Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 50 (2022) 119–126

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhtm

Workplace ostracism: Impact on social capital, organizational trust, and

service recovery performance
Ayşın Paşamehmetoğlu a, Renata F. Guzzo b, *, Priyanko Guchait c
a
School of Applied Sciences, Hotel Management Program, Özyeğin University, Istanbul, Turkey
b
Hospitality Leadership, Missouri State University, Springfield, MO, USA
c
Conrad N. Hilton College of Hotel and Restaurant Management, University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The main purpose of the study was to examine the influence of workplace ostracism on service recovery per­
Service recovery performance formance (SRP). Because effective SRP is crucial for the success of hospitality businesses, it is important to study
Ostracism new factors that can enhance SRP. The current study makes a significant contribution to the service recovery
Bonding social capital with co-workers
literature by identifying critical predictors of SRP. Although the effects of workplace ostracism on work outcomes
Organizational trust
are well established, much less is known about the underlying mechanisms linking those relationships. Drawing
from the conservation of resource theory, this study particularly examined the mediating role of bonding social
capital with co-workers and organizational trust. Data was collected from five-star hotels in Turkey involving 180
employees. Structural equation modeling results show the mediating effect of bonding social capital and orga­
nizational trust between ostracism and SRP. The current study significantly contributes to the ostracism literature
by finding a new outcome variable (i.e., SRP - an essential element of service performance which is especially
important in hospitality and tourism contexts) and two new mediators that explain the underlying mechanism.
The study provides implications for researchers and practitioners.

1. Introduction workplace ostracism. In addition, it is critical to understand the mech­

Ostracism is an extensive phenomenon that can occur across
different aspects of one’s social life (Ferris et al., 2008). Suppose an
individual walk into a room and receives the ‘silent treatment’ from
colleagues or is not invited to social gatherings like coffee breaks or
lunches. In that case, the employee is being ostracized by others
(O’Reilly & Robinson, 2009). As social beings, people desire to be
accepted as members of a group and need to belong and be part of
groups (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). The ruined social bonds among
people create negative feelings; it can cause a lack of belongingness and
physical pain (MacDonald & Leary, 2005). The latest ostracism
meta-analysis study reported that workplace ostracism is connected to
aberrant work behavior and negatively affects core-performance and
extra-role behaviors, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction
(Howard et al., 2019).
While there is evidence about the effects of workplace ostracism on
work outcomes, much less is known about the underlying mechanisms
linking the relationship (Haldorai et al., 2020; Lyu & Zhu, 2019). Such
gaps in the literature undermine the theoretical understanding of
anisms in order to develop effective remedies and reduce the costs
associated with this problem. Ostracism is one of the most common
incidents in everyday life, and it has been considered a pervasive
problem in organizations worldwide, including hospitality (Zhu et al.,
2017). For example, O’Reilly et al. (2015) surveyed 1300 working U.S.
participants and discovered that 71% of the sample had experienced
some degree of ostracism at work. Haldorai et al. (2020), while
analyzing the effects of ostracism on workplace belongingness and work
engagement, found ostracism to be insidious for hotel employees in
Thailand (M = 4.51, 7-point scale). Calls to explore different elements
that could buffer the detrimental effects of ostracism at work have been
made by different researchers (e.g., Lyu & Zhu, 2019).
This study focused on examining the underlying mechanisms linking
workplace ostracism and service recovery performance (SRP). Hospi­
tality businesses’ success depends upon service recovery strategies.
Hospitality employees deal with service failures and service recovery
strategies quite often. Service failures have negative organizational and
individual impacts such as loss of quality, revenue, customers, and
decreased employee performance and morale (Guchait et al., 2016;

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: aysin.pmoglu@ozyegin.edu.tr (A. Paşamehmetoğlu), renataguzzo@missouristate.edu (R.F. Guzzo), pguchait@uh.edu (P. Guchait).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2022.01.007
Received 15 March 2021; Received in revised form 7 October 2021; Accepted 22 January 2022
Available online 1 February 2022
1447-6770/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. on behalf of CAUTHE - COUNCIL FOR AUSTRALASIAN TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY EDUCATION.
All rights reserved.
A. Paşamehmetoğlu et al.
Swanson & Hsu, 2011). Indeed, many researchers have discussed the
benefits of investing in effective service recovery strategies. Customer
loyalty, repurchase intention, increased profits, positive word of mouth,
improved satisfaction, and employee and co-worker helping behaviors
can all be enhanced by effective service recovery strategies (Guchait
et al., 2015; Swanson & Hsu, 2011). As employees are responsible for
performing service recoveries, they need to feel resourceful to provide
the required recoveries. Ostracized employees experience psychological
strains because they have to cope with anxiety and stress. Consequently,
based on the conservation of resources theory (COR; Hobfoll, 1989),
these employees will not have the same resources available to engage in
job duties, like effective service recoveries, while compared to
non-ostracized employees (Cox et al., 1993; Wang et al., 2020). Ac­
cording to COR, individuals value resources, and therefore try to acquire
and sustain them.
While approaching workplace ostracism from a conservation of re­
sources perspective, two main factors become particularly interesting:
social capital and organizational trust. Specifically, this study is con­
cerned with bonding social capital with co-workers, which refers to the
links established between work colleagues. Bonding social capital can be
a resource providing access to other resources such as people one can
learn from (Andresen et al., 2018) while fulfilling the need for belong­
ingness (Al-Atwi, 2017). Social capital has been found to enhance em­
ployees’ commitment, job performance, extra-role behaviors, vigor, and
psychological well-being (Abraham et al., 2009; Clausen et al., 2019;
Ellinger et al., 2013). Conversely, denying social connections (e.g.,
ostracism) can have negative consequences on individuals. Ostracized
employees can have difficulties reaching work-related resources and
accessing information frequently embodied in social ties (Wu et al.,
2011). Such limitation can also threaten one’s need for belongingness
(Al-Atwi, 2017). Therefore, based on the premises of COR (Hobfoll,
1989) and needs-based theories (Ryan & Deci, 2000), this study predicts
that ostracized employees will have fewer resources to engage in
effective service recoveries due to having lower bonding social capital
with co-workers.
Organizational trust was also examined as a mediating mechanism
between workplace ostracism and SRP. Trust can be considered a
resource signal indicating that individuals have higher chances to ach­
ieve their goals (Halbesleben et al., 2014). Trust has a particular role in
building social connections and exchanges (Fukuyama, 1995) and in
influencing organizational outcomes as a reciprocation act (Aryee et al.,
2002; Mayer et al., 1995). Specifically, due to the exclusionary nature of
workplace ostracism, which can generate an absence of social ex­
changes, individuals can blame their organizations, decreasing their
trust. Considering the importance of social exchanges (Homans, 1958),
this study predicts that ostracized employees will be less inclined to
perform effective service recoveries due to lower organizational trust.
