specifically, scholars argue that the level and duration of effort that individuals
invest in work depends on their emotional energy (Quinn et al., 2012). Employees who have more emotional energy
may show excitement and interest in their work and devote much more effort to it. Furthermore, employees who feel
energised behave in such a way that helps them achieve their desired performance (Parker, Bindl, & Strauss, 2010);
for example, employees with a highly activated positive mood (i.e., emotional energy) are more likely to engage in
proactive behaviour when experiencing a complex and undesirable environment (Bindl, Parker, Totterdell, &
Hagger‐Johnson, 2012). On the other hand, individuals with a low level of emotional energy tend to withdraw and
harbour negative attitudes towards work, which is detrimental to task performance. Employees who possess high
levels of both physical strength and emotional energy are more likely to have better task performance. Accordingly,
we propose the following:
356 XIA ET AL.
Hypothesis 2. Employees' (a) physical strength and (b) emotional energy are positively related to task
performance.
In summary, the present literature suggests that the depletion of personal resources generated by workplace
ostracism may result in decreased task performance. COR theory notes that individuals adopt defensive measures
to conserve their remaining resources when they lack the full level of resources required (Halbesleben et al.,
2014). Physical strength and emotional energy are seen as valuable but limited resources that have the ability to help
individuals achieve their desired goals (Halbesleben et al., 2014). If they are ostracised, employees are unable to gain
sufficient physical strength and emotional energy; they may become more defensive in investing these resources in
tasks. Therefore, employees suffering from ostracism, whose resources (i.e., physical strength and emotional energy)
are therefore depleted, may have reduced task performance. Accordingly, we propose the following:
Hypothesis 3. Employees' physical strength mediates the negative effect of workplace ostracism on task
performance.
Hypothesis 4. Employees' emotional energy mediates the negative effect of workplace ostracism on task
performance.
2.2 |Moderating role of spousal support
According to COR theory, employees who experience a loss of resources can rely on extra resources to recharge
themselves, thus mitigating the devastating effects of the loss of resources (Hobfoll et al., 2018). Given that
ostracised employees who are often excluded by others in the workplace are less likely to receive social support from
their co‐workers or supervisors, we turn our attention to the family domain and focus on spousal support. Previous
scholars have identified that spousal support primarily manifests itself in two ways: instrumental support, such as
practical help, and emotional support, such as sympathy and concern (King et al., 1995). We suggest that spousal sup-
port can mitigate the depleting impacts of workplace ostracism on employees' physical strength and emotional
energy.
Spousal support can largely buffer negative impacts on physical strength through practical assistance
(Halbesleben, Wheeler, & Rossi, 2012). Specifically, a spouse possessing a deeper understanding of an ostracised
employee's job demands and organisational culture may make positive adjustments to family life to meet the
demands of their partner's work schedule or job requirements (King et al., 1995); such a spouse is motivated to offer
more help with regard to family duties. He or she may, actively and on his or her own initiative, assume more family
responsibility and spend more hours devoted to family roles, such as household tasks (King et al., 1995; Lapierre
et al., 2018). By taking on family obligations belonging to the ostracised employee, a spouse who provides more
instrumental support gives the ostracised employee more leisure time in which to replenish his or her physical
strength. This can relieve the stress of the ostracised employee and bring him or her more comfort, thus reducing
the physical effects (e.g., sleep interference) of ostracism. Therefore, employees who receive higher levels of spousal
support may experience reduced stress levels and fewer physical effects from workplace ostracism, which buffers the
depleting influence of workplace ostracism on their physical strength. By contrast, ostracised employees who receive
lower levels of spousal support may spend more time on family tasks and receive no help from their spouse. After
losing resources in the work domain because of ostracism, the ostracised employees will also suffer resource deple-
tion in the family domain. Stress and the increasingly poor physical states generated by workplace ostracism may be
more serious for employees receiving less instrumental spousal support; thus, the negative influence of workplace
ostracism on employees' physical strength will be aggravated.
Additionally, spousal support can provide external resources if the spouse shows more interest in and concern
about the employee's work (King et al., 1995); such a spouse is more willing to listen to the employee talk about
work‐related issues (King et al., 1995). When employees complain to their spouses about their experience of being
XIA ET AL.357
excluded in the workplace, spouses who provide higher levels of emotional spousal support may lend a sympathetic
ear to listen to the employee's complaints and show empathy towards his/her negative emotions (Ferguson, Carlson,
Kacmar, & Halbesleben, 2016). This can reduce employees' negative emotions and the emotional exhaustion caused
by ostracism (Halbesleben et al., 2012). Employees with more emotional spousal support may consume less emo-
tional energy in recovering from the negative emotional outcomes generated by ostracism. Furthermore, after learn-
ing about the ostracised employee's circumstances, a spouse who provides more emotional spousal support can give
the employee more advice, alternative perspectives, or new skills to address workplace ostracism, as well as encour-
agement to motivate him/her to cope with the difficulties they are experiencing (King et al., 1995; Lapierre et al.,
2018). The damage to the competence needs caused by ostracism is less serious for employees who receive more
emotional spousal support. Therefore, higher levels of spousal support can alleviate the depleting effect of workplace
ostracism on employees' emotional energy. In contrast, a spouse providing less spousal support is indifferent to the
ostracised employee's experience in the workplace and shows less sympathy and empathy with regard to the
employee's negative emotions. Employees' negative emotional outcomes caused by ostracism cannot be relieved
in the family domain. In addition, employees receiving reduced spousal support are less likely to be given suggestions
or encouragement from their spouses; as such, negative emotional outcomes and the damage to competence needs
generated by ostracism may be more serious, which in turn aggravates the negative influence of workplace ostracism
on employees' emotional energy. Accordingly, we propose the following:
Hypothesis 5. Spousal support moderates the negative effects of workplace ostracism on employees'
physical strength such that the relationship is weaker when spousal support is high.
