Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences – Vol (10), Issue (1), 2017.

Empirical Investigation of Relationship between Workplace

Ostracism and Employee Silence: A Test of Mediating Effects of
Self-Esteem and Meaningful Existence in Context of Public Sector
Universities in Punjab

Tehreem Fatima
PhD Scholar, Superior University Lahore
Muhammad Ilyas
Associate Professor and Chairperson of Economics Department,
Government College Women University, Sialkot
Choudhary Abdul Rehman
Chairman, Superior University Lahore
Muhammad Kashif Imran
PhD Scholar, Superior University Lahore
Abstract
The concept of workplace ostracism and employee silence has achieved
considerable attention in field of organizational psychology in recent years. This
research examined the relationship of workplace ostracism with facets of
employee silence i.e. acquiescent, defensive and diffident silence with mediating
role of perceived self-esteem and meaningful existence in teachers of Public
sector universities in Punjab. Data were collected by 200 questionnaires
distributed to university teachers serving in Public sector universities in Punjab
selected by cluster sampling, out of which 159 usable responses were received.
Regression analysis and Preacher and Hayes (2008) mediation test were used to
analyze data by SPSS 20 Software. Results revealed a positive association
between workplace ostracism and employee silence whereby meaningful
existence and self-esteem partially mediate the relationship between workplace
ostracism and employee silence.
Keywords: Workplace ostracism, employee silence, acquiescent silence,
diffident silence, defensive silence, meaningful existence, self-esteem, temporal
need threat model.

The notion of ostracism constitute the perception of being

isolated and ignored by an individual or group (Ferris, Chen, & Lim,
2016; Robinson, O’Reilly, & Wang, 2012). It is a widely pervasive
phenomenon in multiple settings including organizations (Hales et al.,
2016). Research in ostracism has been initiated by the real-world
observation of its negative consequences (Hales et al., 2016) that is
found to have numerous mental, physical and organizational
consequences (Robinson et al., 2012; Williams, 2007; Zhao & Xia,
2017). Despite knowledge of its negative consequences most of the prior
research studies examined it social and psychological perspectives
(Ferris et al., 2016; Hales et al., 2016) leaving the workplace related
impacts an unattended area (Gkorezis, Panagiotou, & Theodorou, 2016a;
Robinson et al., 2012). In recent times the concept of workplace
ostracism has gained attention of organizational researchers given the
increased importance of social ties in modern work settings (Gkorezis &