This study makes several contributions to the understanding of
ostracism in the workplace. First, little is known about the relationship
between ostracism and SRP. There is a need to explore internal error
preventions by focusing on aspects that influence employees’ SRP
(Guchait et al., 2014; Lin, 2010; Wang et al., 2020). While service re­
covery provides several benefits to service organizations (Swanson &
Hsu, 2011), ostracism decreases satisfaction. Workplace ostracism is a
direct danger to employees’ sense of belonging, need for self-esteem,
meaningful existence, sense of control and can cause damages to the
business (Oaten et al., 2008). Second, calls to further explore ostracism
from the victimization perspective (triadic process between victim,
perpetrator, and environment) have been recently made (Howard et al.,
2019). The present study explores two aspects in the triad (victim and
environment) by examining the employees’ perceptions about ostracism
and the outcomes of being ostracized at work. Ultimately, this study
explores critical mediating mechanisms between ostracism and SRP.
Workplace ostracism depletes employees emotionally, limiting their
access to resources (Haldorai et al., 2020). Even though bonding social
capital is an essential resource and need in work settings (Andresen
120
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 50 (2022) 119–126
et al., 2018) and organizational trust is a crucial antecedent of organi­
zational outcomes, such as commitment, job satisfaction, organizational
citizenship behaviors, and intention to leave (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002;
Miner-Rubino & Reed, 2010; Tourigny et al., 2019), no research has
examined such mechanisms. The research findings will add to the hos­
pitality literature by including workplace ostracism in the service re­
covery model.
2. Theory and hypothesis development
2.1. Workplace ostracism
Ostracism can be understood as individuals’ perceptions about the
extent one is excluded or ignored by others (Williams, 2001). Workplace
ostracism can take place in different situations. For example, employees
may purposefully stop talking with their colleagues in the break room,
or they can avoid participating in activities with others in their office
(Ferris et al., 2008). Workplace ostracism is a challenging, unpleasant
organizational experience, which threatens employees’ sense of
belonging (Ferris et al., 2008; Williams, 2007). It also activates some
parts of the brain, giving employees physical pain (Eisenberger et al.,
2003). As the experience of ostracism is distressful and requires coping
strategies, extra resource investments may be necessary (Zhu et al.,
2017).
The COR theory can explain the process by which workplace ostra­
cism affects individuals. COR suggests that individuals seek to “obtain,
retain, protect, and foster those things that they value” (Hobfoll, 2001,
p. 341). These valued entities can be understood as resources or the
capability individuals have to satisfy their central needs (Hobfoll, 2002).
This capability might be related to physical, social, motivational,
financial, and cognitive resources (Wang, 2007). Depending on the sit­
uation, environmental circumstances can offer a threat or cause deple­
tion of an individual’s resources (Hobfoll, 1989). Thus, individuals in
their social contexts strive to protect the self and, at the same time,
protect their connections and resources that help in establishing social
relationships. Workplace ostracism can exhaust employees’ resources,
which are indispensable in supporting work outcomes (Hsieh & Kar­
atepe, 2019; Leung et al., 2011; Zhu et al., 2017). When ostracized at
work, an employee can ruminate over the experience, limiting the
number of resources used while performing job tasks. Wu et al. (2016)
explained that being ostracized by colleagues can decrease employees’
feelings of belongingness and decrease identity within the workplace,
threatening organizational performance.
2.2. Consequences of ostracism: impacts on bonding social capital and
organizational trust
Social capital has been explained as the “resources accumulated
through the relationships among people” (Ellison et al., 2007, p. 1145).
Putnam (2000) discussed two types of social capital: bonding and
bridging social capital. Bridging social capital can be understood as
connections across heterogeneous groups that are weak and result in
information deprivation (Aldrich, 2012; Granovetter, 1983). Bonding
social capital is the connection between same-minded people (close ties)
such as people in the neighborhood, relatives, co-workers, and close
friends and family (Buğra, 2001; Coleman, 1988; Fukuyama, 1995;
Putnam, 1995).
The current research focuses explicitly on bonding social capital with
co-workers. Bonding social capital with co-workers appeals to the social
capital and bonds created by networks and connections with colleagues
at work. Some antecedents of social capital include workload and
organizational change, which have been found to have a negative in­
fluence on social capital; and job security and ethical managerial
behavior, which have a positive influence on social capital (Parzefall &
Kuppelwieser, 2012; Pastoriza et al., 2008). Social bonds with
co-workers are especially relevant for hospitality organizations, as it
A. Paşamehmetoğlu et al.
increases collaboration and knowledge sharing, and mitigate
stress-driven emotional labor, which is critical to managing unexpected
incidents during service delivery (Ali et al., 2020; Anasori et al., 2021;
Huertas-Valdivia et al., 2019).
While bonding social capital is embedded in emotional relations
(Putnam, 2000), workplace ostracism can be thought of as “social death”
where ostracism targets feel as they no longer exist to others (Williams &
Zadro, 2001). As social beings, individuals desire to be accepted, and
they want to belong to a group as a member (Baumeister & Leary, 1995).
Based on COR, social ties can be compromised if ostracism is present, as
individuals will not form or preserve such ties. Social ties can be a
crucial resource, especially in environments that require group efforts
(Clopton, 2011). Ostracized employees can have difficulties reaching
work-related resources and accessing information frequently embodied
in social ties (Wu et al., 2011). Such limitation can also threaten one’s
need for belongingness (Al-Atwi, 2017). Belongingness theory proposes
that the need to belong – the perception that one is accepted and valued
by others – is an inherent human need (Baumeister & Leary, 1995;
O’Reilly et al., 2015). Therefore, based on the premises of COR and
belongingness theory (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), when employees feel
ostracized, they are likely to have lower social capital.
Hypothesis 1. Ostracism will be negatively related to bonding social
capital with co-workers
Organizational trust has been defined as “the employee’s confidence
that the organization will perform an action that is beneficial or at least
not detrimental to him or her” (Tan & Tan, 2000, p. 243). Organizational
trust focuses on employees’ trust in their organization, which can
motivate people by giving them satisfaction in their work (Sonea et al.,
2015). This study focuses specifically on organizational trust because
when employees feel excluded (e.g., experiencing ostracism), they tend
to withdraw from social exchange relationships with organizations or
co-workers (Hitlan & Noel, 2009), which can affect their trust (Uslu,
2021). Researchers in the COR literature have suggested a separation
between resources and factors that can signal available resources (Hal­
besleben et al., 2014). For instance, Halbesleben and Wheeler (2015)
proposed that trust can be seen as a signal that investment of resources
can assist individuals to accomplish their goals of achieving more re­
sources. Thus, trust is a fundamental factor to help prevent resource loss,
develop new resources, and keep needed resources.