Hypothesis 6. Spousal support moderates the negative effects of workplace ostracism on employees' emo-
tional energy such that the relationship is weaker when spousal support is high.
3|MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1 |Participants and procedure
Data were collected from 121 teams from a technology company and a clothing company, each located in China. The
participants were consisted of 671 subordinates and each team's immediate supervisor (i.e., 121 team leaders). We
designed different questionnaires for the supervisors and subordinates to mitigate potential common method bias.
During a team leader meeting, we introduced the aims and requirements of our research program and distributed
the questionnaires to the leader of each team. The participants were asked to complete the survey questionnaire
independently, and the human resources department assisted us with collecting the questionnaires after 2 weeks.
Ultimately, 523 matched questionnaires were completed and returned.
The demographic data for the final sample were as follows. Among the subordinates, 47.7% were men; 40.7%
held a bachelor's degree, and 37.7% held a college degree. The average age was 30.53 (SD = 5.17). The average
organisational tenure was 7.35 years (SD = 4.79), and the average team tenure was 3.57 years (SD = 2.80).
3.2 |Measures
The measures we used were originally constructed in English (see Appendix). We performed standard translation and
back‐translation procedures (Brislin, 1980) to ensure the equivalence of the survey instruments and to mitigate the
effect of cultural differences.
358 XIA ET AL.
3.2.1 |Workplace ostracism
We used the 10‐item scale developed by Ferris, Brown, Berry, and Lian (2008) to measure workplace ostracism.
Employees were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with the description of their experience
(1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). One sample item is “Others left the area when you entered”(α= 0.96).
3.2.2 |Physical strength
Physical strength in the current study indicates the strength that is available but unused (Quinn et al., 2012). As phys-
ical strength is stored as glucose or adenosine triphosphate (ATP), directly measuring this variable is difficult (although
it can be obtained using a blood test; Quinn et al., 2012). Thus, scholars commonly use a self‐reporting approach to
measure physical strength; for example, Hobfoll and Shirom (2001) used the item “I feel I have physical strength,”
whereas other scholars used perceived fatigue to measure physical strength. However, as Quinn et al. (2012, p. 6)
pointed out, “even tired people can push themselves to exert more physical energy (strength) …this suggests that
a separate construct is needed to account for the degree to which people feel energized.”Therefore, the approach
of asking an employee to directly report the extent to which he or she feels physically energised contributes to bias;
in other words, items that are associated with potential strength (stored energy) are more appropriate. Following
Ryan and Frederick (1997), who used a physical symptom checklist to measure the physical aspects of human energy,
we used the 18‐item physical symptoms inventory developed by Spector and Jex (1998) to measure the participants'
physical strength. Employees were asked to indicate the frequency with which they suffered the physical symptoms
on the list (1 = [This has] never happened to 5 = [I have] been in this state for a long time). Two sample items are “[I
have] trouble sleeping”and “[I] have a headache”. To maintain a consistent scoring pattern with emotional energy
(e.g., the higher the score, the greater the energy), all the items were reverse scored (α= 0.94).
3.2.3 |Emotional energy
We used the 6‐item scale developed by Bostic, McGartland Rubio, and Hood (2000) to measure employees' emo-
tional energy. Employees were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with each description of their
energy state (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). A sample item is “I always feel energetic”(α= 0.97).
3.2.4 |Spousal support
We used the 25‐item scale adapted from the family support scale constructed by King et al. (1995) to measure
employees' spousal support. Employees were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with the description
of their spouse's actions (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). A sample item is “My spouse does not seem very
interested in hearing about my work day”(α= 0.90).
3.2.5 |Task performance
We used the 5‐item scale developed by Tarakci, Greer, and Groenen (2016) to measure employees' task perfor-
mance. Supervisors were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with the description of their immediate
subordinates' performance (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). A sample item is “Subordinate's name fulfills the
responsibilities specified in his/her job description”(α= 0.97).
XIA ET AL.359
3.2.6 |Control variables
As some potential variables may influence employees' physical strength and task performance (Bernerth & Aguinis,
2016), we controlled for employees' gender (coded 0 for “male,”1 for “female”), age (number of years), education
(D1 was coded as 1 = “high school degree,”0 = other; D2 was coded as 1 = “college degree,”0 = other; D3 was coded
as 1 = “bachelor's degree,”0 = other) and team tenure (number of years).
3.2.7 |Analytic strategy
First, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using AMOS 23 to confirm whether the variables in our
study were distinctive. Second, because we collected the data from different teams, the nested data were
nonindependent such that the outcome variable (i.e., task performance, as rated by the supervisor) tended to be sim-
ilar in the same group (Bliese, Maltarich, & Hendricks, 2018). For this reason, we used HLM 6.0 to test our hypoth-
eses for data with a nested structure. The variables at level 1 were group mean centred to remove the variance
caused by different groups. In addition, by using the Remediation package, we applied the product coefficient (Tofighi
& MacKinnon, 2011) for further confirmation of the mediating effects of physical strength and emotional energy.