111
Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences – Vol (10), Issue (1), 2017.
Bellou, 2016; Gong et al., 2012). It has been argued that workplace
ostracism is one of the prime factors in reducing social interaction and
knowledge sharing (Gkorezis & Bellou, 2016) ultimately resulting in
negative outcomes such as reduced commitment, satisfaction, pro-social
behaviors and performance (Zhao, Peng, & Sheard, 2013).
Regardless of emerging research on workplace ostracism in
manufacturing, banking, nursing and hospitality industry (Gkorezis et al.,
2016a; Hitlan, Kelly, Schepman, Schneider, & Zárate, 2006; O’Reilly &
Robinson, 2009; Wu et al., 2012) the educational sector has still received
scant attention (Erkutlu & Chafra, 2016; Zimmerman, Carter-Sowell, &
Xu, 2016). Higher educational institutions (HEIs) are amongst
workplaces that necessitate the employee voice, expressing ideas,
knowledge and valuable information in order to ensure their successful
performance. Due to globalization, competition and advancement in
technology the role of teachers is not just confined to performing their
conventional teaching duties. Now they need to continuously learn and
develop their knowledge through research, exchange of information and
development of social connections with other teachers specially
mentoring from senior teachers. In addition to this professional liaising
with professional organizations is required that will enable teachers to
remain up to date about the latest trends in industry and professional
practices (Siddique et al., 2011). For this purpose the need of open
communication environment and good interpersonal relationships is
paramount. In the absence of such environment and associations
employee engage in silence behaviors that have damaging outcomes
(Donaghey et al., 2011; Gagnon & Cakici, 2008; Milliken, Morrison, &
Hewlin, 2003). Workplace ostracism is one of the potential hindrances
in employee information hoarding and voice behaviors (Gkorezis et al.,
2016a; Jones, Carter-Sowell, Kelly, & Williams, 2009; Zhao & Xia,
2017).
Thus, we aim to examine the emerging variable of employee
silence in specific context of Higher Educational settings as a
consequence of workplace ostracism. Employee silence is a distinct form
of withdrawal behaviors referring to the “motivation of employees to
withhold vs. express ideas, information and opinions about work-related
improvements” (Van Dyne et al. 2003 p. 1361). Drawing on the
“Temporal need threat model” (TNTM) of experiences to ostracism we
build the linkage between the said variables suggesting being ostracized
results in low self-esteem and meaningful existence (Williams, 2009).
These behaviors are found to be linked with employee anti-social and
withdrawal behaviors (Williams, 2002, 2007, 2009; Williams & Nida,
2011) that are important predictors of employee acquiescent, defensive
and diffident silence (Brinsfield, 2013; Premeaux & Bedeian, 2003).
Taken together, in order to bridge the identified contextual and
theoretical gaps, the present research aims to contribute to the existing
body of knowledge in field of workplace ostracism and employee silence
112
Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences – Vol (10), Issue (1), 2017.
(acquiescent, defensive and diffident) by investigating the relationship
between two with mediating role of employee’s self-esteem and
meaningful existence.
Literature Review
Employees having good interpersonal relationships and high
cohesion are more likely to express their opinion and share information
that is a valuable source of decision making and improvement in modern
organizations (Pacheco et al., 2015). In organizations having ostracism
employees indulge in silence and withhold valuable information and
ideas having detrimental outcomes (Morrison, 2014; Gkorezis et al.,
2016a). Research studies have indicated that employee silence is a
multidimensional construct (Brinsfield, 2013; Dyne, Ang, & Botero,
2003; Pinder & Harlos, 2001). It has been argued by Brinsfield (2013)
that the causes and motives behind employee silence are major
determinant in examining its specific dimensions. In present research the
aim is to investigate how workplace ostracism causes employees to
indulge in silence. Workplace ostracism is an unethical and unfair
treatment causing poor workplace relationships (Williams & Nida, 2011)
that can possibly results in employee withdrawal fear of pain from
rejection (Robinson et al., 2012), and uncertainty (Arkin, Oleson, &
Carroll, 2013). Dyne et al. (2003), in his seminal work gave three
dimensions of employee silence i.e. acquiescent silence, defensive
silence and pro-social silence. Acquiescent silence is withholding of
employee information based on resignation and defensive silence is not
speaking up due to the fear of negative outcomes that are extrinsic i.e.
loss of job or being punished. However, pro-social silence that is based
on altruistic and cooperative withholding of confidential information is
not considered in the scope of present research; as it is focusing only on
negative consequences of workplace ostracism. Additionally, we have
taken another dimension of silence known as diffident silence that
emerged to be conceptuality related but distinct to defensive silence as it
is based on fear of negative results due to uncertainty and low self
confidence that are intrinsic in nature and Brinsfield (2013) called for
empirical investigation of this recently emerged facet of employee
silence. Thus, in this study we have taken three dimensions of employee
silence acquiescent silence, defensive silence and diffident silence.
Workplace Ostracism and Acquiescent Silence
Workplace ostracism causes employees to be ignored and
excluded by other members of organization. As a result their ideas,
suggestions and opinion are not welcomed by coworkers (Robinson et
al., 2012). This causes employees to feel that information sharing and
expressing viewpoints will not make any difference so they do not
express themselves fully. They passively withhold information and ideas
and engage in acquiescent silence that is withholding information, views,
ideas and opinions on the basis of resignation (Dyne et al., 2003;
Morrison, 2014).
113
Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences – Vol (10), Issue (1), 2017.
H1: Workplace ostracism has positive relationship with employee
acquiescent silence.

Workplace Ostracism and Defensive Silence

Furthermore, Morrison (2014) asserted if employees feel
speaking up will bring negative or unpleasant results it will cause them to
withhold information and ideas and they will engage in defensive
silence. When employees are ostracized, their ideas and views are
ignored and remain un-appreciated that results in withdrawal (Robinson
et al., 2012), in order to avoid the pain of rejection they choose to be
silent (Pacheco et al., 2015).
H2: Workplace ostracism has positive relationship with defensive
silence.

Workplace Ostracism and Diffident Silence

As a result of ostracism, a person feels that his ideas and
information are not acknowledged as they are constantly being ignored.
Uncertainty and ostracism are entwined (Arkin, Oleson, & Carroll, 2013)
so victim of ostracism becomes develops internal fear that something is
bad or wrong about them that has caused others to ignore them so they
engage in diffident silence (Morrison, 2014).
H3: Workplace ostracism has positive relationship with diffident silence

