International Journal of Management (IJM)

Volume 11, Issue 12, December 2020, pp.2745-2758, Article ID: IJM_11_12_257
Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/issues.asp?JType=IJM&VType=11&IType=12
ISSN Print: 0976-6502 and ISSN Online: 0976-6510
DOI: 10.34218/IJM.11.12.2020.257

© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

WORKPLACE ISOLATION: A SYSTEMATIC

REVIEW AND SYNTHESIS
Shikha Sahai, Mariam Anil Ciby, Ahmad Taha Kahwaji
Assistant Professor, Department of Management, College of Commerce and
Business Administration, Dhofar University, Salalah, Oman

ABSTRACT
With the rising popularity of telecommuting and other new forms of work
arrangements, workplace isolation has gained relevance in recent times. Nevertheless,
workplace isolation can also occur amongst employees in traditional work settings too.
Empirical evidences suggest that workplace isolation has a relationship with employee
attitude, behavior, performance and well-being. Despite the prevalence and importance
of workplace isolation, the literature on the concept, measurement, factors that
influence it and how it influences outcome variables is dispersed. This article offers a
systematic review of literature on workplace isolation, collating and synthesizing
existing literature and also setting agenda for future research. In doing so we hope that
it would attract interest of other scholars and eventually expand this body of research.
Key words: Workplace isolation; telework; telecommuting; social isolation at work;
review on isolation.
Cite this Article: Shikha Sahai, Mariam Anil Ciby, Ahmad Taha Kahwaji, Workplace
Isolation: A Systematic Review and Synthesis, International Journal of Management,
11(12), 2020, pp 2745-2758.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/issues.asp?JType=IJM&VType=11&IType=12

1. INTRODUCTION
The concept of telecommuting was introduced way back in the 1970s (Nilles, 1975). Some
organizations introduced telecommuting as a form of work arrangement, while the majority of
the organizations considered it as a future form of work. With the advent of global pandemic
Covid-19, the organizations adjusted and adapted to telecommuting as the new normal. Several
advantages of telecommuting have been reported. To individuals, it has provided a flexible
work schedule, better work life balance and reduced inconvenience of commuting (Kurland &
Bailey, 1999; Mann, Varey, & Button, 2000). To the organizations, it has enabled continuity
of business during Covid-19, improved operational cost effectiveness and expanded labor
market (Baruch, 2000; ILO, 2020). However, there are some concerns related to this work
arrangement. It can lead to social isolation, longer hours of work, career stagnation, and work-
family conflict (Cooper & Kurland, 2002; Delanoeije, Verbruggen, & Germeys, 2019;
Gajendran & Harrison, 2007; Golden, Veiga, & Dino, 2008; ILO, 2020; Mann et al., 2000).

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 2745 [email protected]

 Workplace Isolation: A Systematic Review and Synthesis

Amongst the various disadvantages, social isolation is the foremost concern of this work
arrangement (Gainey, Kelley & Hill, 1999; Huws, 1984; Mann et al., 2000).
Although workplace isolation can occur in telecommuting employees, its prevalence has
also been reported among employees who work in traditional work settings (Bunjak & Crene,
2018; Garcia, Bentein, Herrbach & Guerrero, 2017; Marshall, Michaels, & Mulki, 2007).

1.1. Why is the Current Study undertaken?

Social isolation is understood as individuals being separated from a group (Dean, 1961), and it
occurs when “desire of support, understanding and other social and emotional aspects of
interaction are not been met” (Taha & Caldwell, 1993, p. 277). There is sufficient scientific
evidence on isolation in the field of psychology, sociology and epidemiological sciences (see
review by Abad, Fearday, & Safdar, 2010; meta-analysis by Holt-Lunstad, Smith, Baker,
Harris, & Stephenson, 2015; Nicholson, 2012). However, this body of research is relatively
underexplored in organizational studies. There is a call for considering theoretical and empirical
framework for isolation in both traditional and virtual work settings (Bunjak & Crene, 2018).
There has been some development in workplace isolation literature in the last two decades.
However, to the best of our knowledge, there is no systematic review currently available that
examines isolation in the work domain. We intend to address this gap.
Given the prevalence of isolation in both traditional and modern work arrangements and the
absence of an integrated understanding of workplace isolation, our review is timely and much
warranted.

1.2. Focus of the Current Study

This study presents the findings of a systematic review of empirical literature on isolation at
work and proposes a framework within which the existing body of research can be understood
and classified. The overarching aim of this review is to address the questions: what is the
empirical evidence-base concerning workplace isolation and how can this inform theory and
practice in the world of work. Below mentioned are the sub-themes:
• How has workplace isolation been defined in the empirical studies?
• How has workplace isolation been measured in the empirical studies?
• What evidence is there concerning the antecedents and outcomes of workplace isolation?
• What evidence is there concerning mediators and moderators of workplace isolation and its
antecedent/ outcome relationships?
We first discuss the methodology adapted to extract the relevant literature from various
databases. We then address each of the research questions mentioned above, present the
evidence-based existing framework of workplace isolation literature and suggest scope for
future work to expand this body of knowledge.

