1172194

research-article2023
JOBXXX10.1177/23294884231172194International Journal of Business CommunicationSaxena and Srivastava

Original Research
International Journal of

Is Cyberloafing an Outcome
Business Communication
1­–20
© The Author(s) 2023
of Supervisor Phubbing: Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
Examining the Roles of DOI: 10.1177/23294884231172194
https://doi.org/10.1177/23294884231172194
journals.sagepub.com/home/job
Workplace Ostracism and
Psychological Detachment

Anubhuti Saxena1 and Shalini Srivastava2

Abstract
Supervisor phubbing (or phone snubbing) is the phenomenon where a supervisor
snubs a subordinate by favoring his/her mobile phone above him/her when they are in
a meeting. Subordinates who are phone snubbed by supervisors often feel neglected
and turn to their own phones and virtual social circles for acceptance. The study
aims to explore the impact of Supervisor Phubbing (SP) on Cyberloafing (CL), taking
Workplace Ostracism (WO) as a mediator and Psychological Detachment (PD) as a
moderator. Social Exchange Theory (SET) and Expectancy Violations Theory (EVT)
are put forward as the underpinning theories to explain the underlying mechanism in
the proposed relationships. Utilizing the time lagged method, data was collected from
267 employees working in varied industries in India. Statistical tools such as SPSS 21,
AMOS 21, and PROCESS, were utilized to test the hypothesised model. The findings
show that SP causes subordinates to feel ostracized which in turn, leads to CL. The
study also examined how PD can act as a moderator and create an impeding effect
on CL, WO, and PD emerged as significant mediator and moderator respectively. It
is pertinent for organizations to understand that unfriendly practices such as SP can
lead to organizational repercussions like WO and CL. Discussion on implications
followed by limitations and future scope of research is included in the paper.

Keywords
supervisor phubbing, workplace ostracism, cyberloafing, psychological detachment,
social exchange theory and expectancy violations theory

1
Bennett University, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India
2
Jaipuria Institute of Management, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India

Corresponding Author:
Shalini Srivastava, Jaipuria Institute of Management, Noida, A-32 A Sector 62, Noida, Uttar Pradesh
201309, India.
Email: [email protected]
2 International Journal of Business Communication 00(0)

Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic has reshaped work routines, habits, and patterns (Z. Chen,
2021). As a response to the pandemic, internet has transformed the way we live, work,
and survive (Zou et al., 2020). Research reveals that technology may lead to several
positive outcomes, but its negative consequences cannot be ignored. Jeong et al.
(2016) claimed that employees use approximately 38% of the entire usage of smart-
phones for work related activities, compared to non-work activities. Surfing internet in
the middle of work hours is common in contemporary work environment. It is spread-
ing like wildfire. Digital addictions have brought in several Organizational Behavior
challenges such as SupervisorPhubbing (SP) and Cyberloafing (CL), which are exam-
ples of deviant workplace behavior.
Using mobile phones during face-to-face conversations creates negative impact on
employees’ life because of the new phenomenon called phubbing (Haigh, 2015). the
term denotes snubbing others during social interactions through high indulgence on
one’s smartphone. When it is done by a supervisor, it is called as SP (Roberts & David,
2017). The constant online distraction at work violates effective symmetrical commu-
nication which occurs during face-to-face interactions (Lee, 2022). SP lowers the trust
in supervisor, negatively impacting psychological conditions of the subordinates, and
decreases engagement level of employees (Roberts & David, 2017). Literature pro-
vides strong evidence to flag SP as significant counterproductive workplace manage-
rial behavior that requires extensive exploration (Yasin et al., 2023). As against the
rising number of studies related to SP, only a few have explored the impact of SP on
relationships in workplace settings leading to influencing employees’ behavior
(Al-Saggaf & O'Donnell, 2019; Roberts & David, 2017, 2020; Yasin et al., 2023).
Violation of trust and implementation of unfair rules lead to workplace deviance
(Litzky et al., 2006). When an employee desires to interact with the supervisor but the
supervisor is busy on phone, the employee might show undesirable online deviant
behavior such as CL (Lim, 2002). CL is a voluntary act where the employees use the
internet sources at work for surfing non-job-related things for personal purposes. CL
has turned out to be an area of concern for managers and academic scholars (Glassman
et al., 2015). It includes surfing internet for checking personal social media handles,
checking private e-mails, online shopping, watching videos on YouTube, playing
video games at work, carrying out private financial transactions, searching for jobs,
downloading non-work-related material etc. (Koay & Soh, 2019). The amount of time
employees spend on CL is on the rise day by day (Blanchard & Henle, 2008). CL
might come up as retaliatory behavior, to redress the unfair treatment meted out
through SP (Greenberg & Scott, 1996). If a moderate level of online leisure activities
is done to energize and bounce back to work activities with new perspectives, it is not
harmful (Syrek et al., 2018). Conversely, if the employee is engaged in illegal online
activities such as gambling, viewing or sharing offensive material, it can intensify
organizational risk (Lichtash, 2004). This indicates the effect of CL on employees’
well-being and highlights the need for further research to explore the precursors of CL
(Mazidi et al., 2021). In spite of the debilitating effects of CL, efforts undertaken to
Saxena and Srivastava 3