Mediating role of Meaningful Existence and Self-esteem in

relationship between Workplace Ostracism and Employee Silence
According to the theoretical conception of TNTM ostracism threatens
meaningful existence and self-esteem of victim (Williams, 2009) that
cause them to indulge in silence (Gkorezis, Panagiotou, & Theodorou,
2016b). If employees perceive that their opinions, views and suggestions
will not be supported by peers and superiors they feel they do not exist
meaningfully. The fear of being unwelcomed and isolated causes them
to remain silent (Bowen & Blackmon, 2003; Pacheco et al., 2015).
Additionally, lower levels of self-esteem causes employees to feel less
worthy, less competent and less expressive (Williams, 2009) that causes
them to engage in acquiescent silence (Pacheco et al., 2015).
Employees having lower level of self-esteem tend to be more
protective and in pursuit of avoiding negative consequences they decide
to be silent (Morrison, 2014; Premeaux & Bedeian, 2003). Lack of
acknowledgement and existing meaningfully develop a fear if employees
share information and ideas it will not be acknowledged (Jones et al.,
2009; Williams, 2009). This causes them to engage in defensive silence
that is keeping quiet to avoid painful experiences (Pacheco et al., 2015).
Employees who have lower self-esteem are found to have lower level of
confidence and self-worth. This creates a sense of uncertainty and self-
doubt whether voice will be valuable or not. People who have low
perception of meaningful existence have high uncertainty and doubts
114
Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences – Vol (10), Issue (1), 2017.
about themselves and they fear that their ideas are not meaningful so they
keep them to themselves ( Morrison, 2014; Williams, 2009). According
to Brinsfield (2013) it can result in diffident silence as the employees are
uncertain whether they should speak or not and they are doubtful
regarding their knowledge and competence. Consequently they will keep
quite to avoid embarrassment, damage of reputation, personal doubts and
uncertainty (Gkorezis et al., 2016b). Hence, when individuals are
ostracized at wok their need to exist in meaningful manner along with
need to have self-esteem is threatened (Williams, 2007, 2009). As a
result they indulge in withdrawal attitudes (Robinson et al., 2012) i.e.
employee silence (acquiescent, defensive and diffident). Thereby, we
postulate that,
H4: The relationship between workplace ostracism (WOS) and
Employee Silence (ES) is mediated by self-esteem (E)
H4a: The relationship between WOS and employee Acquiescent Silence
(AS) is mediated by E.
H4b: The relationship between WOS and employee Defensive Silence
(DES) is mediated by E.
H4c: The relationship between WOS and employee Diffident Silence
(DIS) is mediated by E.
H5: The relationship between WOS and ES is mediated by meaningful
existence (M)
H5a: The relationship between WOS and employee Acquiescent Silence
(AS) is mediated by M.
H5b: The relationship between WOS and employee Defensive Silence
(DES) is mediated by M.
H5c: The relationship between WOS and employee Diffident Silence
(DIS) is mediated by M.

Theoretical Framework

Employee Silence (ES)

Threatened Acquiescent
Needs silence (AS)
Workplace
ostracism Self-esteem
Defensive silence
(WOS) (E)
(DES)

Meaningful
existence
Diffident silence
(M)
(DIS)

115
Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences – Vol (10), Issue (1), 2017.
Research Methodology
The research is conducted under positivist paradigm by using
deductive approach as the intention was to test mediation model and
generalize findings among well-established variables. The ontological
assumption of singular reality and epistemological assumptions consider
objectivity of knowledge (Creswell, 2013). Quantitative cross-sectional
survey design has been used as it is most used method in social sciences
and it is appropriate when data are to be collected at single point
(Neuman, 2005). Total 135 universities are operating in public and
private sectors in Pakistan. Among them 76 belong to the public sector
with 79% of teachers working in this sector. Population of this study
constitute teachers serving in public sector universities of Punjab, cluster
sampling used and population is divided into two clusters i.e. Lahore
and other cities as 44% universities are present in Lahore. Participants
were randomly selected from these clusters (AEPAM, 2011).
Questionnaires were distributed among 200 respondents that is
appropriate according to criteria (5 respondents for each item)
established by Kline (2015) and similar research studies (Haq, 2014; Wu
et al., 2012; E. Xu, Huang, & Robinson, 2015). Out of 200, 159 usable
responses were received yielding a response rate of 79.5 % that is in
consistence with past research studies (Wu et al., 2012). The
questionnaire consisted of 38 questions, in which 6 questions were
related to demographics, while workplace ostracism was measured using
10 items scale (Ferris, Brown, Berry, & Lian, 2008), self-esteem and
meaningful existence having 5 items each (Jamieson, Harkins, &
Williams, 2010), acquiescent and defensive silence were measured using
5 items each (Dyne et al., 2003) and diffident silence was measured on 5
item scale proposed by Brinsfield (2013) see Appendix A. Responses
were measured on Five point Likert Scale (Strongly agree=1 to Strongly
Disagree=5). Linear regression was used to analyze hypothesis testing
direct associations among variables (i.e. workplace ostracism,
acquiescent, defensive and diffident silence). It is an appropriate
technique to find out the relationship in one independent variable and
dependant variable so regression analysis was run three times for each
dependant variable (Mukhopadhyay, 2008). In order to test the mediating
role of self esteem and meaningful existence Preacher and Hayes (2008)
multiple mediation test was conducted with 95% confidence interval and
Bootstrapping with 5000 samples, this is an adequate technique given
5000 bootstrap samples because of its assumption of non normal
sampling distribution and appropriateness for smaller sample sizes
(Shrout & Bolger 2002). Furthermore, previous research studies testing
the mediating mechanism between workplace ostracism and its outcomes
with smaller sample sizes have also successfully applied regression
based tests (Gkorezis & Bellou, 2016; Gkorezis, Panagiotou, &
Theodorou, 2016).

