Workplace ostracism and job performance: roles of self-efficacy and job level
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate how employees’ perceptions of workplace ostracism might reduce their job performance, as well as how the negative workplace ostracism–job performance relationship might be buffered by their self-efficacy. It also considers how this buffering role of self-efficacy might vary according to employees’ job level. Design/methodology/approach Quantitative data came from a survey of employees and their supervisors in Pakistani organizations. Findings Workplace ostracism relates negatively to job performance, but this relationship is weaker at higher levels of self-efficacy. The buffering role of self-efficacy is particularly strong among employees at higher job levels. Practical implications Organizations that cannot prevent some of their employees from feeling excluded by other members can counter the related threat of underperformance by promoting employees’ confidence in their own skills and competencies. This measure is particularly useful among higher-ranking employees. Originality/value This study provides a more complete understanding of the circumstances in which workplace ostracism is less likely to diminish employees’ job performance, by specifying the concurrent influences of workplace ostracism, self-efficacy and job level.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it