While employees’ trust in the organization reflects their psycholog­
ical confidence in the employment relationship (Tan & Lim, 2009),
being ostracized by others decreases employees’ identification with the
organization and their sense of belongingness (Wu et al., 2016). Inter­
personal mistreatment at work (e.g., ostracism) can lead to emotional
consequences (e.g., fear, distrust; Barling, 1996). According to the
attribution theory, emotions can lead individuals to search for the causes
of events (Weiner, 1985). The importance of attribution processes has
been highlighted by research on loneliness. For example, the inconsis­
tency between the inter-personal interactions that are desired and those
that are realized have been previously investigated (e.g., Peplau et al.,
1979, pp. 53–78). Individuals tend to attribute adverse events externally
(to the other, social unit or situation; Sommer et al., 2001; Weiner,
1985). Indeed, when employees are victims of ostracism, they can blame
the organization for “allowing” or being complicit in the situation’s
development. As the social context have a role in the attributions in­
dividuals make while reasoning why others are socially excluding them
at work (Banki, 2012), organizational trust can be affected. Organiza­
tional trust is also affected by perceptions of organizational justice
(DeConinck, 2010; Puusa & Tolvanen, 2006). Ostracized employees,
through attribution processes, can have the perception of an unfair
(unjust) workplace, leading to reduced organizational trust (DeConinck,
2010). Therefore, when employees feel ostracized at work, they are
likely to trust the organization less.
Hypothesis 2. Ostracism will be negatively related to organizational
trust.
121
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 50 (2022) 119–126
2.3. The influence of bonding social capital and organizational trust on
service recovery performance
Service recovery can be understood as: “the actions by a service firm
to make up for service failure (the case when a customer experiences an
unsatisfactory or undeserved service) so that the customer returns to the
firm with satisfaction” (Choi et al., 2014, p. 276). The concept of service
recovery has been extensively analyzed in hospitality research (Arda­
han, 2007; Hoffman et al., 1995; Mattila & Patterson, 2004; Smith et al.,
1999); primarily focusing on frontline employees’ SRP (Boshoff & Allen,
2000; Guchait et al. al., 2014; Karatepe, 2012; Wang et al., 2020).
Although little is known about the relationship between social cap­
ital and SRP, researchers have discussed that social capital positively
influences employees’ performance, such as increasing organizational
productivity and entrepreneurial skills (Brien et al., 2013; Lin et al.,
2006). Ellinger et al. (2013) found that organizational investments in
social capital positively affect frontline employees’ organizational citi­
zenship behavior, job performance, and commitment. Based on COR,
social capital can be considered a resource for employees, as transferring
knowledge and information with one’s network is crucial for achieving
individual goals (Andresen et al., 2018; Lin et al., 2001). Specifically,
having close ties can help with social support and overcoming assistance
strategies (Thoits, 2011).
In hospitality contexts known for being labor-intensive and stressful
(Jung & Yoon, 2014), having bonding social capital with co-workers can
help employees navigate such adversities. Having bonding social capital
at work ensures individuals access resources that help them better un­
derstand the organization itself and job tasks. Bonding social capital that
is based on close and trustful relations (Putnam, 2000) has been found to
enhance work engagement (Fujita et al., 2016; Meng et al., 2018) an/d
reduce stress (Andresen et al., 2018). When social capital is high, em­
ployees can have their sense of belonging fulfilled and have the re­
sources and potential to perform beyond their job responsibilities. To
perform SRP, employees need to feel resourceful (Ashill et al., 2009).
Thus, we predict that bonding social capital will have a positive impact
on service recovery performance:
Hypothesis 3. Bonding social capital with co-workers will be posi­
tively related to service recovery performance.
Organizational trust is a critical antecedent of organizational be­
haviors, positively impacting extra-role behaviors, job satisfaction, and
reducing turnover intentions (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Miner-Rubino &
Reed, 2010; Tourigny et al., 2019). Drawing from social exchange the­
ory (SET) (Homans, 1958), trust in organizations leads to positive em­
ployee’s outcomes. SET argues that actions are contingent on the
rewarding reactions of others, which over time, provide for mutually
and beneficial transactions and relationships (Cropanzano & Mitchell,
2005). SET also calls attention to the importance of quality and trusting
relationships between employees and organizations, as it generates
reciprocation opportunities (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). The existence of
trust in the workplace is an essential condition for effective organiza­
tional performance (Lamsa & Pucetaite, 2006). Vineburg (2010)
demonstrated that organizational trust results in higher levels of orga­
nizational performance. Considering that SRP is a critical work outcome
for hospitality companies, exploring the connection between organiza­
tional trust and SRP is needed. Thus:
Hypothesis 4. Organizational trust will be positively related to service
recovery performance.
2.4. The mediating effects of bonding social capital and organizational
trust
Bonding social capital with co-workers can enhance employees’
feeling of belonging, as it establishes bonds formed through similar in­
terests and reciprocal attraction (Chen et al., 2009). Needs-based the­
ories propose that social connections are psychological needs (e.g.,
A. Paşamehmetoğlu et al.
relatedness or belongingness; Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Ryan & Deci,
2000). Social connections and other needs (e.g., competence and au­
tonomy) are necessary for well-being, psychological health, and facili­
tating effective social functioning at work (Deci et al., 2017). When
employees are ostracized, they are being denied social connections,
which can have powerful negative outcomes as their need for belonging
is threatened. In addition, based on COR theory, ostracized employees,
who have weak or no social ties, may have fewer chances to access
critical resources at work tied to social connections (Wu et al., 2011),
impacting their work performance. Based on these assertions, the
following Hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 5. Bonding social capital with co-workers will mediate the
relationship between ostracism and service recovery performance
Based on COR theory, trust signals that investment of resources can
bring positive outcomes for individuals (Halbesleben et al., 2014). For
example, Lapointe and Vandenberghe (2018) explained through COR
that trust in the supervisor promoted resource gain through
feedback-seeking from the supervisor. At the same time, if trust is not
present, it is likely that resource gain will be compromised or limited.
According to previous research, when individuals feel excluded, their
trust is affected (Barling, 1996; Uslu, 2021).
When employees are ostracized, they can attribute blame towards
the organization, which can affect their trust. However, previous
research has also shown that organizational trust can influence organi­
zational outcomes such as organizational performance, extra-role be­
haviors, job satisfaction, and reducing turnover intentions and job
burnout (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Miner-Rubino & Reed, 2010; Tourigny
et al., 2019; Vineburg, 2010). In addition, different studies have found
that organizational trust is a mediating mechanism between
organizational-level factors (e.g., justice, incivility, perceived organi­
zational support, and communication) and work outcomes such as job
satisfaction and job burnout (Aryee et al., 2002; Miner-Rubino & Reed,
2010; Singh & Srivastava, 2016). Therefore, previous research offers
substantial assistance for the assertion that ostracism negatively impacts
SRP through organizational trust. Fig. 1 shows the conceptual model.
Hypothesis 6. Organizational trust will mediate the relationship be­
tween ostracism and service recovery performance.
3. Method
3.1. Participants
Data was collected from 4 five-star hotel’ employees located in
İstanbul, Turkey. Recent research has found ostracism to be a severe
organizational problem in Turkey (Gurlek, 2021; Soybalı & Pelit, 2018;
Turkoglu & Dalgic, 2019). For example, Gurlek (2021), while investi­
gating the effect of workplace ostracism on counterproductive work
behavior, found that ostracism was a significant problem in the restau­
rant industry in İstanbul (M = 4.23, 5-point scale). Likewise, Soybalı and
Pelit (2018) found that ostracism significantly impacted Turkey hotel
employees’ intention to leave their workplaces. Therefore, this study
Fig. 1. Conceptual model.