2. METHODOLOGY
This study used the five-stage procedure recommended by Briner and Denyer (2010) for
systematic review of the empirical literature. In the first stage (planning the review), four
research questions (mentioned above) were formulated, key terms for searching databases were
identified and scope of search was refined. Search of database was done using wide range of
key terms like “social isolation”, “professional isolation”, “physical isolation”, “isolation”
AND “work”, “isolation” AND “employees”, “isolation” AND “virtuality”, “isolation” AND
“virtual work”, “isolation” AND telecommuting”, “isolation” AND “telecommuters”, to ensure
that important literature was not omitted. We highlight here that the scope of our review was

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 2746 [email protected]

 Shikha Sahai, Mariam Anil Ciby, Ahmad Taha Kahwaji

limited to ‘workplace isolation’ only which is conceptually different from some related but
distinct variables, like workplace loneliness and workplace alienation.
In the second stage (locating studies), we searched across four databases: Proquest, EBSCO,
Google scholar and Research gate. We used a variety of search strings (mentioned above) to
cast a wide net while searching the available database. The initial search resulted in 450 research
articles. The search was further refined by confining it to the following criteria: a) isolation in
work studies were only included b) studies which discussed/ evaluated some aspect of isolation
like antecedent, outcomes, mediators, moderators were included c) studies in which workplace
isolation was examined either as a key variable or as a co-variable were also included. This
resulted in 92 studies. In the third stage (appraising contribution), the abstract of the 92 studies
were read to decide the inclusion of the research for the existing review. This resulted in 28
studies. To this, 5 further studies were added by manual tracking of the citation mentioned in
the short-listed research papers. We finally included 33 studies in the current review. In the
fourth stage (analyzing and synthesizing information) each research paper was reviewed and
data from the same were extracted in a pro forma that was based on four research questions.
The extracted data was analyzed with respect to the research questions and a detailed summary
table was developed. In the last stage (reporting best evidence) a comprehensive overview of
the findings was prepared, the report was organized into sub-themes that captured, categorized
and reflected the complexity of the existing evidence and paved the path for future research.
Output of this evidence-based overview is presented in the current paper.

3. RESULTS
3.1. Overview of the Included Studies
Of the 33 papers reviewed, 18% used a qualitative method and 78% used a quantitative method
and 3% used a mixed method of study. Cent percent quantitative studies reviewed in this paper
were cross-sectional in nature. Majority of the studies were conducted in US (39%), followed
by Canada (12%), UK (9%), Taiwan (6%), Turkey (6%), Ireland (3%), New Zealand (3%),
Pakistan (3%), Sweden (3%), North American countries (6%) and from multiple countries
(9%). Sample population for 60% of the studies was telecommuters and 40% was non-
telecommuters. We now present the findings of our review.
Several researchers indicate that telecommuting options of working can cause workplace
isolation (Mann et al., 2000; Cooper & Kurland, 2002; Kurland & Cooper, 2002). Professional
isolation is higher for telecommuters as compared to non-telecommuters (Harrington &
Santiago, 2006). Isolation can occur amongst those who work in traditional office work-setting
too (Marshal et al. 2007; Bunjak & Crene, 2018). Researchers also indicate that mere nature of
profession (teachers especially music teachers, adjunct faculty, principal, internal auditors, dirty
work, salesperson, nurses) or belonging to a marginalized group (like migrant workers, LGBT
community) can also cause isolation (Dolan, 2011; Dussault & Barnett, 1996; McFadden &
Crowley-Henry, 2018; Mulki & Jaramillo, 2011; Mulki, Locander, Marshall, Harris, & Hensel,
2008).

3.2. Definition of Workplace Isolation

Marshall defined workplace isolation as “lack of satisfying friendship relationships or a lack of
access to social networks in workplace” (Marshall et al., 2007, p. 198). This is one of the widely
used definition in the literature. Golden et al. (2008) widened this definition as lack of sufficient
professional and social contact at workplace. Scholars suggest that workplace isolation among
telecommuting workers can be of two types: professional isolation and social isolation (Cooper
& Kurland, 2002; Kurland & Cooper, 2002). Professional isolation is defined as reduced
opportunity of promotion and other rewards that are available in the organization (Kurland &

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 2747 [email protected]

 Workplace Isolation: A Systematic Review and Synthesis

Bailey, 1999) and social isolation is the deprivation of informal interactions and relationships
with colleagues and friends in the organization (Cooper & Kurland, 2002; Kurland & Cooper,
2002). Physical isolation is yet another type of workplace isolation identified from the literature.
Physical isolation is defined as “employees’ experience of working in settings in which they
are not co-located with fellow organization members” (Bartel, Wrzesniewski, & Wiesenfeld,
2012, p. 744).
We argue that though there are differences in these terms, but these isolation perceptions
are intertwined. Several scholars’ support our argument, for e.g., Cooper and Kurland (2002)
indicated that difference between social isolation and professional isolation may be misleading
as social isolation at work will lead to professional isolation. Similarly, Kane (2014) argued
that physical isolation, social isolation and professional isolation are intricately linked. We refer
to all these isolation as workplace isolation. In our current review, we have collated studies
referring to all the types of isolation that can occur at work. Table 1 presents the characteristics
and studies that have evaluated various dimensions of workplace isolation.
Based on our review, we define workplace isolation as a five-dimensional construct- lack
of social support, lack of social interaction, lack of learning opportunity, lack of developmental
opportunities and presence of physical isolation.
Table 1 Proposed Five Dimensions of Workplace Isolation
Dimension Characteristic References
1. Social Lack of support Bentley, Teo, McLeod, Tan, Bosua, & Gloet, 2016; Bostanci, 2013;
Support from peers Bunjak & Crene, 2018; Chen & Kao, 2012; Davis & Cates, 2013;
Isolation /supervisor/ Dussault & Barnett, 1996; Garcia, et al., 2017; Golden, et al., 2008;
organization Itani, Jaramillo, & Chonko, 2019; Johnson, Hall, & Theorell, 1989;
Mann et al. 2000; McFadden & Crowley-Henry, 2018; Mulki et al.,
2008; Mulki & Jaramillo, 2011; Munir, Sadiq, Ali, Hamdan, &
Munir, 2016; O'Donnell, Jabareen, & Watt, 2010; Riggle, 2007;
Riggle, Solomon, & Artis, 2015; Sulu, Ceylan, & Kaynak, 2010;
Wang, Albert & Sun, 2020; Yang, 2017
2. Social Lack of Barnett, 1996; Bostanci, 2013; Cooper & Kurland, 2002; Davis &
Interaction informal/ social Cates, 2013; Dolan 2011; Dussault & Dussault, Deaudelin, Royer, &
Isolation and emotional Loiselle, 1999; Gallatin, 2018; Garcia et al. 2017; Golden et al.,
interaction/ 2008; Harrington & Santiago, 2006; Johnson et al., 1989; Kane,
deficient social 2014; Kurland & Cooper, 2002; Liston-Heyes & Juillet, 2019;
networks Mangles, Khanin, & Guzman, 2016; Mulki et al. 2008; Munir et al.,
2016; Orhan, Rijsman, & Van Dijk, 2016; Riggle, 2007; Wang et al.,
2020
3. Professional Lack of Cooper & Kurland, 2002; Orhan, et al. 2016
Learning information/
Opportunity lack of
Isolation opportunity to
learn
4. Professional Lack of Dolan, 2011; Harrington & Santiago, 2006; Kane, 2014; Kurland &
Growth opportunity for Cooper, 2002; Munir et al., 2016
Isolation professional
advancement
5. Physical Physical Bartel et al., 2012; Dolan, 2011; Garcia et al., 2017; Kane, 2014;
Isolation isolation Orhan et al., 2016; Mangles et al., 2016; Riggle, 2007; Wang et al.,
2020