116
Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences – Vol (10), Issue (1), 2017.
Analysis and Results
Demographics
The demographic profile of participants is shown in Table 1
Table 1. Demographic Summary of participants
Sr.No Questions Category Frequency Percentage
1 Gender Male 84 52.%
Female 75 47.2%
2 Marital Status Single 60 37.7%

Married 99 62.3%
3 Age 20-25 36 22.6%
25-30 58 36.5%
30-35 35 22%
35-45 26 16.4%
Above 45 4 2.5%
4 Education Masters 29 18.2%
M.phil 113 71.1%
PhD 17 10.7%
5 Designation Lecturer 85 53.5%
Assistant 72 45.3%
Professor
Associate 2 1.3%
Professor
6 Experience Less than 1 42 26.4%
year
1-5 years 68 42.8%
5-10 years 30 18.9%
10-15 years 13 8.2%
Above 15 6 3.8%
years

Validity and Reliability Analysis

In order to make sure that the selected scales are valid in
measuring the variables of study convergent and discriminant validity is
established as shown in Table 2. Average variance explained (AVE) is
well above 0.5 that shows its convergent validity as per the criteria of
(Nuechterlein et al., 2008). Additionally discriminant validity is also
established as the value of AVE is greater than Maximum Shared
Variance (MSV) and Average Shared Variance (ASV) as per the criteria
of Fornell & Larcker, (1981) that sets the thresh hold for discriminant
validity as AVE> ASV and AVE> MSV. Furthermore, CR is also greater
than 0.7 that shows scale items are internally consistent as per criteria of
(Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

117
Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences – Vol (10), Issue (1), 2017.
Table 2. Convergent and Discriminant Validity of scales
Constructs Number of AVE CR MSV ASV
Items

Workplace 10 .605 .877 .432 .389

Ostracism
Acquiescent 5 .565 .865 .408 .365
Silence
Defensive 5 .542 .854 .388 .350
Silence
Diffident 5 .525 .846 .365 .304
Silence
Self-Esteem 5 .546 .856 .399 .376

Meaningful 5 .550 .857 .401 .370

Existence
Notes. AVE= Average Variance Explained, CE= Composite Reliability,
MSV=Maximum Shared Variance and ASV= Average Shared Variance
Estimated values of Cronbach’s Alpha are shown in Table 3, that showed
that measures are internally consistent and reliable as values ranged from
.87 to .978 that are good under criteria proposed by George and Mallery
(2003) as values > .9 are considered excellent, while those > .8 are
considered good.

Table 3. Reliability of Measurement

Constructs Number of Items Cronbach’s Alpha
Workplace Ostracism 10 .978
Acquiescent Silence 5 . 954
Defensive Silence 5 .969
Diffident Silence 5 .871
Self-Esteem 5 .968
Meaningful Existence 5 .946

Correlation Analysis
Correlation analysis was conducted in order to find out the
relationship among variables along with the strength of their association.
The results showed that WOS has strong positive association with AS
(r=.918), DES (r=.910) and DIS (r=.832). It means that teachers who
experience WOS indulge in AS, DES and DIS. While WOS is negatively
correlated to E (r=-.892) and M (r=-.894) that implies that teachers
experiencing WOS have low level of E and M. AS, DES and DIS had
also strong positive associations, that imply that teachers who are
118
Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences – Vol (10), Issue (1), 2017.
engaged in one type of silence are also engaged in other types and vice
versa. Furthermore, AS has strong negative correlation with E (r=-.877)
and M (r=-.876) and DES and DIS has similar trend. It means that
teachers having perception of low self-esteem and meaningful existence
engage in AS, DES and DIS.

Table 2. Correlation Analysis

WOS AS DES DIS E M
WOS 1
AS .918** 1
DES .910** .943** 1
**
DIS .832 - - 1
.892** .894**
E .807** - - - 1
.877** .876** .825**
M .853** - - - .888** 1
.863** .881** .798**
Notes. WOS=Workplace Ostracism, AS Acquiescent silence, DES=
Defensive silence, DIS=Diffident silence, E=Esteem, M=Meaningful
existence
**p≤0.01(2-tailed).

Regression Analysis
Direct association in Independent and dependent variables was
checked by using linear regression as shown in Table 4. It was found that
WOS has significant relationship with AS (ß= 0.341, t=29.06, sig. <
0.01), DES (ß= 0.345, t=27.48, sig. < 0.01) and DIS (ß= 0.313, t=18.8,
sig. < 0.01). This implies that Hypothesis, H1, H2 and H3 are accepted,
as WOS causes significant variance in AS (34.1%), DES (34.5%) and
DIS (31.3%).

Table 3. Regression Analysis

Independent Dependent Variables
Variable
WOS AS DES DIS
β .341** .345** .313**
t= 29.06 t=27.48 t=18.8
R2 .918 .910 .832
Adj. R2 .843 .828 .693
F-stat 844.505 755.345 354.162
Notes. WOS=Workplace Ostracism, AS Acquiescent silence, DES=
Defensive silence, DIS=Diffident silence, E=Esteem, M=Meaningful
existence,
**p≤0.01

119
Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences – Vol (10), Issue (1), 2017.
Mediation Analysis
Mediating role of Self-Esteem in relationship of Workplace
Ostracism and Acquiescent Silence
Mediation was tested using Preacher and Hayes (2008)
Mediation test. Path A represented a negative association in WOS and E
(ß= -.36, sig. < 0.01, t=24.68) while Path B showed a negative
association between E and AS (ß= -0.18, sig. < 0.05, t=2.8). It was
revealed by path C and C’, that E cause partial mediation in relationship
of WOS and AS (Path C, ß= 0.34, sig. < 0.01, t=29.06, Path C’, ß=
0.212, sig. < 0.01, t=7.6). Overall model statistics for H4a were also
significant (R2=0.8652, F= 331.50, p=0.000)
Table 4. Mediation Analysis (Workplace Ostracism, Self-Esteem,
Acquiescence Silence)
Path A Path B Path C Path C’ R2 F Sig.