4|RESULTS
4.1 |Confirmatory factor analysis
We conducted a CFA for the variables in our study before testing the hypotheses. Given our study's small sample
size, we used the item parcelling method to estimate the CFA model (Landis, Beal, & Tesluk, 2000). Each construct
was reduced to three indicators. Table 1 presents the CFA results. As shown in the table, the 5‐factor model has a
better fit (
χ2
= 200.23, df = 80, TLI = 0.98, CFI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.053) than the other 5 alternative models, thus pro-
viding evidence for the distinctiveness of our measurements.
4.2 |Descriptive statistics
Table 2 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations for the variables in our study. As shown in Table 2,
workplace ostracism was negatively correlated with physical strength (r=−0.35, p< 0.001) and emotional energy
(r=−0.30, p< 0.001). In addition, both physical strength (r= 0.27, p< 0.001) and emotional energy (r= 0.30,
TABLE 1 Results of confirmatory factor analysis for the studied variables
Model Factors
χ2
df TCL CFI RMSEA
Null
model
6380.76 90 0.08 0.31 0.364
Baseline
model
Five factors 200.23 80 0.98 0.99 0.053
Model 1 Four factors: combine physical strength and emotional energy into one
factor
1,398.98 84 0.79 0.86 0.172
Model 2 Three factors: combine workplace ostracism, spousal support and
physical strength into one factor
2,686.42 87 0.61 0.71 0.238
Model 3 Three factors: combine workplace ostracism, spousal support, and
emotional energy into one factor
3,081.15 87 0.55 0.67 0.256
Model 4 Two factors: combine workplace ostracism, spousal support, physical
strength, and emotional energy into one factor
4,741.34 89 0.31 0.49 0.315
360 XIA ET AL.
p< 0.001) were positively correlated with task performance. The findings provided preliminary support for the medi-
ating effect of physical strength and emotional energy. Furthermore, we ran a null model for task performance; these
results indicated that the ICC (1) for task performance was 0.35. Therefore, the results were suitable for us to run
multilevel analysis.
4.3 |Mediating effect tests
As shown inTable 3, workplace ostracism was negatively related to both physical strength (b=−0.07, SE = 0.03, p< 0.05,
Model 1) and emotional energy (b=−0.27, SE = 0.08, p< 0.001, Model 3) after gender, age, education, team tenure, and
spousal support were controlled for; thus, Hypotheses 1a and 1b were fully supported. Physical strength (b= 0.26,
SE = 0.10, p< 0.01, Model 5) and emotional energy (b= 0.15, SE = 0.03, p< 0.001, Model 6) were significantly positively
related to task performance, providing full support for Hypotheses 2a and 2b. To confirm their mediating effect, we
applied the product coefficient method (Tofighi & MacKinnon, 2011), the results of which showed that the indirect
effect of workplace ostracism on task performance through physical strength was −0.018 (SE = 0.01, 95% CI [−0.038,
−0.003]), and the indirect effect from workplace ostracism to task performance through emotional energy was
−0.041 (SE = 0.01, 95% CI [−0.066, −0.018]); therefore, Hypotheses 3 and 4 were fully supported.
4.4 |Moderating effect tests
As shown in Table 3, when taking physical strength as the dependent variable, the coefficient of the interactive term
(i.e., workplace ostracism × spousal support) was not significant (b=−0.03, SE = 0.02, p> 0.05, Model 2); thus,
Hypothesis 5 was not supported. However, when taking emotional energy as the dependent variable, the coefficient
of the interactive term (i.e., workplace ostracism × spousal support) was significant (b= 0.12, SE = 0.06, p< 0.05,
Model 4); therefore, Hypothesis 6 was fully supported.
To expand Hypothesis 6, we further examined whether spousal support could moderate the indirect relationship
between workplace ostracism and task performance. To test the moderated mediation effect, following the method
of Edwards and Lambert (2007), we estimated the indirect effect of workplace ostracism on task performance via
emotional energy at higher (+1 SD) and lower (−1SD) levels of spousal support. Our results showed that the indirect
effect (i.e., workplace ostracism reduces task performance via decreased emotional energy) was −0.028 with a 95%
CI of [−0.054, −0.003] when spousal support was higher, whereas the indirect effect was −0.037 with a 95% CI of
TABLE 2 Means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and correlations among study variables
Variables Mean SD 123456789
1 Gender 0.51 0.50 —————————
2 Age 30.53 5.17 −0.05 ————————
3 Education 2.71 0.73 0.00 0.21*** — ——————
4 Team tenure 3.57 2.80 0.12** 0.64*** 0.19*** ——————
5 Workplace
ostracism
2.35 0.89 −0.06 −0.03 0.01 −0.07 (0.96) ————
6 Physical strength 4.02 0.45 −0.10* −0.07 0.08 −0.01 −0.35*** (0.94) ———
7 Emotional energy 4.97 1.17 −0.00 −0.11* 0.21*** 0.00 −0.30*** 0.43*** (0.97) ——
8 Spousal support 4.23 0.74 −0.07 −0.02 −0.19*** −0.03 −0.24*** 0.24*** 0.17*** (0.90) —
9 Task
performance
5.37 0.77 0.04 0.04 0.13** 0.12** −0.23*** 0.27*** 0.30*** 0.14** (0.97)
Note.N= 523, Cronbach's alpha reliabilities are in parentheses on the diagonal.