determine its antecedents as well as its underlying mechanisms are in nascent stages
(Koay, 2018; Mercado et al., 2017).
Although there is evidence that other people in the work environment can deter-
mine whether an individual will Cyberloaf (Betts et al., 2014; Sheikh et al., 2015),
there is a major gap in the literature as to how SP can lead to CL. Hence, it becomes
crucial to understand norms related to CL that could have developed due to supervi-
sor’s influence (Song et al., 2021).
The relationship between SP and CL could be mediated by interpersonal and con-
textual factors (Abeele et al., 2019). According to Hu et al. (2021), social CL can
increase productivity in organizations by combating Workplace Ostracism (WO). WO
means that employees fail to build up connections at the workplace; as a result, they
look for ways to fulfill their need for a sense of belonging. It may result in frustration
and social pain, leading to a sense of “social death” (Williams, 2007). Past research
has shown that WO leads to counterproductive behavior (Yang & Treadway, 2018).
Employees have the basic need of connectedness through which they feel psychologi-
cally secure; if that need is not fulfilled, people are likely to exhibit counterproductive
behavior (Yang & Treadway, 2018). CL is one such counterproductive behavior trig-
gered by WO (Hu et al., 2021).
Ostracism stimulates strong negative emotions (Williams, 2007). Workplace stress-
ors prevent individuals from achieving Psychological Detachment (PD) (Y. Chen &
Li, 2019). PD refers to mentally switching off from work and cease caring about work-
related things when at home. Ostracized employees feel fear of encountering negative
experiences the following day; as an outcome it becomes challenging for them to
mentally delink from work during non-work time (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007).We pro-
pose that Psychological Detachment can explain the underlying mechanisms for
employees indulging in Cyberloafing (Mei et al., 2022), by moderating the relation-
ship between WO and CL.As a consequence, this study also aspires to investigate how
PD and WO can act as mediator and moderator respectively, affecting the dynamics
between SP and CL. Social exchange transactions between employees are governed by
norms of reciprocity and expectations (Gouldner, 1960). We propose that Social
Exchange Theory (SET) and Expectancy Violations Theory (EVT) can act as a basis
to the proposed hypotheses. Mediating effect is based on these theories, suggesting
that SP can disturb and negatively impact the way employees feel toward the organiza-
tion. It is assumed that when supervisor ignores subordinates, they splurge into CL,
through WO, and PD. Utilizing the SET and EVT as the underpinning theories, we
intend to raise the following Research Questions (RQs):

RQ1: What is the nature of the association between SP and CL at the workplace?
RQ2: How does WO mediate the association between SP and CL?
RQ3: Does PD at the workplace moderate the association between WO and CL?