122
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 50 (2022) 119–126
focuses specifically on Turkey employees to better understand the un­
derlying conditions that can buffer the pervasive effects of ostracism in
hospitality workers.
The questionnaire was distributed to 187 hotel employees. The total
response rate was 96.2% (180 questionnaires were returned). The ma­
jority of respondents were males (53.3%), in the age range of 21–25
(65%), and had a university degree diploma (75.6%). The respondents’
departments are specifically: front office (18.3%), reservation (3.3%),
kitchen (27.2%), restaurant (12.2%), accounting (10%), sales (17.8%),
human resources (5.6%), housekeeping (3.3%), spa (1.1%), security
(0.6%) and technique (0.6%). Most respondents had worked for less
than six months in the company (56.1%), 12.2% worked for six months
to 1 year, 8.9% one to two years, 8.9% two to four years, 10% four to
eight years, and 3.9% worked for more than eight years.
3.2. Procedure
For this research, data was collected from the hotel employees. Using
non-probability convenience sampling, the survey was administered by
the first author. During the data collection, no incentives or gifts were
given to the employees. To ensure confidentiality, employees were
asked to complete the survey and place them into sealed envelopes,
handing it directly to the researcher. The surveys were completed during
regular business hours, and no one in the organization had access to the
completed surveys. This procedure explains employees’ willingness to
participate.
3.3. Measures
All construct items were measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1
= strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Ostracism was measured with
ten items by Ferris et al. (2008). One sample item is, “Your greetings
have gone unanswered at work.” Cronbach’s alpha was .93. Service
recovery performance was measured with five items from Boshoff and
Allen’s (2000) scale. A sample item is, “Considering all the things I do, I
handle dissatisfied customers quite well.” Cronbach’s alpha was .83.
Organizational trust was measured with four items by Huff and Kelley
(2003). A sample item is, “There is a high level of trust throughout this
organization.” Cronbach’s alpha was .87. Finally, bonding social capital
with co-workers was measured with four items by Chen et al. (2009). A
sample item from the scale is, “How many of your co-workers will
definitely help you upon your request?” The scale ranged from 1 = a few
to 5 = a lot). Cronbach’s alpha was .80.
4. Results
4.1. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
Using AMOS26, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted
to assess the measures’ validity and reliability. The measurement model
fitted the data satisfactorily (ϰ2 = 398.771, df = 223, ϰ2/df = 1.79, CFI
= 0.93, TLI = 0.92, RMSEA = 0.07). The twenty-three items were found
to be strong measures of their respective constructs. All factor loadings
were between 0.60 and 0.90 (p < .001). The average variance extracted
(AVE) for all constructs was above 0.5, confirming convergent validity
(Hair et al., 2016). Discriminant validity was confirmed by identifying
that the square root of AVE for all constructs were higher than the
inter-correlations between two constructs of interest (Table 1). The
composite construct reliability (CR) exceeded the recommended 0.70
threshold, ranging from 0.81 to 0.94 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
Harman’s one-factor test was used (Podsakoff et al., 2003) to test
common method bias. A single factor explained 30.93% of the variance
(under the 50% threshold). Through CFA, the four-factor model was
found to have a better model fit when compared to the single-factor
model (Table 2). These results provide support to claim that common
method bias was not a severe threat in this study.
A. Paşamehmetoğlu et al. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 50 (2022) 119–126

Table 1 months, 0 = more than 6 months) did not have an effect on organiza­
Descriptive statistics, CR, AVE, and correlation matrix. tional trust (β = − 0.07, [-0.235, 0.102] nor on SRP (β = − 0.11, [-0.273,
Constructs # Items M (SD) CR AVE 1 2 3 4 0.072]), and as age (coded as 1 = millennials, 0 = other generations) did
not have an effect on bonding social capital (β = − 0.113, [-0.259,
1. OST 10 1.42 (.61) .94 0.61 .78
2. OT 4 3.74 (.79) .87 0.63 -.30 .79 0.029]) nor on SRP (β = 0.048, [-0.105, 0.202]) these parameters were
3. SC 4 3.15 (.80) .81 0.53 .38 -.35 .72 freed.
4. SRP 5 3.95 (.64) .84 0.52 .14 -.36 .27 .72 After this procedure, the model still had a good fit of data (ϰ2 =
Note. OST = Ostracism, OT = Organizational trust, SC=Social capital with co- 477.952, df = 288, ϰ2/df = 1.66, CFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.91, RMSEA =
workers, SRP = Service Recovery Performance. 0.06). Females (β = 0.25, [0.091, 0.397]) and employees with more than
Square root of AVE is along the diagonal. All correlations p < .01, except for the six months of tenure in the hotel industry (β = − 0.341, [-0.476,
correlation between OST and SRP (p = .09). − 0.193]) presented higher bonding social capital with co-workers.
These results were expected as employees with higher tenure have
4.2. Hypotheses testing more opportunities to interact with their colleagues. Also, females
usually tend to be more socially connected than men (Umberson et al.,
The proposed study used structural equation modeling (AMOS 26) to 1996), although some studies have found no gender differences when it
test the conceptual model with a bootstrap function extracting 5000 comes to soft capital (e.g., emotional support resources; Van Emmerik,
samples for the analysis (95% CI). The overall fit of the structural model 2006). Millennials (individuals born between 1980 and 1999 [Seppanen
was satisfactory (ϰ2 = 408.164, df = 225, ϰ2/df = 1.81, CFI = 0.92, TLI & Gualtieri, 2012]) presented lower organizational trust (β = − 0.279,
= 0.91, RMSEA = 0.07). Table 3 shows a summary of all results. Results [-0.407, − 0.147]) while compared to other generations. This result goes
of the SEM analysis can also be seen in Fig. 2. Aiming to explore the against the common stereotype that millennials have an “inherent trust
effects of each mediator, the effects of bonding social capital was tested in organizations” (Hershatter & Epstein, 2010, p. 215). Thus, more
while constraining to zero the effects of organizational trust. The same target research is needed to investigate these effects further. The sig­
procedure was conducted to test the mediating effects of organizational nificance of the hypotheses has not changed with the control variables in
trust. Ostracism was found to have a significant negative relationship the model.
with bonding social capital with co-workers (β = − 0.38; [-0.533,
− 0.192]) and with organizational trust (β = − 0.30; [-0.473, − 0.135]), 5. Discussion
thereby supporting Hypothesis 1 and 2. Bonding social capital with co-
workers had a significant positive influence on SRP (β = 0.27; [0.104, 5.1. Theoretical implications
0.437]), in support of Hypothesis 3. Organizational trust had a signifi­
cant positive relationship with SRP (β = 0.36; [0.181, 0.517]), thereby This study advances ostracism and service recovery literature in
supporting Hypothesis 4. several ways. Although there are studies about workplace ostracism’s
The indirect effect of ostracism on SRP through bonding social cap­ negative impacts on employee performance, there has been no research
ital with co-workers was significant (β = − .09; [-0.199, − 0.024]).