β -.36** -.18** .34** .212** .8652 331.59 .000

t- 24.68 2.8 29.06 7.64
value
Notes. Path A= Independent to mediator, Path B= Mediator to dependant
variable, Path C= Independent variable to dependant variable (Total
effect), Path C’= Independent variable to dependant variable after
controlling for mediator (Indirect effect)
**p≤0.01

Mediating role of Meaningful Existence in relationship of Workplace

Ostracism and Acquiescent Silence
Path A represented a negative association in WOS and M (ß= -
.35, sig. < 0.01, t=25.06) while Path B showed a negative association
between M and AS (ß= -0.25, sig. < 0.01, t=4.05). It was revealed by
path C and C’, that M cause partial mediation in relationship of WOS
and AS (Path C, ß= 0.34, sig. < 0.01, t=29.06, Path C’, ß= 0.25, sig. <
0.01, t=9.9). Overall model statistics for H11 were also significant
(R2=0.852, F= 471.89, p=0.000). So, Hypothesis H5awas accepted.

Table 5. Mediation Analysis (Workplace Ostracism, Meaningful

Existence, Acquiescence Silence)
Path A Path B Path C Path C’ R2 F Sig.
β -.35** -.16** .34** .212** .8582 471.89 .000
t- 25.06 2.4 29.06 7.64
value
Notes. Path A= Independent to mediator, Path B= Mediator to dependant
variable, Path C= Independent variable to dependant variable (Total
effect), Path C’= Independent variable to dependant variable after
controlling for mediator (Indirect effect)
**p≤0.01

120
Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences – Vol (10), Issue (1), 2017.
Mediating role of Self-Esteem in relationship of Workplace
Ostracism and Defensive Silence
Path A represented a negative association in WOS and E (ß= -
.36, sig. < 0.01, t=24.68) while Path B showed a negative association
between E and DES (ß= -0.23, sig. < 0.01, t=3.5). It was revealed by
path C and C’, that E cause partial mediation in relationship of WOS and
DES (Path C, ß= 0.34, sig. < 0.01, t=27.48, Path C’, ß= 0.25, sig. < 0.01,
t=9.6). Overall model statistics for H4b was also significant (R2=0.8410,
F= 412.69, p=0.000).

Table 6. Mediation Analysis (Workplace Ostracism, Self-Esteem,

Defensive Silence)
Path A Path B Path C Path R2 F Sig.
C’
β -0.36** -0.23** 0.34** .25** .8410 412.69 .000
t- 24.68 3.5 27.48 9.6
value
Notes. Path A= Independent to mediator, Path B= Mediator to dependant
variable, Path C= Independent variable to dependant variable (Total
effect), Path C’= Independent variable to dependant variable after
controlling for mediator (Indirect effect)
**p≤0.01

Mediating role of Meaningful Existence in relationship of Workplace

Ostracism and Defensive Silence
Path A represented a negative association in WOS and M (ß= -
.35, sig. < 0.01, t=25.06) while Path B showed a negative association
between M and DES (ß= -0.31, sig. < 0.01, t= 4.8). It was revealed by
path C and C’, that M cause partial mediation in relationship of WOS
and DES (Path C, ß= 0.34, sig. < 0.01, t=27.48, Path C’, ß= 0.23, sig. <
0.01, t=8.8). Overall model statistics for H5b were also significant
(R2=0.8501, F= 442.47, p=0.000)
Table 7. Mediation Analysis (Workplace Ostracism, Self-Esteem,
Defensive Silence)
Path A Path B Path C Path C’ R2
β -.35** -.31** .34** .23** .8501
t-value 25.06 4.8 27.48 8.8
Notes. Path A= Independent to mediator, Path B= Mediator to dependant
variable, Path C= Independent variable to dependant variable (Total
effect), Path C’= Independent variable to dependant variable after
controlling for mediator (Indirect effect).
**p≤0.01

Mediating role of Self-Esteem in relationship of Workplace

Ostracism and Diffident Silence

121
Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences – Vol (10), Issue (1), 2017.
Path A represented a negative association in WOS and E (ß= -
.36, sig. < 0.01, t=24.68) while Path B showed a negative association
between E and DIS (ß= -0.37, sig. < 0.01, t=4.3). It was revealed by path
C and C’, that E cause partial mediation in relationship of WOS and DIS
(Path C, ß= 0.31, sig. < 0.01, t=18.8, Path C’, ß= .17, sig. < 0.01, t=5.09).
Overall model statistics for H4c were also significant (R2=.7265, F=
207.19, p=0.000).