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 2748 [email protected]

 Shikha Sahai, Mariam Anil Ciby, Ahmad Taha Kahwaji

3.3. Measures
The quantitative studies (n=27) reviewed in this article used multiple measures to examine
workplace isolation. In this review, we present a comprehensive picture of all the measures that
have been used in the workplace isolation studies (Table 2).
Table 2 Comprehensive Presentation of Workplace Isolation Measures
Name of the Measure Cronbach References
Dimension alpha
reliability
Workplace 10-item workplace isolation scale 0.73 - 0.92 Chen & Kao, 2012; Davis &
isolation by Marshall et al., 2007 Cates, 2013; Itani et al., 2019;
Marshall et al, 2007; Mulki et al.
2008; Mulki & Jaramillo, 2011;
Munir et al., 2016, Riggle, 2007;
Riggle et al., 2015;
10-item selected from 65-item 0.84 Orhan et al., 2016
identified by Marshall et al. , 2007
3-item Sense of isolation scale by 0.84 Bunjak & Crene, 2018
Connaughton & Daly, 2004
20-item French version of revised 0.87 – 0.91 Dussault & Barnett, 1996;
UCLA Loneliness scale by Dussault et al., 1999; Mangles et
Russell, Peplau & Cutrona,1980; al., 2016; Stephenson & Bauer,
10-item modified UCLA 2010
Loneliness Scale by Russell,
1996; 6-item DJGLS loneliness
scale by De Jong Gierveld & Van
Tilburg, 2006
Social 3-item friendship scale by 0.78 Garcia et al., 2017
Isolation Hawthrone, 2006
7-item social isolation scale 0.90 Sulu et al., 2010
derived from Leiter, 1985 and
Yang, Yang, and Kawachi, 2001
16-item Turkish version of Social 0.88 Bostanci, 2013
friendship at work scale by
Doğan, Çetin & Sungur, 2009
5-item work social support scale 0.75 Johnson et al., 1989
developed for the study
Professional 4-item scale by Teo, Lim, & Wai, 0.80 Harrington & Santiago, 2006
Isolation 1998
5-item professional isolation scale 0.72 Liston-Heyes & Juillet, 2019
adapted from Van Acker et al.,
2015
7-item scale by Golden et al., 0.89 - 0.91 Bentley et al., 2016; Golden et al.
2008 2008; Kane, 2014
Physical 1-item scale developed for the N.A. Bartel et al., 2012
isolation study
Professional 5-item scale of Golden et al., 2008 0.84 Wang et al., 2020
and Physical to measure professional isolation
Isolation and 1-item scale of Bartel et al.,
2012 to measure physical
isolation

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 2749 [email protected]

 Workplace Isolation: A Systematic Review and Synthesis

3.4. Antecedents of workplace isolation/ workplace isolation as mediator

Amongst the papers reviewed, several antecedents of workplace isolation have been identified.
We have categorized the antecedents identified in the review into: work environment related,
leadership/ supervisor related and job resources related.

3.4.1. Work Environment Related

There is growing research evidence that several organizational variables can impact workplace
isolation. Bostanci (2013) found that higher level of organizational responsiveness reduces
workplace isolation. Riggle et al. (2015) found that perceived organization support reduces
workplace isolation. Further to this, Bentley et al. (2016) found that when perceived support
(perceived organizational support and perceived social support) is high, workplace isolation is
less and workplace isolation in turn mediates the relationship between perceived support and
psychological strain and job satisfaction. Gallatin (2018) in a qualitative research concluded
that coworker support can reduce the perception of workplace isolation amongst consultants
who telework. Harrington and Santiago (2006) concluded that hierarchical and rational
organization culture reduced professional isolation for telecommuters.
Stephenson and Bauer (2010) found that perceived work environment (measured by role
ambiguity, role overload, role conflict, social support and participation in formal training
program) impacts social isolation i.e. if the perceived work environment is negative the social
isolation is high and social isolation in turn leads to physical and emotional burnout. In a similar
vein, O'Donnell et al. (2010) found that perceived positive work environment (working in
groups, opportunity to use qualification and training and productive appraisal) reduces
isolation, which in turn would increase intention to continue to work amongst nurses. Itani et
al. (2019) found that ethical climate reduces workplace isolation and workplace isolation of
colleagues partially mediated the relationship between ethical climate and job satisfaction
relationship amongst salesperson. Organizational injustice also has been found to be an
antecedent of social isolation. Sulu et al. (2010) in their research on doctors and nurses found
that organizational injustice (distributive injustice and procedural injustice) leads to social
isolation. Dolan (2011) in their research concluded that lack of communication from
administration, lack of information on updates of priorities of institution, lack of feedback and
lack of events that connect them with other faculty create a sense of isolation amongst adjunct
faculty members.