*p< 0.05. **p< 0.01. ***p< 0.001.
XIA ET AL.361
TABLE 3 Results of regression analysis for mediation and moderation
Predictor Physical strength Emotional energy Task performance
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6
b SE b SE b SE b SE b SE b SE
Intercept 4.18*** 0.22 4.21*** 0.21 5.70*** 0.65 5.52*** 0.59 5.28*** 0.18 5.26*** 0.19
Gender −0.14*** 0.04 −0.14*** 0.04 −0.01 0.10 0.01 0.09 0.11 0.06 0.06 0.06
Age −0.02*** 0.01 −0.02*** 0.01 −0.05 0.02 −0.05*** 0.01 −0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01
D1 0.20 0.17 0.19 0.17 −1.33 0.70 −1.61* 0.66 0.42* 0.18 0.43** 0.16
D2 −0.13 0.07 −0.13 0.01 −0.79*** 0.16 −0.81*** 0.16 −0.32** 0.11 −0.30** 0.10
D3 −0.05 0.06 −0.05 0.06 −0.37** 0.13 −0.40** 0.13 0.08 0.11 0.12 0.11
Team tenure 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03* 0.01 0.03* 0.01
Workplace ostracism −0.07* 0.03 −0.08** 0.03 −0.27*** 0.08 −0.23** 0.08 −0.12* 0.05 −0.09* 0.04
Spousal support 0.11** 0.04 0.11** 0.04 0.30** 0.09 0.34*** 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.01 0.05
Workplace ostracism × spousal support −0.03 0.02 0.12* 0.06 −0.02 0.03 −0.04 0.03
Physical strength 0.26** 0.10
Emotional energy 0.15*** 0.03
σ
2
0.10 0.10 1.00 0.98 0.29 0.30
τ
00
0.07*** 0.07*** 0.14*** 0.14*** 0.21*** 0.20***
R
2
0.23 0.23 0.20 0.22 0.24 0.21
Note. N = 523 in 117 groups; D1 was coded as 1 = “high school degree,”0 = others; D2 was coded as 1 = “college school degree,”0 = others; D3 was coded as 1 = “bachelor degree,”
0 = others; R2
at level 1¼σ2
null model
−σ2
current model
=σ2
null model
*p< 0.05. **p< 0.01. ***p< 0.001.
362 XIA ET AL.
[−0.064, −0.010] when spousal support was lower. The estimate of the difference between the two indirect effects
was 0.009 with a 95% CI of [0.005, 0.013], indicating that moderated mediation was supported.
To better interpret the moderating effect, following Cohen and Cohen (1983), we defined high and low spousal
support as plus and minus one standard deviation from the mean. As demonstrated in Figure 2, the relationship
between workplace ostracism and emotional energy was increasingly negative when the level of spousal support
was lower (b=−0.32, p< 0.001), and this relationship was not significant when the level of spousal support was
higher (b=−0.08, ns).
5|DISCUSSION
Drawing on COR theory, we developed a theoretical model to determine how workplace ostracism impairs
employees' task performance through the mechanism of resources. Using matched reports from 117 supervisors
and 523 of their immediate employees, our multilevel and multisource examination showed that (1) workplace
ostracism is negatively associated with task performance through a reduction in employees' physical strength
and emotional energy, (2) spousal support mitigates the negative impact of workplace ostracism on emotional
energy but not on physical strength, and (3) spousal support moderates the indirect effect of workplace ostracism
on task performance via emotional energy such that the indirect effect is weaker when the level of spousal sup-
port is higher, whereas the indirect effect is stronger when the level of spousal support is lower.
5.1 |Theoretical implications
The current study provides several theoretical contributions. First, based on COR theory, we proposed a novel perspec-
tive for understanding the negative relationship between perceived workplace ostracism and task performance through
decreased resources. Leung et al. (2011) employed COR theory to explain how workplace ostracism negatively impacts
service performance by reducing work engagement. However, as Halbesleben, Neveu, Paustian‐Underdahl, and
Westman (2014, p. 1353) noted, this approach measures the outcome of a loss or gain of resources (i.e., work engage-
ment) and thus builds on the premise that resources are changed, but “it is not clear which resources are responsible for
the change.”In other words, previous research into the relationship between workplace ostracism and task performance
has captured the consequences of the loss of resources, such as reduced self‐esteem (Ferris, Lian, Brown, & Morrison,
FIGURE 2 The moderating role of spousal support
XIA ET AL.363
2015) and impaired work engagement (Leung et al., 2011), but not the resources themselves. In addition, Halbesleben
and colleagues recommended that the type of resources should be identified because their functions vary depending
on their type (Halbesleben et al., 2014). Following their comments, we proposed two key resources for humans
(i.e., emotional energy and physical strength) rather than indirectly using outcomes (e.g., emotional exhaustion or
engagement) to indicate changes in resources. For task performance, emotional energy influences employees' motiva-
tion and desire to work, whereas physical strength has a basic role that determines the potential resources they have
available to use (Quinn et al., 2012). Accordingly, our theoretical model probes more deeply than previous work into
the role of resources in the context of workplace ostracism. Specifically, compared with the mainstream literature on
workplace ostracism—which focuses on the psychological mechanisms—our findings revealed that perceived work-
place ostracism harms both the emotional energy and the physical strength of employees, bringing a previously
overlooked physical aspect to the fore. In other words, although workplace ostracism does not lead to physical
attacks, employees will be physically hurt in a way that manifests itself in a worse physical state, and this will have
a further negative influence on their task performance.