Therefore, Hypothesis 5 was also supported. The indirect effect of Table 3
ostracism on SRP through organizational trust was also significant (β = Results of direct and indirect effects.
− 0.09; [-0.191, − 0.031]), supporting Hypothesis 6. Finally, the model Hypotheses Effects LLCI 95% ULCI 95%
was also tested with both mediators together. Results indicated that the
H1: OST → SC -.38 -.533 -.192
total effect was significant (β = − 0.16, [-0.248, − 0.072]). The R2 values H2: OST → OT -.30 -.473 -.135
show that 14% of the variance in bonding social capital, 9% of the H3: SC → SRP .27 .104 .437
variance in organizational trust, 14% of the variance in SRP can be H4: OT → SRP .36 .181 .517
explained from the relationships between constructs. H5: OST → SC → SRP -.09 -.199 -.024
H6: OST → OT → SRP -.09 -.191 -.031
A rival model with an additional path between ostracism and SRP
was tested. The competing model also presented good fit of data (ϰ2 = Note. SC=Social capital with co-workers, OST = Ostracism, OT = Organizational
408.125, df = 224, ϰ2/df = 1.82, CFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.91, RMSEA = trust, SRP = Service Recovery Performance.
0.07). The chi-square difference test result between the two models was
not significant (Δχ2 = 0.04, Δdf = 1, p = .84). The direct path between
ostracism and SRP was not significant (β = 0.017, [-0.175, 0.203]).
Thus, the proposed model’s adequacy was confirmed based on model
parsimony and theoretical plausibility (Preacher, 2006).

4.3. Additional analysis

Past studies have documented that age, tenure, and gender can in­
fluence the studied variables (Howard et al., 2019; Hsieh & Karatepe,
2019; Ozturk & Karatepe, 2019). Thus, these variables were dummy
coded and tested as control variables in the conceptual model. As gender
(coded as 0 = male, 1 = female) did not have a significant effect on
Fig. 2. SEM results.
organizational trust (β = 0.05, [-0.099, 0.191], nor on SRP (β = − 0.00,
(Note. *p < .05).
[-0.158, 0.162]), as tenure in the industry (coded as 1 = less than 6

Table 2
Model comparison.
Model ϰ2 df ϰ2/df Δ χ2 p CFI TLI RMSEA

One-factor model 1197.314 229 5.23 .59 .54 .15

Four-factor model 398.771 223 1.79 798.543 <.001 .93 .92 .07

123
A. Paşamehmetoğlu et al.
exploring how workplace ostracism influences SRP. In the hospitality
industry, SRP is a critical component of job performance for employees.
While effective service recoveries can result in positive word of mouth,
customer loyalty, higher satisfaction, and employees and co-worker
helping behavior, repurchase intentions (Guchait et al., 2015; Swan­
son & Hsu, 2011), ineffective service recoveries can lead to customer
defection, enhance customer’s negative emotions and dissatisfaction,
(Sands et al., 2020; Xu et al., 2019). Therefore, understanding the an­
tecedents of SRP is critical for hospitality organizations’ success.
The current study provided empirical evidence about the adverse
effects between ostracism and bonding social capital with co-workers
and the mediating effect of bonding social capital between ostracism
and SRP. It is consistent with the theoretical foundations of COR
(Hobfoll, 1989), as ostracized employees might feel resourceless, as they
have lower bonding social capital, which impacts their performance at
the workplace. As employees desire to belong and establish social con­
nections, bonding social capital can also be an inherent need in work
settings (Andresen et al., 2018). Although previous studies investigated
the connection between ostracism and belongingness (e.g., Haldorai
et al., 2020; O’Reilly et al., 2015), this study specifically investigated the
importance of bonding social capital with co-workers as a mechanism
explaining why ostracism negatively influence SRP. While ostracized,
employees are being denied such bonding needs, so performance out­
comes are impacted in return.
In addition, this study also indicated that ostracism had a negative
impact on organizational trust and that organizational trust mediated
the relationship between ostracism and SRP. Such findings may be
explained under the lens of SET (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005) and
attribution theory (Weiner, 1985). Ostracism is the absence of social
exchanges, which generates negative emotions leading individuals to
search for the causes of events. Employees might blame the organization
for allowing or being complicit with the development of ostracism in the
workplace, affecting how much employees trust the organization. Pre­
vious research has emphasized the importance of organizational trust as
a critical element to establish social connections (Fukuyama, 1995).
Organizational trust is also fundamentally connected to other organi­
zational attitudes and behaviors, such as intentions to quit, extra-role
behaviors, and job satisfaction (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Miner-Rubino &
Reed, 2010; Tourigny et al., 2019). In addition, as previous research also
suggested, more specific types of trust – supervisor trust – might also
buffer the negative and painful effects of workplace ostracism (Lyu &
Zhu, 2019).
There is a need to explore how errors can be prevented by focusing
on the factors influencing SRP (Guchait et al., 2014; Lin, 2010; Wang
et al., 2020). The current study identified crucial antecedents, to our
knowledge not previously explored, of employees’ SRP, advancing the
knowledge of the service recovery literature. Besides, while exploring
underlying mechanisms that link workplace ostracism with SRP, this
study provided novel perspectives about how ostracism can adversely
impact employees’ access to resources impacting their performance and
how it also impacts individuals’ inherent needs, which can have severe
well-being consequences. Overall, this research has a significant
contribution to the service recovery model and service recovery
research.
5.2. Managerial implications
This study’s findings provide several managerial implications. The
results inform hospitality managers that workplace ostracism can
impact employees’ SRP and perceptions of organizational trust and
bonding social capital. Therefore, managers need to manage workplace
ostracism to decrease its negative impacts effectively. One implication is
to create a culture that discourages workplace ostracism, such as
encouraging transparent, fair, and open competition. Managers need to
develop rules and regulations to restrain the exclusion, such as guiding
the excluders’ behavior and indicating how it should be in acceptable
124
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 50 (2022) 119–126
interpersonal behavior norms. Moreover, when managers realize that
ostracism is a problem in the workplace, they need to implement an
employee assistance plan for the ostracized employee. This plan can
contain training to teach them how to cope with the destructive situa­
tion and emotional management. A robust external support system will
reduce the negative effect of ostracism on ostracized employees.
The study findings also highlighted the importance of organizational
trust. Managers need to focus on factors that enhance employee trust in
the organization. For example, organizations should provide confiden­
tial reporting of ostracism and negative interpersonal workplace be­
haviors. Providing multiple channels to report and ensuring
confidentiality and anonymity will likely enhance employee trust to­
wards the organization. When organizations create a culture that em­
phasizes communication, transparency, and inclusiveness, it improves
employees’ trust in the employer to freely share their ostracism prob­
lems. Effective team building can also help to resolve the ostracism
problem and build trust. Managers need to establish relationships with
their employees, improve communication and cooperation, create trust,
foster teamwork, and set ground rules for teams. Activities such as
problem-solving, brainstorming, team-building, and team-oriented
reward systems can help mitigate ostracism situations (Zhu et al.,
2017) and build trust.
