Knowledge that Transforms

This article offers a review, integration, and extension of the literature relevant to ostracism in organizations. We first seek to add conceptual clarity to ostracism, by reviewing existing definitions and developing a cohesive one, identifying the key features of workplace ostracism, and distinguishing it from existing organizational constructs. Next, we develop a broad model of ostracism in organizations. This model serves to integrate the relevant findings related to ostracism in organizations and to extend our theorizing about it. We take a decidedly organizational focus, proposing organizationally relevant factors that may cause different types of ostracism, moderate the experience of ostracism at work, and moderate the reactions of targets. We hope this article will provide a good foundation for organizational scholars interested in studying ostracism by providing a framework of prior literature and directions for future study.

Previous research has primarily revealed a negative relationship between collective employee turnover and organizational performance. However, this research also suggests underlying complexity in the relationship. To clarify the nature of this relationship, the authors conduct a meta-analytic review in which they test and provide support for a portion of Hausknecht and Trevor’s model of collective turnover. The authors’ meta-analysis includes 48 independent samples reporting 157 effect size estimates ( N = 24,943), tests six hypothesized moderator variables, and provides path analyses to test alternative conceptualizations of the turnover–organizational performance relationship. Results indicate that the mean corrected correlation between turnover and organizational performance is −.03, but this relationship is moderated by several important variables. For example, the relationship is stronger in manufacturing and transportation industries (−.07), for managerial employees (−.08), in midsize organizations (−.07), in samples from labor market economies (−.05), and when organizational performance is operationalized in terms of customer service (−.10) or quality and safety (−.12) metrics. In addition, proximal performance outcomes mediate relationships with financial performance. The authors discuss implications of their results for theory and practice and provide directions for future research.

Research examining the relationship between work stress and well-being has flourished over the past 20 years. At the same time, research on physiological stress processes has also advanced significantly. One of the major advances in this literature has been the emergence of the Allostatic Load model as a central organizing theory for understanding the physiology of stress. In this article, the Allostatic Load model is used as an organizing framework for reviewing the vast literature that has considered health outcomes that are associated with exposure to psychosocial stressors at work. This review spans multiple disciplines and includes a critical discussion of management and applied psychology research, epidemiological studies, and recent developments in biology, neuroendocrinology, and physiology that provide insight into how workplace experiences affect well-being. The authors critically review the literature within an Allostatic Load framework, with a focus on primary (e.g., stress hormones, anxiety and tension) and secondary (e.g., resting blood pressure, cholesterol, body mass index) mediators, as well as tertiary disease end points (e.g., cardiovascular disease, depression, mortality). Recommendations are provided for how future research can offer deeper insight into primary Allostatic Load processes that explain the effects of workplace experiences on mental and physical well-being.