Table 8. Mediation Analysis (Workplace Ostracism, Self-Esteem,

Diffident Silence)
Path A Path B Path C Path R2 F Sig.
C’
β -.36** -.37** .31** .17** .7265 207.19 .000
t- 24.68 3.5 18.8 5.09
value
Notes. Path A= Independent to mediator, Path B= Mediator to dependant
variable, Path C= Independent variable to dependant variable (Total
effect), Path C’= Independent variable to dependant variable after
controlling for mediator (Indirect effect)
**p≤0.01

Mediating role of Meaningful Existence in relationship of Workplace

Ostracism and Diffident Silence
Path A represented a negative association in WOS and M (ß= -
.35, sig. < 0.01, t=25.06) while Path B showed a negative association
between M and DIS (ß= -0.25, sig. < 0.01, t= 2.7). It was revealed by
path C and C’, that M cause partial mediation in relationship of WOS
and DIS (Path C, ß= 0.31, sig. < 0.01, t=18.8, Path C’, ß= 0.22, sig. <
0.01, t=6.11). Overall model statistics for H5cwere also significant
(R2=0.7072, F= 188.38, p=0.000). Table

Table 9. Mediation Analysis (Workplace Ostracism, Self-Esteem,

Diffident Silence)
Path A Path B Path C Path C’ R2 F Sig.
β -.35** -.25** .31** .22** .7072 188.38 .000
t- 25.06 2.7 18.8 6.11
value
Notes. Path A= Independent to mediator, Path B= Mediator to dependant
variable, Path C= Independent variable to dependant variable (Total
effect), Path C’= Independent variable to dependant variable after
controlling for mediator (Indirect effect)
**p≤0.01
The results revealed that H4 (H4a, H4b and H4c) and H5 (H5a, H5b and
H5c) were accepted.

122
Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences – Vol (10), Issue (1), 2017.
Discussion
The results revealed that workplace ostracism is positively
associated to all facets of employee silence, implying that ostracized
teachers indulge in silence behavior confirming the findings of (Gkorezis
et al., 2016b) who proposed workplace ostracism as a predictor of
employee silence. When teachers experience episodes of ostracism, they
develop a perception of being ignored, unwelcomed and ultimately they
engage in withdrawal behavior of silence (Donaghey et al., 2011;
Gkorezis et al., 2016b; Robinson et al., 2012; Zhang, Wang, & Xu,
2016). They feel that the information sharing and speaking will not
make any difference and its beyond their control to have a say in
decision making thereby indulging in acquiescent silence (Van Dyne et
al., 2003; Liang, Farh, & Farh, 2012; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008).
Moreover, being ostracized is extremely painful experience (Hales et al.,
2016; Williams, 2002, 2007, 2009), so individuals keep quiet to protect
themselves from this pain. The fear of ignored and unappreciated and
unwelcomed ideas and views keeps them from indulging in voice as they
think it will cause embarrassment, stress, depression and disrespect
(Brinsfield et al, 2009; Williams, 2002, 2009). This fear causes them to
proactively keep their ideas and information to themselves in order to
avoid negative consequences and engage in defensive silence (Morrison,
2014; Morrison & Milliken, 2000; Xu, Loi, & Lam, 2015; Zhao et al.,
2013). Apart from the external fear of facing negative consequences,
being ostracized creates an internal perception of uncertainty, as
ostracized teachers started doubting their own knowledge and
competence (Arkin et al., 2013; Gkorezis et al., 2016b). They feel doubt
whether they are competent enough to share information and ideas or
not, a doubt overshadows them and they feel doubtful whether they
should speak or not and they involve in diffident silence (Brinsfield,
2013; Morrison, 2014; Xu et al., 2015).
In order to get deeper insight into the underlying mechanism
linking workplace ostracism to employee silence the intervening role of
self-esteem and meaningful existence was postulated. The result of
Preacher and Hayes (2004) mediation test proved that self-esteem and
meaningful existence partially mediate the link between the mentioned
variables. In the light of available literature, it can be established that
ostracized teachers’ fundamental need to exist meaningfully and have
self-esteem is thwarted (Williams, 2009). Thereby, they feel insecure and
have unfavorable evaluations of themselves that resulting in acquiescent
silence based on resignation (Gkorezis et al., 2016b; Xu et al., 2015).
Employees with lower level of self-esteem tend to have protective
tendencies and avoid negative outcomes, so they keep quiet to protect
themselves from negative results and engaging in defensive silence
(Gkorezis et al., 2016b; Premeaux & Bedeian, 2003; Xu et al., 2015). It
is also substantiated that ostracized teachers having lower self-esteem
levels view themselves as less competent and have internal feelings of
123
Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences – Vol (10), Issue (1), 2017.
being uncertain of their capabilities. Hence, they become non-decisive
about their stance and prefer to indulge in diffident silence (Morrison,
2014; Pacheco et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2016).
Additionally, meaningful existence was also found to partially
mediate the association between workplace ostracism and employee
silence. In case teachers are ostracized constantly by ignoring their ideas
and suggestions, they are made realize that their existence has no
meaning and worth for institution. This ultimately results in
deteriorating teachers’ perception of being useful and valuable person
and causes them to think that they are not a worthwhile as their ideas and
opinions have no worth for institute (Williams, 2009). Consequently,
they indulge in silence based on resignation. Furthermore it will cause
them to keep information and knowledge to themselves based on fear
that it will not be heard or they might be ignored on this basis. A lower
perception of being a valuable person also cause the teachers to preserve
their image and save themselves from being perceived as incompetent
person thereby engaging in diffident silence (Brinsfield, 2013; Gkorezis
et al., 2016b; Zhang et al., 2016).