3.4.2. Leadership/ Supervisor and Coworker Related

Studies have also examined the role of supervisor and coworker on perceived workplace
isolation. Kurland and Cooper (2002) found that supervisors use of ‘managing by results’ may
enhance the perception of professional isolation amongst telecommuters. They also concluded
that employee isolation and management control are inextricably linked. Munir et al. (2016)
found that transformational leadership and interpersonal trust reduce perceived workplace
isolation amongst sales person in pharmaceutical companies. In yet another research on
salesperson in pharmaceutical companies, Mulki and Jaramillo (2011) found that considerate
leadership reduced the perception on workplace isolation. This is indicative of the importance
of supervisor’s role in reducing the deleterious effect of workplace isolation. Gallatin (2018) in
a qualitative research concluded that supervisor and high trust between teleworker and
supervisor can reduce the perception of workplace isolation amongst consultants who
teleworkers.
Bunjak and Crene (2018) found that leader’s defensive pessimism and follower’s defensive
pessimism have an impact on follower’s perceived isolation. They found that when there was
congruence in the defensive pessimism of leader and follower the perceived social isolation

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 2750 [email protected]

 Shikha Sahai, Mariam Anil Ciby, Ahmad Taha Kahwaji

was less and follower’s perceived social isolation was high when follower’s defensive
pessimism was higher than leader’s defensive pessimism. In yet another research, Yang (2017)
found that supervisor’s cultural intelligence had a negative impact on subordinate’s workplace
isolation and LMX mediates the relationship. They further concluded that workplace isolation
mediates the relationship between LMX and well-being. Coworker communication and
perception of not having meaningful conversation with colleagues can also cause workplace
isolation amongst teleworkers (Gainely et al., 1999; Gallatin, 2018).

3.4.3. Job/ Task Related

Researchers have also examined the impact of job characteristics on workplace isolation.
Kurland and Cooper (2002) found that the job characteristic itself (i.e., telecommuting) reduces
the opportunity for informal learning, networking and mentoring, which in turn impedes
professional development and increases the perception of professional isolation. Chen and Kao
(2012) concluded that job resources (possibility of career development and peer support) had a
significant negative relationship with isolation. In a study on teleworkers, Orhan et al. (2016)
found that with increase in task virtuality workplace social isolation also increases. Kane (2014)
found that frequency of telework had an impact on professional isolation.
Another group of variables that has been explored as an antecedent is focus on
developmental activities. Dussault and Barnett (1996) in their research on educational managers
concluded that peer assisted developmental program reduced professional isolation. Cooper and
Kurland (2002) in a qualitative research concluded that perceived availability of the
developmental activities (mentoring, informal learning and interpersonal networking)
negatively impacted professional isolation. They further concluded that the relationship
between developmental activity and professional isolation was moderated by extent to which
developmental activities were valued by the organization and extent to which these activities
are available to telecommuters. In yet another qualitative research, Kurland and Cooper (2002)
found that there is an increased perception of professional isolation when employees are
expecting a promotion. Dolan (2011) found that lack of opportunity to learn and develop skills
can cause isolation amongst adjunct faculty members. Knowledge of these antecedents can
enable organization to develop strategies to reduce workplace isolation and its deleterious
effects on individual, team and organization.

3.5. Outcomes of Workplace Isolation/ Mediators of Workplace Isolation and

Outcome Relationship
There is evidence showing that workplace isolation has influence on variety of outcomes in
different levels of analysis including individual affect, attitude, behavior, performance and
well-being.
Relationship has been indicated between workplace isolation and affect - reduced affective
bond, emotional contagion for new assignment, loneliness, loss of social barometer for
comparison leading to reduced confidence (Mann et al., 2000); burnout (Stephenson & Bauer,
2010), emotional exhaustion (Garcia et al., 2017);
Studies have also established relationship between workplace isolation and several
employee attitudes like job satisfaction (Riggle, 2007; Bentley et al., 2016; Orhan et al., 2016;
Itani et al. 2019); satisfaction with supervisor (Mulki et al., 2008; Mulki & Jaramillo, 2011);
satisfaction with coworker (Mulki et al., 2008); work group identity (Kane, 2014);
organizational identification (Bartel et al., 2012; Kane, 2014), organizational commitment
(Riggle, 2007; Mulki et al., 2008; Sulu et al., 2010), affective commitment (Wang et al., 2020);
continuance commitment (Wang et al., 2020), engagement (Davis & Cates, 2013; Garcia et al.,
2017).

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 2751 [email protected]

 Workplace Isolation: A Systematic Review and Synthesis

Relationships have also been established between workplace isolation and employee
behavior like turnover intention (Golden et al., 2008; Mulki & Jaramillo, 2011; Orhan et al.,
2016), intention to stay (O’Donnell et al., 2010); team work (Itani et al., 2019); extra-role
behavior (Mulki & Jaramillo, 2011), employee voice and silence (McFadden & Crowley-
Henry, 2018), deviant behavior (Mangles et al., 2016), motivation for change (Liston-Heyes &
Juillet, 2019) and organization citizenship behavior (Kane, 2014).
Further to this, relations have also been found between workplace isolation and job
performance (Chen & Kao, 2012; Dolan, 2011; Golden et al., 2008; Itani et al., 2019; Mulki et
al., 2008; Orhan et al., 2016). Workplace isolation has also been shown to impact occupational
stress (Dussault et al., 1999), morbidity and mortality (Johnson et al., 1989), psychological
strain (Bentley et al., 2016) and overall well-being (Yang, 2017).
Scholars have also examined several mediating variables in workplace isolation-outcome
relationship. Mulki et al. (2008) found that trust in leadership and trust in co-worker fully
mediate the relationship between workplace isolation and satisfaction with leader and
coworker, which in turn influences organizational commitment and organizational commitment
in turn impacts job performance. Bartel et al. (2012) found that perceived respect mediates the
relationship between physical isolation and organizational commitment relationship amongst
employees in consulting industry. From their empirical findings they concluded that physical
isolation reduced perceived respect, which negatively influenced organizational identification.
Gracia et al. (2017) in their empirical research on commercial cleaners found that pro-social
behavior and stigmatization mediate the relationship between social isolation and engagement
and burnout such that social isolation reduces the pro-social behavior which negatively
influences engagement and social isolation increases perceived stigmatization which in turn
increases exhaustion. Liston-Heyes and Juillet (2019) found that engagement with professional
body partially mediates the relationship between organizational professional isolation and
motivation for change amongst public sector internal auditors.
Further to this, Bentley et al. (2016) found that when perceived support (perceived
organizational support and perceived social support) is high, workplace isolation is less and
workplace isolation in turn mediates the relationship between perceived support and
psychological strain and job satisfaction.