The current study also found the importance of bonding social cap­
ital. Cooperative relations in the workplace and positive changes in the
work environment can positively affect employees bonding social cap­
ital. To decrease ostracism and increase bonding social capital, the
managers can organize social events and activities, share re­
sponsibilities, and plan, coordinate, and monitor groups’ activities. Ex­
amples include outdoor training and competitions, group psychological
advice, employee dinners, birthday parties, or organizing coffee breaks
with different teams. In addition, mentorship programs and coaching
can also be valuable for employees and new hires in establishing
workplace relationships (Haldorai et al., 2020).
Finally, the current study informs managers about three ways to
enhance SRP. Since effective service recovery management is crucial for
the success of hospitality businesses, managers are always looking for
tools that can improve employees’ SRP. The current study informs
managers that employees’ SRP can be improved by increasing employee
perceptions of bonding social capital and organizational trust; and
lowering workplace ostracism. In addition, promoting an error man­
agement culture, where employees feel psychologically safe to commit a
mistake and ask for help, to share learning experiences, and trust each
other, and the management team is critical for creating a healthy and
harmonious workplace that can impact SRP (Guchait et al., 2014). In
hotels, where the work outcome depends on different individuals and
group activities and errors are prone to occur, focusing on activities that
can mitigate and prevent errors is especially important (Wang et al.,
2020). Therefore, collecting employee feedback on how they feel
regarding their work, learning opportunities, connections and access to
resources, and overall error culture can bring insightful opportunities for
managers.
5.3. Conclusion, limitations, and future research
The current study focused on the relationship between workplace
ostracism and SRP through two mediating mechanisms: bonding social
capital with co-workers and organizational trust. Using a sample of hotel
employees, findings indicated that bonding social capital with co-
workers mediated the relationship between workplace ostracism and
SRP. This result reinforces the findings of previous studies about the
importance of belongingness at work (e.g., Haldorai et al., 2020;
O’Reilly et al., 2015) while addressing a specific facet: bounding re­
lations with co-workers. Additionally, organizational trust also medi­
ated the relationship between workplace ostracism and SRP, which is
suggested by previous researchers that ostracism can reduce trust
(Barling, 1996; Uslu, 2021) and that organizational trust can impact
A. Paşamehmetoğlu et al.
organizational outcomes and service performance (Miner-Rubino &
Reed, 2010; Singh & Srivastava; 2016; Tourigny et al., 2019). Ostra­
cism’s total effect on SRP was also significant, indicating both media­
tors’ importance. By focusing on the outcomes of workplace ostracism,
this study revealed that SRP, a critical performance measure for hospi­
tality organizations, is affected by how employees are treated at work as
a result of employees’ social exchanges (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005)
and the attribution process while analyzing the situation (Weiner,
1985), reduced access to resources (Hobfoll, 1989), and threatened feel
of belongingness (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Results demonstrated strong
support for the proposed overall process: ostracism decreases organi­
zational trust and bonding social capital, and organizational trust and
bonding social capital increase SRP.
This study has some limitations. Firstly, this study’s data wasFig. 1
gathered only in Turkey and only from hotels. Thus generalizing the
findings can be challenging. Cross-cultural studies should be considered
to explore the influence cultural differences play concerning the rela­
tionship between workplace ostracism and SRP. Second, questionnaires
were collected only at one point in time. Although tests were done to
examine common method bias issues and there were no concerns, future
research in this area may get employees’ SRP evaluations from their
immediate supervisor and collect data at multiple time points. Third, the
current study did not include any moderators. Since this is the first study
that links ostracism and SRP, the focus was on testing the current re­
lationships and investigating the underlying mechanisms. Future
research can investigate how different moderators can impact the pro­
posed relationships in the study. Individual factors such as personality,
leadership factors such as transformational leadership, and organiza­
tional factors such as organizational culture can be investigated as
moderators.
References
Abraham, K. G., Helms, S., & Presser, S. (2009). How social processes distort
measurement: The impact of survey nonresponse on estimates of volunteer work in
the United States. American Journal of Sociology, 114(4), 1129–1165.
Al-Atwi, A. A. (2017). Pragmatic impact of workplace ostracism: Toward a theoretical
model. European Journal of Management and Business Economics, 26(1), 35–47.
Aldrich, D. P. (2012). Building resilience: Social capital in post-disaster recovery. University
of Chicago Press.
Ali, M., Usman, M., Pham, N. T., Agyemang-Mintah, P., & Akhtar, N. (2020). Being
ignored at work: Understanding how and when spiritual leadership curbs workplace
ostracism in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management,
91, 102696.
Anasori, E., Bayighomog, S. W., De Vita, G., & Altinay, L. (2021). The mediating role of
psychological distress between ostracism, work engagement, and turnover
intentions: An analysis in the Cypriot hospitality context. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 94, 102829.
Andresen, M., Goldmann, P., & Volodina, A. (2018). Do overwhelmed expatriates intend
to leave? The effects of sensory processing sensitivity, stress, and social capital on
expatriates’ turnover intention. European Management Review, 15(3), 315–328.
Ardahan, G. (2007). The influence of selected antecedents of frontline employee’s
perceptions of service recovery performance. Hospitality Review Volume, 25(2),
10–32.
Aryee, S., Budhwar, P. S., & Chen, Z. X. (2002). Trust as a mediator of the relationship
between organizational justice and work outcomes: Test of a social exchange model.
Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational
and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 23(3), 267–285.
Ashill, N. J., Rod, M., Thirkell, P., & Carruthers, J. (2009). Job resourcefulness,
symptoms of burnout and service recovery performance: An examination of call
centre frontline employees. Journal of Services Marketing, 23(5), 338–350.
Banki, S. (2012). How much or how many? Partial ostracism and its consequences (doctoral
dissertation). Toronto: University of Toronto.
Barling, J. (1996). The prediction, experience, and consequences of workplace violence.
In G. R. VandenBos, & E. Q. Bulatao (Eds.), Violence on the job: Identifying risks and
developing solutions (pp. 29–49). American Psychological Association.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3),
497–529.
Boshoff, C., & Allen, J. (2000). The influence of selected antecedents on frontline staff’s
perceptions of service recovery performance. International Journal of Service Industry
Management, 11(1), 63–90.
Brien, A., Thomas, N., & Hussein, A. (2013). The low level of organizational social capital
in hotels-A New Zealand case study. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality &
Tourism, 12(4), 400–413.
Buğra, A. (2001). Kriz ve geleneksel sosyal refah devleti. İstanbul: VI. Arastırma Zirvesi.
125
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 50 (2022) 119–126
Chen, X., Stanton, B., Gong, J., Fang, X., & Li, X. (2009). Personal social capital scale: An
instrument for health and behavioral research. Health Education Research, 24(2),
306–317.