Answering the above research questions, the paper is outlined as follows- first section
of the research paper introduces the study, second section deals with the literature and
hypothesis development. The next section presents methodological details of the
4 International Journal of Business Communication 00(0)

research, discussing the population and measures adopted, followed by reporting out-
comes of the analysis. Findings are discussed in the fifth section, followed by empha-
sis on theoretical, and practical implications in the end.

Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses Development

Supervisor Phubbing and Cyberloafing
Counterproductive behavior by supervisors such as phubbing, negatively impacts sub-
ordinates’ interest in the job (Karadağ et al., 2015). SP may negatively impact conver-
sation intimacy (Abeele et al., 2019). Supervisor phubbing can lead to stressful
conditions for employees (Yousaf et al., 2022). Whenever employees feel that supervi-
sors have not endeavored to fulfill their end of the bargain, they may try to restore
justice in some way. Literature documents that when employees hold negative percep-
tion about the organization or its agents, they use internet for non-work-related pur-
poses (Pee et al., 2008). Moreover, previous research on negative employee behaviors
(counterproductive work behavior and deviant workplace behaviors) reveals that sub-
ordinates would probably indulge in misconduct when their supervisors have meted
out some act of unfair treatment to them (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). Literature pro-
vides evidence for the role played by colleagues in influencing people to Cyberloaf
(Betts et al., 2014; Sheikh et al., 2015). If the supervisor is abusive, it decreases psy-
chological capital of the subordinates; this, in turn, becomes precursor of Cyberloafing
(Agarwal & Avey, 2020). Retaliation against supervisors could be through covert and
indirect behaviors. Sometimes the subordinates retaliate in ways which go undetected
or unrecognized, in the form of CL (Agarwal & Avey, 2020).
Social context at work extensively influences workplace deviant behaviors
(Robinson & Bennett, 1995). SET plays an important role in understanding how peo-
ple interact and respond. Based on this theory, it is proposed that subordinates consider
relationship with supervisor as a way of social exchange in which both parties seek to
reciprocate the costs and benefits received, and nurture balanced contributions. When
risk becomes more than rewards, one tends to break off the relationship. Based on the
theory, we propose that subordinates will grab benefits and utility from the relation-
ship with their supervisor and take off the costs, to determine worth of the relationship.
Hence, positive relationships will be the ones where benefits are greater than costs.
Based on the above precincts, we hypothesize that:

H1: SP is positively associated with CL.

Supervisor Phubbing and Workplace Ostracism

Phubbing conveys lack of interest, lack of connection and poor attentiveness of the
listener during a dyadic conversation. This causes social pain, gloomy mood, and
impedes the need of belongingness and self-esteem. Phubbing has several com-
monalities with social exclusion, hence it is possible that it will negatively impact
Saxena and Srivastava 5

gratification of social needs and how a person feels (Gonzales & Wu, 2016).
Literature supports that SP decreases employees’ sense of belongingness
(Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas, 2018) and employees feel threatened in terms of
fulfilment of the need of self-esteem and meaningful life in general. Employees
expect supervisors to listen to them and pay attention, not only physically but men-
tally too (Roberts & David, 2020). Phubbers exclude and ignore others, which is
the baseline of the act of WO (Knausenberger et al., 2022). SP impedes employee
well-being and sensitive employees may consider SP as ostracizing behavior (Yasin
et al., 2023). Social rejection and exclusion could be the root cause of a person feel-
ing ostracized (Wan et al., 2014). Drawing from SET model, during communica-
tion, whenever an employee does not get a response from the supervisor in the way
it is expected, the employee might feel dejected, and disheartened by the superior’s
approach. Hence, SP can lead to negative influence on subordinates, by weakening
the bond of trust between the subordinate and the leader (Roberts & David, 2020).
Hence, we propose that SP can lead to WO since the phubber pays no attention to
the partner of interaction. On the basis of the above arguments, we hypothesize
that:

H2: SP is positively associated with WO.