3.6. Moderators of Workplace Isolation

Several moderating variables have been explored in antecedent-workplace isolation
relationship. Johnson et al. (1989) found that blue collar employees were at a higher risk of
morbidity and mortality caused due to combined effect of social isolation and job strain
(psychological job demands and work control) than white collar workers. Dussault et al. (1999)
found that gender moderated the relationship between isolation and occupational stress, women
were more negatively impacted by isolation on occupational stress than men. Kurland and
Cooper (2002) found that high frequency of teleworking; long-term teleworking and short
duration of working with organization can lead to professional isolation. Munir et al. (2016)
found that impact of transformational leadership and interpersonal trust on reducing isolation
of the salesperson was stronger if their self-efficacy was high as compared to low. Golden et al.
(2008) found that more face-to-face interaction and access to communication enhancing
technology reduces the negative impact of professional isolation on job performance, whereas
more time spent on telecommuting increases the negative impact of professional isolation on
job performance.
Bentley et al. (2016) found that telework intensity and type of telework moderate the
relationship between isolation and outcome relationship (psychological strain and job
satisfaction), with those having low intensity telework (few hours a week) and hybrid telework

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 2752 [email protected]

 Shikha Sahai, Mariam Anil Ciby, Ahmad Taha Kahwaji

(one or more days per week) have reduced impact of isolation on work outcomes. McFadden
and Crowley-Henry (2018) in a recent qualitative study on workplace isolation on LGBT
employees found that though sexual orientation can cause isolation and negatively impact
employee voice and support but LGBT network can moderate this relationship i.e., involvement
in LGBT network can reduce the impact of isolation in silencing employee voice for some of
the LGBT employees. Orhan et al. (2016) found that with increase in task virtuality workplace
social isolation also increases. Additionally, they also indicated that task virtuality has more
impact on isolation and in turn on turnover intention than team virtuality.

4. SYNTHESIZING FRAMEWORK AND FUTURE RESEARCH

DIRECTIONS
With the increasing trend of new work arrangements, workplace isolation concept has gained
attention. Researchers have cautioned about the negative impact of workplace isolation. We
conducted a review on the existing literature to synthesize the existing knowledge in this area.
Based on our review we found that this is an under-researched area that needs attention of
scholars. We now present synthesis of our review:
We found several antecedents, mediators, moderator and outcome variables that have
significant relationship with workplace isolation. However, as pointed out earlier cent-percent
of the quantitative studies reviewed were cross-sectional. Hence, there is an urgent need to
conduct longitudinal studies to establish causality among the variables. Similarly, large part of
the existing research has been done in the U.S., investigations in other countries can add
interesting findings to the existing body of literature.
With respect to conceptualization and definition of workplace isolation, we argue that it is
a multi-dimensional construct including lack of support, lack of interaction, lack of learning
opportunity, lack of developmental opportunities and physical isolation. We advocate that
though workplace isolation should be examined as a higher-order construct (comprising five
dimension), yet there is a need to give attention to all the sub-dimensions of workplace isolation
for a better understanding of isolation concept in different work settings (like experience of
isolation of teachers would be very different from salesperson, also from those who work-from-
home and those that have been socially marginalized because of the group characteristics to
which they belong).
Another reason that weighs in favor of our argument to have both consolidate (consider it
as a higher order construct) and discrete sub-dimensions of workplace isolation, is the
availability of myriad of measures that have been used in workplace isolation research.
Amongst the 27 quantitative researches included in this review, 15 instruments have been used
to measure workplace isolation. Marshall et al. (2007) 10-item workplace isolation has been
most frequently used (seven times). However, there is no consensus on universally accepted
scale for measuring workplace isolation. We call for research to develop new measure for
workplace isolation that includes all these sub-dimensions. We strongly urge scholars to fill in
this gap.
Based on the review, we classified the antecedents that can impact workplace isolation into
three categories - work environment related, leadership/supervisor/ coworker related and job
related. There is a lack of research evidence on the impact of person related variables on
workplace isolation. It would also be interesting to explore the role of personal dispositions on
workplace isolation. Also, future research can examine the combined effect of work
environment variables, leadership variables and job variables as antecedent on workplace
isolation can be considered. Our review also indicated that workplace isolation can lead to
deviant work behavior, research evaluating the mechanism underpinning this relationship can
also be explored. In our review we found that workplace isolation can have impact on myriad

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 2753 [email protected]