Moreover, our findings cast light on the moderating role of spousal support in the relationship between workplace
ostracism and personal resources. Previous studies have posited the role of social support in mitigating the social and
physical pain induced by ostracism (Zhou & Gao, 2008); however, to the best of our knowledge, as workplace ostracism
manifests itself through poor interpersonal relationships and fewer opportunities for support in the work domain (Rob-
inson et al., 2013), organisational scholars remain remarkably silent about the role of social support. Gleaning insights
from recent studies, which have demonstrated that resources can influence an individual across domains (e.g., Bhave
& Lefter, 2018), the current study specifically pays attention to the social support the employee receives from their fam-
ily. Consistent with previous assumptions of the buffering role of social support (Zhou & Gao, 2008), our results showed
that spousal support from the family domain could mitigate the negative impact of workplace ostracism on emotional
energy, and could even moderate the indirect relationship between workplace ostracism and task performance. Inter-
estingly, we also found that spousal support cannot act as a buffer against the detrimental effects of workplace ostra-
cism on physical strength. We contend that this result is caused by the differences between emotional energy and
physical strength; given that emotional energy is closely associated with emotional and cognitive components, spousal
support can help replenish its loss. On the other hand, physical strength is related to physical states such as sleep; it is
therefore difficult for this to be recharged purely through social support. Thus, our findings revealed that individual
types of resources may need to be recharged using different means, providing a direction for future studies.
5.2 |Practical implications
The current study also has several practical implications. Our study suggests that managers and organisations should be
concernedabout their employees' psychological statesas well as their physicalhealth. Physical strength is strongly respon-
sible for positive social interactions, which significantly affect human capacity (Heaphy & Dutton, 2008), whereas a lack of
emotional energy can lead to negative outcomes, such as emotional exhaustion, burnout, and high employee turnover.
Even worse, energisers and de‐energisers can have a powerful influence on the performance of the people around them
(Cross, Baker, & Parker, 2003); for example, people experiencing burnout can also negatively influence the energy of
others in the workplace bymeans of contagion (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001). Thus, managers must supervise work-
place ostracism behaviours and stage timely interventions to stop or reduce further deterioration of employees' physical
strengthand emotional energy; for instance,building the organisational culture and sharing the organisationalvalues could
be the optimalway to enhance employees' emotional energy (Schippers & Hogenes, 2011), and encouraging ororganising
physical activities could also be a practical method to help employees recover from the stress caused by workplace
ostracism and to promote their health (Barber, Taylor, Burton, & Bailey, 2017; Macauley, 1993; Sonnentag, 2003).
Additionally, our findings revealed the significant role of spousal support for ostracised employees; thus,
employees who experience negative work events (e.g., workplace ostracism) should communicate with their spouses,
364 XIA ET AL.
seeking support from the family domain. On the other hand, managers could invite family members to take part in
team‐building activities; such activities may give employees' spouses a chance to understand the culture of the orga-
nisation and increase their willingness to support employees' work.
5.3 |Study limitations and future directions
The current study has some limitations. First, the cross‐sectional research design makes it difficult to determine the
causal relationships. Additional experimental or longitudinal designs would help test the underlying causality of the
relationships examined. A second limitation lies in the use of employees from two companies in China as the sample
population, as this limits the generalisability of our findings. The unique context of China may lead to specific out-
comes that would be different in other areas. People in a strongly collective culture (e.g., China) are more sensitive
to negative relationships (Cross, Bacon, & Morris, 2000; Powell, Francesco, & Ling, 2009), which may exacerbate
the detrimental impacts of workplace ostracism. In addition, differences in attitudes towards work‐family relation-
ships in Eastern and Western cultures may also influence the moderating effect of spousal support; for example,
as employees in Eastern cultures often ignore the role of family in their daily life (Chandra, 2012), the effects of spou-
sal support may be weakened.
In addition, we used the self‐reporting method to measure physical strength, which cannot precisely capture the
construct. Although we used physical symptoms to overcome the self‐reporting bias (to address the fact that there
are differences between feeling energised and having potential energy; Quinn et al., 2012), individuals' emotional
and cognitive factors may reduce the validity of the measurement. Accordingly, physiological methods, such as mea-
suring participants' glucose levels, blood pressure and heart rates with wearable devices, are suggested for future
research (Heaphy & Dutton, 2008). Moreover, the measurement of emotional energy could be influenced by events
during the day in which the questionnaire was completed; thus, we recommend an experience sampling method for
future studies (Beal, 2015). Specifically, scholars could ask participants to report their daily emotional energy level for
10 consecutive days, which could mitigate the potential influence of specific emotional events.