Choi, C. H., Kim, T., Lee, G., & Lee, S. K. (2014). Testing the stressor-strain-outcome
model of customer-related social stressors in predicting emotional exhaustion,
customer orientation and service recovery performance. Internal. Journal of
Hospitality Management, 36, 272–285.
Clausen, T., Meng, A., & Borg, V. (2019). Does social capital in the workplace predict job
performance, work engagement, and psychological well-being? A prospective
analysis. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 61(10), 800–805.
Clopton, A. W. (2011). Social capital and team performance. Team Performance
Management: International Journal, 17(7/8), 369–381.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of
Sociology, 94, 95–120.
Cox, T., Kuk, G., & Leiter, M. P. (1993). Burnout, health, work stress, and organizational
healthiness. In W. B. Schaufeli, C. Maslach, & T. Marek (Eds.), Series in applied
psychology: Social issues and questions. Professional burnout: Recent developments in
theory and research (pp. 177–193). Taylor & Francis.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary
review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900.
Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-determination theory in work
organizations: The state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior, 4, 19–43.
DeConinck, J. B. (2010). The effect of organizational justice, perceived organizational
support, and perceived supervisor support on marketing employees’ level of trust.
Journal of Business Research, 63(12), 1349–1355.
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and
implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611.
Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Does rejection hurt? An
fMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302(5643), 290–292.
Ellinger, A., Musgrove, F., Ellinger, A., Daniel, B., Bas, A., & Wang, Y. (2013). Influences
of organizational investments in social capital on service employee commitment and
performance. Journal of Business Reserach, 66(8), 1124–1133.
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook "friends:"
social capital and college students use of online social network sites. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143–1168.
Ferris, D. L., Brown, D. J., Berry, J. W., & Lian, H. (2008). The development and
validation of the workplace ostracism scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6),
1348–1366.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1),
39–50.
Fujita, S., Kawakami, N., Ando, E., Inoue, A., Tsuno, K., Kurioka, S., & Kawachi, I. (2016).
The association of workplace social capital with work engagement of employees in
health care settings: A multilevel cross-sectional analysis. Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine, 58(3), 265–271.
Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York: The
Free Press.
Granovetter, M. (1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited.
Sociological Theory, 1, 201–233.
Guchait, P., Lee, C., Wang, C. Y., & Abbott, J. L. (2016). Impact of error management
practices on service recovery performance and helping behaviors in the hospitality
industry: The mediating effects of psychological safety and learning behaviors.
Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 15(1), 1–28.
Guchait, P., Paşamehmetoğlu, A., & Dawson, M. (2014). Perceived supervisor and co-
worker support for error management: Impact on perceived psychological safety and
service recovery performance. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 41,
28–37.
Guchait, P., Paşamehmetoglu, A., & Madera, J. (2015). Error management culture:
Impact on cohesion, stress and turnover intentions. Service Industries Journal, 36
(3–4), 124–141.
Gurlek, M. (2021). Workplace ostracism, Syrian migrant workers’ counterproductive
work behaviors and acculturation: Evidence from Turkey. Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Management, 46, 336–346.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2016). Multivariate data analysis
(7th ed.). India: Pearson Education Limited.
Halbesleben, J. R. B., Neveu, J.-P., Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., & Westman, M. (2014).
Getting to the “COR”: Understanding the role of resources in conservation of
resources theory. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1334–1364.
Halbesleben, J. R., & Wheeler, A. R. (2015). To invest or not? The role of co-worker
support and trust in daily reciprocal gain spirals of helping behavior. Journal of
Management, 41(6), 1628–1650.
Haldorai, K., Kim, W. G., Phetvaroon, K., & Li, J. J. (2020). Left out of the office “tribe”:
The influence of workplace ostracism on employee work engagement. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(8), 2717–2735.
Hershatter, A., & Epstein, M. (2010). Millennials and the world of work: An organization
and management perspective. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(2), 211–223.
Hitlan, R. T., & Noel, J. (2009). The influence of workplace exclusion and personality on
counterproductive work behaviours: An interactionist perspective. European Journal
of Work & Organizational Psychology, 18(4), 477–502.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress.
American Psychologist, 44(3), 513.
Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the
stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology, 50
(3), 337–421.
A. Paşamehmetoğlu et al.
Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of
General Psychology, 6(4), 307–324.
Hoffman, K. D., Kelley, S. W., & Rotalsky, H. M. (1995). Tracking service failure and
employee recovery efforts. Journal of Services Marketing, 9(2), 49–61.
Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63(6),
597–606.
Howard, M. C., Cogswell, J. E., & Smith, M. B. (2019). The antecedents and outcomes of
workplace ostracism: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(6),
577–596.
Hsieh, H., & Karatepe, O. M. (2019). Outcomes of workplace ostracism among restaurant
employees. Tourism Management Perspectives, 30, 129–137.
Huertas-Valdivia, I., Braojos, J., & Lloréns-Montes, F. J. (2019). Counteracting workplace
ostracism in hospitality with psychological empowerment. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 76, 240–251.
Huff, L., & Kelley, L. (2003). Levels of organizational trust in individualist versus
collectivist societies: A seven-nation study. Organization Science, 14(1), 81–90.
Jung, H. S., & Yoon, H. H. (2014). Antecedents and consequences of employees’ job stress
in a foodservice industry: Focused on emotional labor and turnover intent.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 38, 84–88.
Karatepe, O. M. (2012). The effects of co-worker and perceived organizational support on
hotel employee outcomes: The moderating role of job embeddedness. Journal of
Hospitality & Tourism Research, 36(4), 495–516.
Lamsa, A., & Pucetaite, R. (2006). Development of organizational trust among emploees
from a contextual perspective. Business Ethics, 15(2), 130–141.
Lapointe, É., & Vandenberghe, C. (2018). Trust in the supervisor and the development of
employees’ social capital during organizational entry: A conservation of resources
approach. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29(17), 2503–2523.
Leung, A. S., Wu, L. Z., Chen, Y. Y., & Young, M. N. (2011). The impact of workplace
ostracism in service organizations. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30
(4), 836–844.
Lin, W. B. (2010). Relevant factors that affect service recovery performance. Service
Industries Journal, 30(6), 891–910.
Lin, N., Fu, Y. C., & Hsung, R. M. (2001). Measurement techniques for investigations of
social capital. Social capital: Theory and Research, 57–81.
Lin, B. W., Li, P. C., & Chen, J. S. (2006). Social capital, capabilities, and entrepreneurial
strategies: A study of Taiwanese high-tech new ventures. Technological Forecasting
and Social Change, 73(2), 168–181.
Lyu, Y., & Zhu, H. (2019). The predictive effects of workplace ostracism on employee
attitudes: A job embeddedness perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 158(4),
1083–1095.
MacDonald, G., & Leary, M. R. (2005). Why does social exclusion hurt? The relationship
between social and physical pain. Psychological Bulletin, 131(2), 202–223.