 Workplace Isolation: A Systematic Review and Synthesis

of outcome variables including affect, attitude, behavior and well-being. Workplace isolation
can be considered as an experience that invokes emotions. Hence, mechanisms involved in the
relationship between workplace isolation and outcomes can be explored through the lens of
Affective Events Theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996).
Some other potential areas for future research are now discussed. Relationship between
social isolation and health among elderly population, youth and children is well established
(Leigh-Hunt et al., 2017). We recommend examining the framework of workplace isolation and
health in the organizational studies. Qualitative studies have highlighted the association
between workplace isolation and emotions (Mann & Holdsworth, 2003; Mann et al., 2000).
Exploring empirical evidence in this relationship can provide statistical support to these
findings and pave way for exploring stressor emotion models (Spector & Goh, 2001) in
workplace isolation context.
There is a dearth of research in workplace isolation and group dynamic framework. We call
for a research on impact of workplace isolation on group dynamics. Creativity is a desired
outcome variable as it provides sustainable competitive advantage. We predict that workplace
isolation as a stressor can negatively impact creativity. Amongst the papers we reviewed there
was no empirical evidence to this important variable. We urge future researchers to explore its
relationship with workplace isolation. Workplace isolation needs to be examined in the career
studies too. Our review indicates that professional isolation occurs due to reduced opportunity
for learning and career advancement. It would be of great interest to explore how professional
isolation is linked to various career outcome variables like career success. Association between
career adaptability and workplace isolation is another area for potential advancement.
There are some moderating variables that have been examined and several others that can
be examined in future research, we now discuss them. Future research can examine workplace
isolation and antecedent/outcome relationships amongst various types of groups like millennial,
ethical minority groups, expatriates, client service work, C-suite executives. With rise in remote
working amongst IT professionals, non-banking financial companies, these groups also need to
be closely examined. There is also a difference in the degree of isolation at work depending on
the frequency of virtual working (Bailey & Cooper, 1999; Kurland & Cooper, 2002; Golden et
al., 2008; Davis & Cates, 2013; Kane 2014; Gainey et al., 1999). Future researches need to
compare and contrast the difference in workplace isolation and its impact on
antecedent/outcome variables for differential frequency of virtual working. We sincerely hope
that such examination makes a suggestive optimum frequency of teleworking.
Studies have also called for future research on impact of various demographic variables like
age, gender, tenure, education, number of children, number of days spent telecommuting, part-
time vs. full-time employment (Mulki & Jaramillo, 2011; Davis & Cates, 2013; Garcia et al.,
2017, Wang et al., 2020); salary (Wang et al., 2020) on workplace isolation antecedent/
outcome relationships. Impact of tenure of telework arrangement; type of communication
technology used for interaction, preference for flexibility and choice of work location; (Davis
& Cates, 2013; Kane, 2014; Munir et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2020) can also throw some
meaningful insights. Organizational variables like formalized organization procedures
especially for promotion (Cooper & Kurland, 2002) can also be examined as potential
moderator for workplace isolation-outcome relationship. Certain variables outside
organizational control like interaction on out of work scope with individuals in co-working
space, extent of emotional support outside work, preexisting emotional bonds with colleagues
(Orhan, et al. 2016; Wang et al., 2020) can also be examined.
Peplau and Perlman (1982) suggested that professional isolation can be caused by
individual’s predisposition. In our review we found that only four predispositions were
examined: self-efficacy (Mulki and Jaramillo, 2011; Munir et al., 2016), defensive pessimism

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 2754 [email protected]

 Shikha Sahai, Mariam Anil Ciby, Ahmad Taha Kahwaji

(Bunjak & Crene, 2018), proactive personality and need-to-belong. While self-efficacy and
defensive pessimism had statistically significant moderating roles in isolation-outcome
relationships, the remaining two personality variables i.e., proactive personality and need-to-
belong, did not have statistical significant moderating effect in workplace isolation-outcome
relationship (Kane, 2014), however future research on these personality variables must be
explored. Predispositions like autonomy, personality traits like extroversion, consciousness,
locus of control have been found to be an important moderator in several behavioral streams
and examination of these variables in workplace isolation studies can provide interesting
expansion of workplace isolation literature. Personal strengths like psychological capital,
hardiness and gratitude have been found as significant potential moderators in work stressor
and outcome association. Examining these personal strengths as potential moderators in
workplace isolation and outcome variables can be a fruitful pursuit.

5. CONCLUSION
The extant literature on workplace isolation has yielded insights into what can cause workplace
isolation (including job characteristics, supervisor and coworker support and other
organizational variables), what is its impact on outcome variables (including attitude, behavior,
performance and well-being) and various mechanisms through which it can impact outcome
variables. This field of research is still in its nascent stage in the organizational literature, with
immense potential to drive new and exciting directions. The purpose of the current review is to
bring coherence to the disparate literature by uncovering the causes, mechanism and outcomes
underpinning workplace isolation. With the rising popularity of telecommuting, available
technologies to support this working environment, this mode of work is being considered as
future of work. Workplace isolation can also occur amongst those who work in traditional work-
settings and have implication on outcome variables. The time is ripe for a deep-dive into this
area of research and it is our sincere hope that this review can provide an organizing framework
and encourage scholars to understand, explore and broaden the literature on workplace
isolation.

REFERENCES
[1] Abad, C., Fearday, A., & Safdar, N. (2010). Adverse effects of isolation in hospitalised patients:
a systematic review. Journal of Hospital Infection, 76(2), 97-102.
[2] Bartel, C. A., Wrzesniewski, A., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (2012). Knowing where you stand:
Physical isolation, perceived respect, and organizational identification among virtual
employees. Organization Science, 23(3), 743-757.
[3] Baruch, Y. (2000). ‘Teleworking: Benefits and Pitfalls as Perceived by Professionals and
Managers’, New Technology, Work and Employment, 15(1), 34-48.
[4] Bentley, T. A., Teo, S. T. T., McLeod, L., Tan, F., Bosua, R., & Gloet, M. (2016). The role of
organisational support in teleworker wellbeing: A socio-technical systems approach. Applied
Ergonomics, 52, 207-215.
[5] Bostanci, A. B. (2013), The role of positive emotion towards work as a mediator in the
relationship between organizational responsiveness towards teachers and isolation in
professional life. Educational Research and Reviews, 8(8), 367.
[6] Briner, R. B., & Denyer, D. (2010). Systematic review and evidence synthesis as a practice and
scholarship tool. In D. Rousseau (Ed.), Handbook of evidenced–based management: companies,
classrooms, and research, (pp. 328-347). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[7] Bunjak, A., & Černe, M. (2018). The Role Of Leader-Follower Defensive Pessimism
(In)Congruence In Fostering Perceptions Of Followers' Isolation, Economic and Business
Review for Central And South - Eastern Europe. Economic and Business Review, 20(1), 129-
157.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 2755 [email protected]