6|CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, drawing on COR theory, our findings revealed the mediating roles of physical strength and emotional
energy in the relationship between workplace ostracism and task performance. The current study, therefore, provides
a new perspective (i.e., via emotional energy and physical strength) to explain how workplace ostracism hurts
employees' task performance. We also discovered that spousal support from the family domain could help employees
cope with negative events in the work domain (i.e., mitigating the detrimental effects of workplace ostracism on emo-
tional energy).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Aijing Xia and Bin Wang contributed equally to the development of this research. This research was supported by the
National Natural Science Foundation of China (Project number 71662017) and Curtin International Postgraduate
Research Scholarship (CIPRS) and Research Stipend Scholarship.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
This manuscript has not been previously published and is not under consideration in the same or substantially similar
form in any other peer‐reviewed media. To the best of our knowledge, no conflict of interest, financial, or other,
exists. All authors listed have contributed sufficiently to the project to be included as authors.
XIA ET AL.365
ORCID
Aijing Xia https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1673-9446
Bin Wang https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9459-1328
REFERENCES
Allen, D. G., Peltokorpi, V., & Rubenstein, A. L. (2016). When “embedded”means “stuck”: Moderating effects of job
embeddedness in adverse work environments. Journal of Applied Psychology,101(12), 1670–1686. https://doi.org/
10.1037/apl0000134
Aryee, S., Luk, V., Leung, A., & Lo, S. (1999). Role stressors, interrole conflict, and well‐being: The moderating influence of
spousal support and coping behaviors among employed parents in Hong Kong. Journal of Vocational Behavior,54(2),
259–278. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1998.1667
Balliet, D., & Ferris, D. L. (2013). Ostracism and prosocial behavior: A social dilemma perspective. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes,120(2), 298–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.04.004
Barber, L. K., Taylor, S. G., Burton, J. P., & Bailey, S. F. (2017). A self‐regulatory perspective of work‐to‐home undermining
spillover/crossover: Examining the roles of sleep and exercise. Journal of Applied Psychology,102(5), 753–763. https://
doi.org/10.1037/apl0000196
Beal, D. J. (2015). ESM 2.0: State of the art and future potential of experience sampling methods in organizational research.
Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior,2(1), 383–407. https://doi.org/10.1146/
annurev‐orgpsych‐032414‐111335
Bernerth, J. B., & Aguinis, H. (2016). A critical review and best‐practice recommendations for control variable usage. Person-
nel Psychology,69(1), 229–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12103
Bhave, D. P., & Lefter, A. M. (2018). The other side: Occupational interactional requirements and work–home enrichment.
Academy of Management Journal,61(1), 139–164. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0369
Bindl, U. K., Parker, S. K., Totterdell, P., & Hagger‐Johnson, G. (2012). Fuel of the self‐starter: How mood relates to proactive
goal regulation. Journal of Applied Psychology,97(1), 134–150. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024368
Bliese, P. D., Maltarich, M. A., & Hendricks, J. L. (2018). Back to basics with mixed‐effects models: Nine take‐away points.
Journal of Business and Psychology,33(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869‐017‐9491‐z
Bostic, T. J., McGartland Rubio, D., & Hood, M. (2000). A validation of the subjective vitality scale using structural equation
modeling. Social Indicators Research,52(3), 313–324. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007136110218
Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In H. C. Triandis, & W. J. Berry (Eds.),
Handbook of cross‐cultural psychology (Vol. 2) (pp. 389–444). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Chandra, V. (2012). Work–life balance: Eastern and western perspectives. International Journal of Human Resource Manage-
ment,23(5), 1040–1056. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2012.651339
Chow, R. M., Tiedens, L. Z., & Govan, C. L. (2008). Excluded emotions: The role of anger in antisocial responses to ostracism.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,44(3), 896–903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2007.09.004
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analyses for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cross, R., Baker, W., & Parker, A. (2003). What creates energy in organizations? MIT Sloan Management Review,44(4), 51–56.
Cross, S. E., Bacon, P. L., & Morris, M. L. (2000). The relational‐interdependent self‐construal and relationships. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology,78(4), 791–808. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐3514.78.4.791
Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self‐determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science.
Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior,4(1), 19–43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev‐
orgpsych‐032516‐113108
Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal,45(2),
331–351.
Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework
using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods,12(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082‐989X.12.1.1
Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science,
302(5643), 290–292. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1089134
Ferguson, M., Carlson, D., Boswell, W., Whitten, D., Butts, M. M., & Kacmar, K. M. (2016). Tethered to work: A family sys-
tems approach linking mobile device use to turnover intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology,101(4), 520–534. https://
doi.org/10.1037/apl0000075
366 XIA ET AL.
Ferguson, M., Carlson, D., Kacmar, K. M., & Halbesleben, J. R. B. (2016). The supportive spouse at work: Does being work‐
linked help? Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,21(1), 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039538
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012743
Ferris, D. L., Chen, M., & Lim, S. (2017). Comparing and contrasting workplace ostracism and incivility. Annual Review of Orga-
nizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior,4(1), 315–338. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev‐orgpsych‐032516‐
113223
Ferris, D. L., Lian, H., Brown, D. J., & Morrison, R. (2015). Ostracism, self‐esteem, and job performance: When do we self‐
verify and when do we self‐enhance? Academy of Management Journal,58(1), 279–297. https://doi.org/10.5465/
amj.2011.0347
Gailliot, M. T., Baumeister, R. F., Dewall, C. N., Maner, J. K., Plant, E. A., Tice, D. M., …Schmeichel, B. J. (2007). Self‐control
relies on glucose as a limited energy source: Willpower is more than a metaphor. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy,92(2), 325–336. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐3514.92.2.325
Halbesleben, J. R. B., Neveu, J. P., Paustian‐Underdahl, S. C., & Westman, M. (2014). Getting to the “COR”.Journal of Man-
agement,40(5), 1334–1364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527130
Halbesleben, J. R. B., Wheeler, A. R., & Rossi, A. M. (2012). The costs and benefits of working with one's spouse: A two‐
sample examination of spousal support, work‐family conflict, and emotional exhaustion in work‐linked relationships.