Conclusion
Drawing on TNTM the findings of this research substantiate that
ostracized teachers develop perceptions of being ignored and excluded.
This spurs lower perceptions of self-esteem and meaningful existence
that cause them indulge in silence by withholding information and ideas
that could have been used for betterment of their institutes on the basis of
resignation, fear of negative results and internal doubt and uncertainty.
Contributions
Theoretically present research has contributed to the body of
knowledge on account of answering the call of Zhang et al. (2016) by
empirically unraveling workplace ostracism as a predictor of employee
silence incorporating the mediating role of self-esteem and meaningful
existence. The findings also offer policy and practice implications for
authorities, management and decision makers in HEIs to improve the
performance of their teachers by devising the practices that eliminate
ostracism and employee silence creating an environment of unity, trust,
inclusion and cooperation. They can create grievance mechanisms,
proper performance appraisals and strategies to improve social
interaction, information access and control of resource better in order to
reduce the dysfunctional silence.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

Despite having practical and theoretical contributions, present
research has certain limitations. The results are based on cross sectional
survey building on quantitative approach. Moreover, it incorporates only
three dimensions of employee silence and the findings are only valid for
teachers in HEIs of Punjab. In future, researches can incorporate other
124
Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences – Vol (10), Issue (1), 2017.
types of employee silence i.e. pro-social silence (Van Dyne et al., 2003)
and Deviant silence (Brinsfield, 2013), different mediators i.e.
Psychological safety (Pacheco et al., 2015) and felt obligation (Liang et
al., 2012). More comprehensive insights can be attained by examining
the role of moderators such as trust (Khalid & Ahmed, 2016), individual
dispositions, leader behaviors and contextual factors i.e. climate of fear,
change resistant cultures, personality traits, leader-member exchange and
leadership styles to find the inhibitors and facilitates of employee silence
(Morrison, 2014). Future researchers can use mixed methods, investigate
in other organizational and national contexts to attain generalizable and
robust understanding in this area.
References
AEPAM. (2011). Statistics of HEIs in Pakistan Retrieved 4 May, 2016, from
http://www.hec.gov.pk/htmls/stat.doc
Arkin, R. M., Oleson, K. C., & Carroll, P. J. (2013). Handbook of the uncertain
self: Psychology Press.
Bowen, F., & Blackmon, K. (2003). Spirals of Silence: The Dynamic Effects of
Diversity on Organizational Voice. Journal of Management Studies,
40(6), 1393-1417.
Brinsfield, C. T. (2013). Employee silence motives: Investigation of
dimensionality and development of measures. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 34(5), 671-697.
Brinsfield, C. T., Edwards, M. S., Greenberg, J. (2009). Voice and silence in
organizations: Historical review and current conceptualizations.
Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches: Sage publications.
Donaghey, J., C., Niall, D., T., & Wilkinson, A. (2011). Reconceptualising
employee silence: problems and prognosis. Work, employment and
society, 25(1), 51-67.
Erkutlu, H. & Chafra, J. (2016). Impact of behavioral integrity on workplace
ostracism: The moderating roles of narcissistic personality and
psychological distance. Journal of Applied Research in Higher
Education, 8(2), 222-237.
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.
Ferris, D. L., Chen, M., & Lim, S. (2016). Comparing and Contrasting
Workplace Ostracism and Incivility. Annual Review of Organizational
Psychology and Organizational Behavior. 4(1), 315-338.
Gagnon, S. & Cakici, K. (2008). Integrating business services networks and the
internet of things: A new framework for mobile software as a service.
Paper presented at the V conference of the Italian chapter of AIS (itAIS
2008), Paris, France.
George, D. & Mallery, M. (2003). Using SPSS for Windows step by step: a
simple guide and reference. Boston, MA: Allyn y Bacon.
Gkorezis, P. & Bellou, V. (2016). The relationship between workplace ostracism
and information exchange: The mediating role of self-serving behavior.
Management Decision, 54(3), 700-713.