 Workplace Isolation: A Systematic Review and Synthesis

[8] Chen, C. F., & Kao, Y. L. (2012). Investigating the antecedents and consequences of burnout
and isolation among flight attendants. Tourism Management, 33(4), 868-874.
[9] Cooper, C. D., & Kurland, N. B. (2002). Telecommuting, professional isolation, and employee
development in public and private organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The
International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and
Behavior, 23(4), 511-532.
[10] Connaughton, S. L. & Daly, J. A. (2004). Identification with leader: A comparison of
perceptions of identification among geographically dispersed and co–located teams. Corporate
Communications: An International Journal, 9(2), 89–103.
[11] Davis, R., & Cates, S. (2013), The Dark Side of Working in a Virtual World: An Investigation
of the Relationship between Workplace Isolation and Engagement among Teleworkers. Journal
of Human Resource and Sustainability Studies, 1, 9-13.
[12] de Jong Gierveld, J., Van Tilburg, T., & Dykstra, P. A. (2006). Loneliness and social
isolation. In A. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds), Handbook of personal relationships (pp.485-
500). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[13] Dean, D. G. (1961). Alienation: Its meaning and measurement. American Sociological Review,
26(5), 753-758.
[14] Delanoeije, J., Verbruggen, M., & Germeys, L. (2019). Boundary role transitions: A day-to-day
approach to explain the effects of home-based telework on work-to-home conflict and home-to-
work conflict. Human Relations, 72(12), 1843-1868.
[15] Dolan, V. (2011). The isolation of online adjunct faculty and its impact on their
performance. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(2), 62-
77.
[16] Doğan, T., Çetin, B., & Sungur, M. Z. (2009). İş yaşamında yalnızlık ölçeği Türkçe formunun
geçerlilik ve güvenilirlik çalışması [Scale of loneliness in working life - validity and reliability
study of Turkish form]. Anadolu Psikiyatri Dergisi (Anadolu Psychiatr. Journal), 10, 271-277.
[17] Dussault, M., & Barnett, B. G. (1996). Peer-assisted leadership: Reducing educational
managers' professional isolation. Journal of Educational Administration, 34(3), 5-14.
[18] Dussault, M., Deaudelin, C., Royer, N., & Loiselle, J. (1999). Professional isolation and
occupational stress in teachers. Psychological Reports, 84(3), 943-946.
[19] Gainey, T. W., Kelley, D. E., & Hill, J. A. (1999). Telecommuting's impact on corporate culture
and individual workers: Examining the effect of employee isolation. SAM Advanced
Management Journal, 64(4), 4.
[20] Gajendran, R. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unknown about
telecommuting: meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual
consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1524.
[21] Gallatin, K. A. (2018). Teleworker Isolation: Possible Effects of Workplace Relationships and
Support (Doctoral dissertation, Baker College (Michigan)).
[22] Garcia, A., Bentein, K., Herrbach O. & Guerrero S. (2017). How does social isolation in a
context of dirty work increase emotional exhaustion and inhibit work engagement? A process
model. Personnel Review, 46(8), 1620-1634.
[23] Golden, T. D., Veiga, J. F., & Dino, R. N. (2008), The impact of professional isolation on
teleworker job performance and turnover intentions: Does time spent teleworking, interacting
face-to-face, or having access to communication-enhancing technology matter?. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1412.
[24] Harrington, S. J., & Santiago, J. (2006), Organizational culture and telecommuters' quality of
work life and professional isolation. Communications of the IIMA, 6(3), 1.
[25] Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., Baker, M., Harris, T., & Stephenson, D. (2015). Loneliness and
social isolation as risk factors for mortality: a meta-analytic review. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 10(2), 227-237.
[26] Huws, U. (1984). The new homeworkers: New technology and the changing location of white-
collar work (No. 28). Low Pay Pamphlet Number 28, London: Low Pay Unit.
[27] Hawthorne (2006), Measuring social isolation in older adults: development and initial validation
of friendship scale. Social Indicators Research, 77(3), 521-548.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 2756 [email protected]