Journal of Organizational Behavior,33(5), 597–615. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.771
Heaphy, E. D., & Dutton, J. E. (2008). Positive social interactions and the human body at work: Linking organizations and
physiology. Academy of Management Review,33(1), 137–162. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.27749365
Hobfoll, S. E., Freedy, J., Lane, C., & Geller, P. (1990). Conservation of social resources: Social support resource theory. Jour-
nal of Social and Personal Relationships,7(4), 465–478. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407590074004
Hobfoll, S. E., Halbesleben, J., Neveu, J.‐P., & Westman, M. (2018). Conservation of resources in the organizational context:
The reality of resources and their consequences. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior,
5(1), 103–128. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev‐orgpsych‐032117‐104640
Hobfoll, S. E., & Shirom, A. (2001). Conservation of resources theory: Applications to stress and management in the work-
place. In R. T. Golembiewski (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 57–80). New York: Marcel Dekker.
King, L. A., Mattimore, L. K., King, D. W., & Adams, G. A. (1995). Family Support Inventory for Workers: A new measure of
perceived social support from family members. Journal of Organizational Behavior,16(3), 235–258. https://doi.org/
10.1002/job.4030160306
Landis, R. S., Beal, D. J., & Tesluk, P. E. (2000). A comparison of approaches to forming composite measures in structural
equation models. Organizational Research Methods,3(2), 186–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810032003
Lapierre, L. M., Li, Y., Kwan, H. K., Greenhaus, J. H., DiRenzo, M. S., & Shao, P. (2018). A meta‐analysis of the antecedents of
work‐family enrichment. Journal of Organizational Behavior,39(4), 385–401. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2234
Leung, A. S. M., Wu, L. Z., Chen, Y. Y., & Young, M. N. (2011). The impact of workplace ostracism in service organizations.
International Journal of Hospitality Management,30(4), 836–844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.01.004
Macauley, D. (1993). Exercise and health promotion. British Journal of General Practice,43, 443–444.
Mahfooz, Z., Arshad, A., Nisar, Q. A., Ikram, M., & Azeem, M. (2017). Does workplace incivility & workplace ostracism influ-
ence the employees' turnover intentions? Mediating role of burnout and job stress & moderating role of psychological
capital. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences,7(8), 398–413.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology,52, 397–422. https://doi.org/
10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397
Matthew, C. T., Buontempo, G., & Block, C. J. (2013). Relational approach to work: Conceptual definition and scale develop-
ment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,43(3), 507–514. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559‐1816.2013.01031.x
Melamed, S., Shirom, A., Toker, S., Berliner, S., & Shapira, I. (2006). Burnout and risk of cardiovascular disease: Evidence, pos-
sible causal paths, and promising research directions. Psychological Bulletin,132(3), 327–353. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0033‐2909.132.3.327
Mullins, H. M., Cortina, J. M., Drake, C. L., & Dalal, R. S. (2014). Sleepiness at work: A review and framework of how the phys-
iology of sleepiness impacts the workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology,99(6), 1096–1112. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0037885
Owens, B. P., Baker, W. E., Sumpter, D. M., & Cameron, K. S. (2016). Relational energy at work: Implications for job engage-
ment and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,101(1), 35–49. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000032
Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive motivation. Journal of Manage-
ment,36(4), 827–856. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310363732
XIA ET AL.367
Powell, G. N., Francesco, A. M., & Ling, Y. (2009). Toward culture‐sensitive theories of the work‐family interface. Journal of
Organizational Behavior,30(5), 597–616. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.568
Qian, J., Yang, F., Wang, B., Huang, C., & Song, B. (2017). When workplace ostracism leads to burnout: The roles of job self‐
determination and future time orientation. International Journal of Human Resource Management,1–17. https://doi.org/
10.1080/09585192.2017.1326395
Quinn, R. W., Spreitzer, G. M., & Lam, C. F. (2012). Building a sustainable model of human energy in organizations: Exploring
the critical role of resources. The Academy of Management Annals,6(1), 337–396. https://doi.org/10.5465/
19416520.2012.676762
Robinson, S. L., O'Reilly, J., & Wang, W. (2013). Invisible at work. Journal of Management,39(1), 203–231. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0149206312466141
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2008). From ego depletion to vitality: Theory and findings concerning the facilitation of energy
available to the self. Social and Personality Psychology Compass,2(2), 702–717. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751‐
9004.2008.00098.x
Ryan, R. M., & Frederick, C. (1997). On energy, personality, and health: Subjective vitality as a dynamic reflection of well‐
being. Journal of Personality,65(3), 529–565. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐6494.1997.tb00326.x
Schippers, M. C., & Hogenes, R. (2011). Energy management of people in organizations: A review and research agenda. Jour-
nal of Business and Psychology,26(2), 193–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869‐011‐9217‐6
Sonnentag, S. (2003). Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: A new look at the interface between nonwork
and work. Journal of Applied Psychology,88(3), 518–528. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021‐9010.88.3.518
Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1998). Development of four self‐report measures of job stressors and strain: Interpersonal con-
flict at work scale, organizational constraints scale, quantitative workload inventory, and physical symptoms inventory.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,3(4), 356–367. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076‐8998.3.4.356
Tarakci, M., Greer, L. L., & Groenen, P. J. F. (2016). When does power disparity help or hurt group performance? Journal of
Applied Psychology,101(3), 415–429. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000056
Tofighi, D., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2011). RMediation: An R package for mediation analysis confidence intervals. Behavior
Research Methods,43(3), 692–700. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428‐011‐0076‐x
Vander Elst, T., Näswall, K., Bernhard‐Oettel, C., De Witte, H., & Sverke, M. (2016). The effect of job insecurity on employee
health complaints: A within‐person analysis of the explanatory role of threats to the manifest and latent benefits of work.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,21(1), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039140
Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology,58(1), 425–452. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.