Mattila, A. S., & Patterson, P. G. (2004). The impact of culture on consumers’ perceptions
of service recovery efforts. Journal of Retailing, 80(3), 196–206.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of
organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.
Meng, A., Clausen, T., & Borg, V. (2018). The association between team-level social
capital and individual-level work engagement: Differences between subtypes of
social capital and the impact of intra-team agreement. Scandinavian Journal of
Psychology, 59(2), 198–205.
Miner-Rubino, K., & Reed, W. D. (2010). Testing a moderated mediational model of
workgroup incivility: The roles of organizational trust and group regard. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 40(12), 3148–3168.
O’Reilly, J., Robinson, S. L., Berdahl, J. L., & Banki, S. (2015). Is negative attention better
than no attention? The comparative effects of ostracism and harassment at work.
Organization Science, 26(3), 774–793.
Oaten, M., Williams, K. D., Jones, A., & Zadro, L. (2008). The effects of ostracism on self-
regulation in the socially anxious. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 27,
471–504.
O’Reilly, J., & Robinson, S. L. (2009). The negative impact of ostracism on thwarted
belongingness and workplace contributions. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1,
1–7.
Ozturk, A., & Karatepe, O. M. (2019). Frontline hotel employees’ psychological capital,
trust in organization, and their effects on nonattendance intentions, absenteeism,
and creative performance. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 28(2),
217–239.
Parzefall, M. R., & Kuppelwieser, V. G. (2012). Understanding the antecedents, the
outcomes and the mediating role of social capital: An employee perspective. Human
Relations, 65(4), 447–472.
Pastoriza, D., Arino, M. A., & Ricart, J. E. (2008). Ethical managerial behaviour as an
antecedent of organizational social capital. Journal of Business Ethics, 78(3),
329–341.
Peplau, L. A., Russell, D., & Heim, M. (1979). The experience of loneliness. New approaches
to social problems: Applications of attribution theory.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879.
Preacher, K. J. (2006). Quantifying parsimony in structural equation modeling.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 41(3), 227–259.
126
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 50 (2022) 119–126
Putnam, R. D. (1995). Tuning in, tuning out: The strange disappearance of social capital
in America. PS: Political Science & Politics, 28(4), 664–684.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New
York: Simon and Schuster.
Puusa, A., & Tolvanen, U. (2006). Organizational identity and trust. EJBO-Electronic
Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies, 11(2), 29–33.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55
(1), 68–78.
Sands, S., Campbell, C., Shedd, L., Ferraro, C., & Mavrommatis, A. (2020). How small
service failures drive customer defection: Introducing the concept of microfailures.
Business Horizons, 63, 573–584.
Seppanen, S., & Gualtieri, W. (2012). The millennial generation research review. US
Chamber of Commerce: National Chamber Foundation.
Singh, U., & Srivastava, K. B. (2016). Organizational trust and organizational citizenship
behaviour. Global Business Review, 17(3), 594–609.
Smith, A. K., Bolton, R. N., & Wanger, J. (1999). A model of customer satisfaction with
service encounters involving failure and recovery. Journal of Marketing Research, 36,
356–372.
Sommer, K. L., Williams, K. D., Ciarocco, N. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (2001). When silence
speaks louder than words: Explorations into the intrapsychic and interpersonal
consequences of social ostracism. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 23(4),
225–243.
Sonea, A., Niculae-Bordean, O., & Câmpeanu-Sonea, E. (2015). Organizational trust
model based on business students’ opinions. International Journal of Economic
Practices and Theories, 5(5), 559–565.
Soybalı, H., & Pelit, O. (2018). The effect of organizational ostracism on turnover
intention; a study in five-star hotel enterprises in Afyonkarahisar. Afyon Kocatepe
University Journal of Social Sciences, 20(3), 225–249.
Swanson, S. R., & Hsu, M. (2011). The effect of recovery locus attributions and service
failure severity on word-of-mouth and repurchase behaviors in the hospitality
industry. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 35, 511–529.
Tan, H., & Lim, A. (2009). Trust in co-workers and trust in organizations. Journal of
Psychology, 143(1), 45–66.
Tan, H. H., & Tan, C. F. (2000). Toward a differentiation of trust in supervisor and trust
in organization in Genetic. Social and General Psychology Monographs, 126(2),
241–260.
Thoits, P. A. (2011). Mechanisms linking social ties and support to physical and mental
health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 52(2), 145–161.
Tourigny, L., Han, J., Baba, V. V., & Pan, P. (2019). Ethical leadership and corporate
social responsibility in China: A multilevel study of their effects on trust and
organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 158(2), 427–440.
Turkoglu, N., & Dalgic, A. (2019). The effect of ruminative thought style and workplace
ostracism on turnover intention of hotel employees: The mediating effect of
organizational identification. Tourism & Management Studies, 15(3), 17–26.
Umberson, D., Chen, M. D., House, J. S., Hopkins, K., & Slaten, E. (1996). The effect of
social relationships on psychological well-being: Are men and women really so
different? American Sociological Review, 837–857.
Uslu, O. (2021). Being alone is more painful than getting hurt: The moderating role of
workplace loneliness in the association between workplace ostracism and job
performance. Central European Business Review, 10(1), 19–38.
Van Emmerik, I. H. (2006). Gender differences in the creation of different types of social
capital: A multilevel study. Social Networks, 28(1), 24–37.
Vineburg, J. (2010). A study of organizational trust and related variables among faculty
members at HBCUs (Doctoral dissertation). University of IOWA, IOWA Research.
Wang, M. (2007). Profiling retirees in the retirement transition and adjustment process:
Examining the longitudinal change patterns of retirees’ psychological well-being.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 455.
Wang, X., Guchait, P., & Pasamehmetoglu, A. (2020). Anxiety and gratitude toward the
organization: Relationships with error management culture and service recovery
performance. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 89, 102592.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion.
Psychological Review, 92(4), 548–573.
Williams, M. (2001). In whom we trust: Group membership as an affective context for
trust development. Academy of Management Review, 26, 377–396.
Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 425–452.
Williams, K. D., & Zadro, L. (2001). Ostracism: On being ignored, excluded, and rejected.
In M. R. Leary (Ed.), Interpersonal rejection (pp. 21–53). Oxford University Press.
Wu, C. H., Liu, J., Kwan, H. K., & Lee, C. (2016). Why and when workplace ostracism
inhibits organizational citizenship behaviors: An organizational identification
perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(3), 362.
Wu, L., Wei, L., & Hui, C. (2011). Dispositional antecedents and consequences of
workplace ostracism: An empirical examination. Frontiers of Business Research in
China, 5(1), 23–44.
Xu, X., Liu, W., & Gursoy, D. (2019). The impacts of service failure and recovery efforts
on airline customers’ emotions and satisfaction. Journal of Travel Research, 58(6),
1034–1051.
Zhu, H., Lyu, Y., Deng, X., & Ye, Y. (2017). Workplace ostracism and proactive customer
service performance: A conservation of resources perspective. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 64, 62–72.