 Shikha Sahai, Mariam Anil Ciby, Ahmad Taha Kahwaji

[28] ILO (International Labour Organisation) (2020). Teleworking during the COVID-19 pandemic
and beyond: a practical guide. International Labour Office, Geneva. Retrieved from
https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/ed_protect/protrav/travail/documents/publication/
wcms_751232.pdf.
[29] Itani, O. S., Jaramillo, F., & Chonko, L. (2019), Achieving top performance while building
collegiality in sales: It all starts with ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 156(2), 417-438.
[30] Johnson, J. V., Hall, E. M., & Theorell, T. (1989). Combined effects of job strain and social
isolation on cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality in a random sample of the Swedish
male working population. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 271-279.
[31] Kane, L. M. (2014). Telework and organizational citizenship behaviors: The underexplored
roles of social identity and professional isolation (Doctoral dissertation, City University of New
York).
[32] Kurland N.B. & Bailey D.E. (1999). When workers are here, there, and everywhere: a discussion
of the advantages and challenges of telework. Organizational Dynamics, 28(2), 53–68
[33] Kurland, N. B., & Cooper, C. D. (2002). Manager control and employee isolation in
telecommuting environments. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 13(1),
107-126.
[34] Leiter, J. (1985). Work Alienation in the Textile Industry: Reassessing Blauner. Work and
Occupations, 12, 479-498.
[35] Leigh-Hunt, N., Bagguley, D., Bash, K., Turner, V., Turnbull, S., Valtorta, N., & Caan, W.
(2017). An overview of systematic reviews on the public health consequences of social isolation
and loneliness. Public Health, 152, 157-171.
[36] Liston-Heyes, C., & Juillet, L. (2019). Employee isolation and support for change in the public
sector: a study of the internal audit profession. Public Management Review, 21(3), 423–445.
[37] Mangles, P., Khanin, D., & Guzman, I. R. (2016). Perceived isolation, its impact on professional
deviance and deviant workplace behaviors. In Academy of management proceedings (Vol. 2016,
No. 1, p. 15513). Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of Management.
[38] Mann, S., & Holdsworth, L. (2003). The psychological impact of teleworking: stress, emotions
and health. New Technology, Work and Employment, 18(3), 196-211.
[39] Mann, S., Varey, R., & Button, W. (2000). An exploration of the emotional impact of tele‐
working via computer‐mediated communication. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15 (7),
668-690.
[40] Marshall, G. W., Michaels, C. E., & Mulki, J. P. (2007). Workplace isolation: Exploring the
construct and its measurement. Psychology & Marketing, 24(3), 195-223.
[41] McFadden, C., & Crowley-Henry, M. (2018). ‘My People’: the potential of LGBT employee
networks in reducing stigmatization and providing voice, The International Journal of human
resource management, 29(5), 1056-1081.
[42] Mulki, J. P., & Jaramillo, F. (2011). Workplace isolation: salespeople and supervisors in
USA. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(4), 902-923.
[43] Mulki, J. P., Locander, W. B., Marshall, G. W., Harris, E. G., & Hensel, J. (2008). Workplace
isolation, salesperson commitment, and job performance, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management, 28(1), 67-78.
[44] Munir, Y., Sadiq, M., Ali, I., Hamdan, Y., & Munir, E. (2016). Workplace isolation in
pharmaceutical companies: Moderating role of self-efficacy, Social Indicators
Research, 126(3), 1157-1174.
[45] Nicholson, N. R. (2012). A review of social isolation: an important but underassessed condition
in older adults. The journal of primary prevention, 33(2-3), 137-152.
[46] Nilles, J. (1975). Telecommunications and organizational decentralization. IEEE Transactions
on Communications, 23(10), 1142-1147.
[47] O'Donnell, C. A., Jabareen, H., & Watt, G. C. (2010). Practice nurses' workload, career
intentions and the impact of professional isolation: A cross-sectional survey. BMC
Nursing, 9(1), 2.
[48] Orhan, M. A., Rijsman, J. B., & Van Dijk, G. M. (2016). Invisible, therefore isolated:
Comparative effects of team virtuality with task virtuality on workplace isolation and work
outcomes. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, 32(2), 109-122.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 2757 [email protected]

 Workplace Isolation: A Systematic Review and Synthesis

[49] Peplau, L. A., & Perlman, D. (1982). Perspective on loneliness. In L. A. Peplau & D. Perlman
(Eds.), Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory, research and therapy (pp. 1-18). New York:
John Wiley and Sons.
[50] Riggle, R. J. (2007). The impact of organizational climate variables of perceived organizational
support, workplace isolation, and ethical climate on salesperson psychological and behavioral
work outcomes (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida).
[51] Riggle, R. J., Solomon, P., & Artis, A. (2015). The impact of perceived organizational support
on salesperson psychological and behavioral work outcomes. International Journal of
Management Research and Business Strategy, 4(1), 134-147.
[52] Russell, D. (1996). The UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3): Reliability, validity, and factor
structure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66(1), 20–40.
[53] Russell, D., Peplau, L.A., & Cutrona, C. E.(1980).The Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale:
Concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
39(3), 472-480.
[54] Spector, P. E., & Goh, A. (2001). The role of emotions in the occupational stress process. In P.
L. Perrewé & D. C. Ganster (Eds.). Research in occupational stress and well-being: exploring
theoretical mechanisms and perspectives (Vol.1, pp.195-232). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
[55] Stephenson, L. E., & Bauer, S. C. (2010), The role of isolation in predicting new principals’
burnout. International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership, 5(9), 1-17.
[56] Sulu, S., Ceylan, A., & Kaynak, R. (2010), Work alienation as a mediator of the relationship
between organizational injustice and organizational commitment: Implications for healthcare
professionals. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(8), 27-38.
[57] Taha, L. H., & Caldwell, B. S. (1993). Social isolation and integration in electronic
environments. Behaviour & Information Technology, 12(5), 276-283.
[58] Teo, T. S. H., Lim, V. K. G. & Wai, S. H. (1998). An empirical study of attitudes towards
teleworking among Information Technology (IT) personnel. International Journal of
Information Management, 18(5), 329-343.
[59] Van Acker, W., Bouckaert, G., Frees, W., Nemec, J., Orviska, M., Lawson, C., … Flemig, S.
(2015). Mapping and Analysing the Recommendations of Ombudsmen, Audit Offices and
Emerging Accountability Mechanisms. Learning from innovation in Public Sector
Environments (LIPSE), Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
[60] Wang, W., Albert, L. & Sun, Q. (2020). Employee isolation and telecommuter organizational
commitment. Employee Relations, 42(3), 609-625.
[61] Yang, C. (2017). The influence of supervisor cultural intelligence on employee well-being.
In Academy of management proceedings (Vol. 2017, No.1, p.13364). Academy of Management,
Briarcliff Manor, NY.
[62] Yang, M. J., Yang, M. S., & Kawachi, I. (2001). Work experience and drinking behavior:
alienation, occupational status, workplace drinking subculture and problem drinking. Public
Health, 115, 265-271.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 2758 [email protected]