psych.58.110405.085641
Wu, L. Z., Yim, F. H.‐k., Kwan, H. K., & Zhang, X. (2012). Coping with workplace ostracism: The roles of ingratiation and polit-
ical skill in employee psychological distress. Journal of Management Studies,49(1), 178–199. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1467‐6486.2011.01017.x
Zhou, X., & Gao, D.‐G. (2008). Social support and money as pain management mechanisms. Psychological Inquiry,19(3–4),
127–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/10478400802587679
How to cite this article: Xia A, Wang B, Song B, Zhang W, Qian J. How and when workplace ostracism influ-
ences task performance: Through the lens of conservation of resource theory. Hum Resour Manag J.
2019;29:353–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748‐8583.12226
APPENDIX
Workplace ostracism (Ferris et al., 2008)
1. Others ignored you at work.
2. Others left the area when you entered.
3. Your greetings have gone unanswered at work.
4. You involuntarily sat alone in a crowded lunchroom at work.
5. Others avoided you at work.
368 XIA ET AL.
6. You noticed others would not look at you at work.
7. Others at work shut you out of the conversation.
8. Others refused to talk to you at work.
9. Others at work treated you as if you were not there.
10. Others at work did not invite you or ask you if you wanted anything when they went out for a coffee break.
Emotional energy (Bostic, McGartland Rubio, & Hood, 2000)
1. I feel alive and vital.
2. Sometimes, I feel so alive; I just want to burst.
3. I have energy and spirit.
4. I look forward to each new day.
5. I nearly always feel alert and awake.
6. I feel energised.
Physical strength (Spector & Jex, 1998)
1. An upset stomach or nausea
2. A backache
3. Trouble sleeping
4. A skin rash
5. Shortness of breath
6. Chest pain
7. Headache
8. Fever
9. Acid indigestion or heartburn
10. Eye strain
11. Diarrhea
12. Stomach cramps (Not menstrual)
13. Constipation
14. Heart pounding when not exercising
15. An infection
16. Loss of appetite
17. Dizziness
18. Tiredness or fatigue
Spousal support (King et al., 1995)
1. My spouse does not seem very interested in hearing about my work day (R).
2. When I talk with my spouse about my work, he/she does not really listen (R).
3. My spouse does his/her fair share of household chores.
4. When I have a tough day at work, my spouse tries to cheer me up.
5. My spouse is interested in my job.
XIA ET AL.369
6. I have difficulty discussing work‐related activities with my spouse (R).
7. When I'm frustrated by my work, my spouse tries to understand.
8. My spouse is willing to straighten up the house when it needs it.
9. My spouse always seems to make time for me if I need to discuss my work.
10. My spouse leaves too much of the daily details of running the house to me (R).
11. My spouse does not want to listen to my work‐related problems (R).
12. My spouse seems bored when I talk about my job (R).
13. My spouse has little respect for my job (R).
14. My spouse helps me feel better when I'm upset about my job.
15. If my job gets very demanding, my spouse will take on extra household responsibilities.
16. I usually find it useful to discuss my work problems with my spouse.
17. My spouse enjoys hearing about my achievements at work.
18. My spouse has a positive attitude towards my work.
19. My spouse helps me with routine household tasks.
20. When I have a problem at work, my spouse expresses concern.
21. I look to my spouse for reassurance about my job when I need it.
22. If I have to work late, I can count on my spouse to take care of everything at home.
23. My spouse is sympathetic when I'm upset about my work.
24. Too much of my time at home is spent picking up after my spouse (R).
25. When I'm having a difficult week at my job, my spouse tries to do more of the work around the house.
Task performance (Methot, Lepine, Podsakoff, & Christian, 2016)
1. Adequately completes assigned duties.
2. Fulfils responsibilities specified in his/her job description.
3. Performs tasks that are expected of him/her.
4. Meets formal performance requirements of the job.
5. Engages in activities that will directly affect his/her performance evaluations.
370 XIA ET AL.
A preview of this full-text is provided by Wiley.
Content available from Human Resource Management Journal
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
