Organisations appear to be witnessing a resurgence in ostracism (see Peng & Zeng, Reference Peng and Zeng2017; Wu, Liu, Kwan & Lee, Reference Wu, Liu, Kwan and Lee2016; Yang & Treadway, Reference Yang and Treadway2018) and bullying (Ferris, Brown, Berry, & Lian, 2017; Lutgen-Sandvik & Tracy, Reference Lutgen-Sandvik and Tracy2012; Thirlwall, Reference Thirlwall2015; Standen Paull & Omari, Reference Standen, Paull and Omari2014). Simply, ostracism can be defined as the extent to which individuals or groups perceive that they are ignored or excluded by other individuals or groups (Ferris et. al., Reference Ferris, Brown, Berry and Lian2008; Williams & Zadro Reference Williams, Zadro and Leary2001; Williams, Reference Williams2007). Ostracism may also be seen as an umbrella term that includes rejection (an explicit declaration that an individual or group is not wanted) or social exclusion (being kept apart from others, alone or isolated, Williams, Reference Williams2007). Studies show that ostracism is linked with sadness and anger (Williams & Zadro, Reference Williams, Zadro, Williams, Forgas and von Hippel2005), impairment of logical reasoning (Baumeister, Twenge and Nuss, Reference Baumeister, Twenge and Nuss2002), deviance, well-being, voice, performance, job satisfaction (Howard, Cogswell & Smith, Reference Howard, Cogswell and Smith2020) and abusive leadership (Ferris et al. Reference Ferris, Brown, Berry and Lian2008).

While it is not a behaviour, ostracism elicits a painful and aversive experience (Ferris, Brown, Berry and Lian, Reference Ferris, Brown, Berry and Lian2008). Additionally, the consequences of ostracism are many and varied including “social pain” (Eisenberger, Lieberman, & Williams, Reference Eisenberger, Lieberman and Williams2003; MacDonald & Leary, Reference MacDonald and Leary2005), affective experience of pain (as seen in medical imaging) that can be relived over and again (Chen, Williams, Fitness, & Newton, 2008) and social death if prolonged (Williams & Nida, Reference Williams and Nida2011, Sommer, Williams, Ciarocco, & Baumeister, Reference Sommer, Williams, Ciarocco and Baumeister2001). In this regard, scholars have shown that people suffer psychologically and physically when the four basic needs connected with ostracism (belonging, self-esteem, sense of control and sense of meaningful existence) are threatened (see Williams & Nida, Reference Williams and Nida2011; Williams, Reference Williams2007). It can also trigger aggressive behaviours both toward those who excluded them and towards others that are not involved (Twenge, Baumeister, Tice, & Stucke, Reference Twenge, Baumeister, Tice and Stucke2001).

It is this important organizational concept that Issue 28.2 addresses. In this issue, the authors reflect on differing aspects of ostracism, bullying and psychological safety including employee discretionary efforts, voice, performance, organizational learning, cyberbullying, harassment, and psychological safety climate.

In the first article, “Workplace Ostracism and Discretionary Work Effort: A Conditional Process Analysis”, Anjum, Liang, Durrani and Ahmed draw on affective events theory (AET) and workplace incivility spiral to explain when and how, workplace ostracism and workplace incivility impact employees’ emotions and work effort. They collected online data from 251 employees at three public sector universities in Pakistan to show that both ostracism and incivility hinder work effort, and especially through via targets’ negative affect (NA). Also, workplace incivility exacerbated the positive relationship of ostracism and NA such that this relationship was stronger when incivility was high and weaker when incivility was low. Anjum and co-authors conclude that uncivil behaviour spread and spiral into more severe behavioural outcomes in the workplace that may trigger an incivility climate.

Still on ostracism, Jahanzeb and Newell in the next paper, “Co-Worker Ostracism and Promotive Voice: A Self-Consistency Motivation Analysis” utilize self-consistency motivational theory to investigate the association between employees' experience of co-worker ostracism and their promotive voice. They also examined the mediating role of organization-based self-esteem (OBSE) and the moderating effect of emotional stability. The analysis of their data revealed that social exclusion by their co-workers hampers employees' expression of constructive views about work-related matters as it dampens their OBSE. Additionally, OBSE mediated the relationship between co-worker ostracism and employees’ promotive voice while emotional stability significantly moderated the positive relationship between co-worker ostracism and promotive voice. Overall, the authors reported that emotional stability mitigated the negative indirect effect of perceived co-worker exclusion on promotive voice, through OBSE. The results are discussed in terms of their theoretical and practical implications for researchers and practitioners.

The theme of ostracism is taken a step further when Imran, Iqbal, Fatima, Nawaz asked an important question in their paper “Why do I contribute to organizational learning when I am ostracized? A moderated mediation analysis”. Using social exchange and emotional regulation perspectives as theoretical anchors, the authors investigated the role of emotional suppression in reducing the detrimental effects of workplace ostracism on organizational learning. The data from a sample of 162 participants from the financial industry showed that workplace ostracism was mediated by employee silence that has a negative effect on organizational learning. However, emotional suppression was found to be a buffer between workplace ostracism, employee silence and organizational learning. The authors conclude that the silent employees, who experience workplace ostracism, but are proficient in suppressing their emotions may still contribute to organizational learning. They further suggested that emotional suppression may be able to reduce the injurious outcomes of workplace ostracism on organisational learning.

Core to ostracism are the concepts of inclusion and exclusion. The next two papers investigate exclusion and inclusion respectively. Specifically, Cruz, Zagenczyk, Scott and Purvis examined the “Perceptions of Co-Worker Exclusion and Performance Outcomes: Are Different Forms of Support Helpful or Hurtful?”. The authors argue paper that social support for employees experiencing co-worker exclusion may be helpful or hurtful for performance. They further contend that employees' perceptions of co-worker exclusion are negatively associated with task performance and citizenship, but positively associated with interpersonal deviance and that whether social support strengthens or weakens the negative performance outcomes of co-worker exclusion depends on the source of social support co-workers or family and friends. Using data from 135 supervisor–subordinate dyads across various occupational positions, the study reveals that co-worker support is hurtful, whereas family and friends support is helpful. Furthermore, the three-way interaction showed that task performance suffers most when employees who feel highly excluded also perceive higher co-worker support and lower family and friends support. The authors conclude that there is a need for a more nuanced view of social exchange/support and our knowledge about ambivalent relationships.

In the next paper, “Exploring barriers to social inclusion for disabled people: Perspectives from the performing arts”, Collins, Rentschler, Williams and Azmat explore qualitatively the barriers to social inclusion for disabled people in the arts. The authors collected 34 semi-structured interviews from people with disability and those without disability from four arts organisations in Australia to identify barriers for social inclusion for people with disability with the performing arts sector. The authors reported barriers across four dimensions: access; participation; representation and empowerment that are interdependent and intertwined while supporting the social model of disability. Collins and co-author conclude that their findings have implications beyond social inclusion of disabled people within the arts, demonstrating how the arts can empower disabled people and enable them to access, participate and represent themselves and have a voice.