125
Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences – Vol (10), Issue (1), 2017.
Gkorezis, P., Panagiotou, M., & Theodorou, M. (2016a). Workplace ostracism
and employee silence in nursing: the mediating role of organizational
identification. Journal of advanced nursing.
Gkorezis, P., Panagiotou, M., & Theodorou, M. (2016b). Workplace ostracism
and employee silence in nursing: the mediating role of organizational
identification. Journal of advanced nursing, 72(10), 2381-2388.
Gong, Y., Cheung, S., Wang, M., & Huang, J. (2012). Unfolding the proactive
process for creativity: Integration of the employee proactivity,
information exchange, and psychological safety perspectives. Journal
of management, 38(5), 1611-1633.
Hales, A. H., Kassner, M. P., Williams, K. D., & Graziano, W. G. (2016).
Disagreeableness as a Cause and Consequence of Ostracism.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(6), 782-797.
Haq, I. U. (2014). Workplace ostracism and job outcomes: Moderating effects of
psychological capital. Paper presented at the Human capital without
borders: Knowledge and learning for quality of life: Proceedings of the
management, knowledge and learning international conference 2014.
Hitlan, R.T., Kelly, K. M., Schepman, S., Schneider, K. T., & Zárate, M. A.
(2006). Language exclusion and the consequences of perceived
ostracism in the workplace. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and
Practice, 10(1), 56.
Jamieson, J. P., Harkins, S. G., & Williams, K. D. (2010). Need threat can
motivate performance after ostracism. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 36(5), 690-702.
Jones, E. E., Carter, A. R., Kelly, J. R., & Williams, K. D. (2009). I'm out of the
loop': Ostracism through information exclusion. Group Processes &
Intergroup Relations, 12(2), 157-174.
Khalid, J., & Ahmed, J. (2016). Perceived organizational politics and employee
silence: supervisor trust as a moderator. Journal of the Asia Pacific
Economy, 21(2), 174-195.
Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling:
Guilford publications.
Liang, J., Farh, C. & Farh, J. (2012). Psychological antecedents of promotive
and prohibitive voice: A two-wave examination. Academy of
Management Journal, 55(1), 71-92.
Milliken, F., Morrison, E. W. & Hewlin, P. F. (2003). An exploratory study of
employee silence: Issues that employees don’t communicate upward
and why. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1453-1476.
Morrison, E. W. (2014). Employee voice and silence. Annual Review of
Organizational Psychoogy and Organiztaional Behavior 1(1), 173-
197.
Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to
change and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of
Management review, 25(4), 706-725.
Mukhopadhyay, P. (2008). Multivariate statistical analysis: World Scientific
Publishing Co Inc.
Neuman, W. L. (2005). Social research methods: Quantitative and qualitative
approaches (Vol. 13): Allyn and bacon Boston, MA.
O’Reilly, J., & Robinson, S. L. (2009). Ostracism at work: The impact of
ostracism on thwarted belongingness and work contributions. Paper

126
Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences – Vol (10), Issue (1), 2017.
presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management,
Chicago, IL.
Pacheco, D. C., De Serpa, A., Ana, I. D., & Caldeira, S. N. (2015). Silence in
organizations and psychological safety: a literature review. European
Scientific Journal. 5(7), 293-308.
Pinder, C. C., & Harlos, K. P. (2001). Employee silence: Quiescence and
acquiescence as responses to perceived injustice Research in personnel
and human resources management (pp. 331-369): Emerald Group
Publishing Limited.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating
indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior research
methods, instruments, & computers, 36(4), 717-731.
Premeaux, S. F., & Bedeian, A. G. (2003). Breaking the Silence: The
Moderating Effects of Self‐Monitoring in Predicting Speaking Up in
the Workplace. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1537-1562.
Robinson, S. L., O’Reilly, J., & Wang, W. (2012). Invisible at work an
integrated model of workplace ostracism. Journal of Management,
39(1), 203-231.
Siddique, A., Aslam, H., Danial, K., M., & Fatima, U. (2011). Impact of
academic leadership on faculty's motivation, and organizational
effectiveness in higher education system. International Journal of
Business and Social Science, 2(8), 184-191.
Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. (2008). Employee silence on critical work
issues: The cross level effects of procedural justice climate. Personnel
Psychology, 61(1), 37-68.
Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Botero, I. C. (2003). Conceptualizing Employee
Silence and Employee Voice as Multidimensional Constructs. Journal
of Management Studies, 40(6), 1359-1392.
Williams, K. D. (2002). Ostracism: The power of silence: Guilford Press.
Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Psychology, 58(1), 425.
Williams, K. D. (2009). Ostracism: A temporal need‐threat model. Advances in
experimental social psychology, 41, 275-314.
Williams, K. D., & Nida, S. A. (2011). Ostracism consequences and coping.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(2), 71-75.
Wu, L., Yim, F. H., Kwan, H. K., & Zhang, X. (2012). Coping with workplace
ostracism: The roles of ingratiation and political skill in employee
psychological distress. Journal of Management Studies, 49(1), 178-
199.
Xu, A. J., Loi, R., & Lam, L. W. (2015). The bad boss takes it all: How abusive
supervision and leader–member exchange interact to influence
employee silence. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(5), 763-774.
Xu, E., Huang, X., & Robinson, S. L. (2015). When Self-View Is at Stake
Responses to Ostracism Through the Lens of Self-Verification Theory.
Journal of Management, 42(1),1-21.
Zhang, L., Wang, H., & Xu, S. (2016). Affective Model of Voice and Silence
Behavior Regulation. Paper presented at the Academy of Management
Proceedings.
Zhao, H., & Xia, Q. (2017). An examination of the curvilinear relationship
between workplace ostracism and knowledge hoarding. Management
Decision, 55(2).

127
Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences – Vol (10), Issue (1), 2017.
Zhao, H., Peng, Z. & Sheard, G. (2013). Workplace ostracism and hospitality
employees’ counterproductive work behaviors: The joint moderating
effects of proactive personality and political skill. International Journal
of Hospitality Management, 33, 219-227.
Zimmerman, C. A., Carter-Sowell, A. R., & Xu, X. (2016). Examining
Workplace Ostracism Experiences in Academia: Understanding How
Differences in the Faculty Ranks Influence Inclusive Climates on
Campus. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. 753.

128