Workplace Ostracism and Cyberloafing

Ostracized employees feel difficulty in connecting with others, perhaps due to trust
issues, ultimately weakening their social tie ups (Zhao & Xia, 2017). With higher level
of WO, chances of engagement in negative work behaviors such as knowledge hiding,
knowledge hoarding (Zhao & Xia, 2017), and counterproductive behavior (Zhao et al.,
2013), also go up. CL is one of such counterproductive behavior and may act as sur-
vival strategy to beat situational demands. WO activates negative emotions (Williams,
2007) and such emotions lead to counterproductive behavior (Kaplan et al., 2009).
Hence, CL can be an outcome of WO. WO hampers good interpersonal relationships
at work (Ohly & Schmitt, 2015). When need of belongingness is not fulfilled, employ-
ees fail to develop affiliation, building up loneliness which eventually sways employ-
ees to look for connections through CL (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Negligence from
supervisors would lead to exploitation of expectations of the subordinate, creating dif-
ficult circumstances for sustaining an organization. To neutralize the detrimental
impact of phubbing, one would end up engaging in CL activities to survive (Pindek
et al., 2018). This would help them escape from the troubling situation, seeking relief
through social, and emotional support (Yousaf et al., 2022). Literature supports that
employees choose CL to recover social control and self-esteem (Koay, 2018). CL acts
as a perfect way of relief and replacement in helping employees recover social control
and self-esteem at work. In line with previous studies (Koay, 2018; Zhao & Xia, 2017),
it is proposed that ostracized employees will dump negative feelings of being ostra-
cized through the avoidance strategy of CL. Based on the above arguments we propose
that:
6 International Journal of Business Communication 00(0)

H3: WO is positively associated with CL.

Workplace Ostracism as a Mediator

Individuals look for acceptance and sense of belongingness at work. SP impedes
employee well-being, making employees perceive phubbing as ostracizing behavior
(Yasin et al., 2023). In line with eye-to-eye mentality, WO can provoke negative reci-
procity, resulting in deviant behavior (Greco et al., 2019). WO forces victims to put in
extra efforts to meet interpersonal demands at work, which makes employees feel
completely drained, and saturated by the work (Li et al., 2021). Expectancy Violations
Theory (EVT) argues that people show unexpected behavior when expected behavior
is violated. The theory propounds that humans hold certain behavioral expectations
from the person they are interacting with. When the behavior deviates from anticipa-
tion, expectations get violated. People try to cope up with such violations. In the con-
text of this study, when a supervisor violates the expectations of a subordinate through
phubbing, the subordinate may take it as negative valence which may impact the
dynamics of relationships and behavior. Ostracized individuals are likely to dimin-
ished positive attitude toward the organization if they fail to build and sustain healthy
relationships with colleagues (Eatough et al., 2011). The principle of “good-with-good
and bad-with-bad” acts as a reciprocity norm for ostracized employees. Hence, ostra-
cized individuals may repay the organization in the form of negative behavior such as
CL. As a consequence, it is expected that when phubbing is a norm by the supervisor,
it leads to WO, which will eventually lead to enhanced level of CL behavior.
Accordingly, we propose that:

H4: WO will act as a mediator between SP and CL.

Psychological Detachment as Moderator

Mentally and physically distancing from work-related activities and experiences at
home allows an employee to ease further taxation of resources (e.g., mood, time,
energy) and provides opportunities to replenish drained resources (Sonnentag et al.,
2010). PD thus becomes an important element in the mental recovery process (Nohe
et al., 2014). To attain PD, it is essential to keep oneself away from work related activi-
ties such as emails, meetings, official calls etc. It includes resistance against job related
tasks during leisure time, since that affects psychological relaxation. According to
effort recovery based on recovery experiences, daily fatigue level should come back to
baseline once work demands have come to an end and stabilized (Meijman & Mulder,
1998). However, there is a possibility that an employee is unable to detach herself/
himself from work, and accordingly the recovery process remains unfinished (Ghosh
et al., 2020). As an outcome, the employee will be exhausted at work the following
day; the individual may still feel tired and will not be able to carry out the job duties
well (Geurts & Sonnentag, 2006). This may initiate stressful conditions over a period
of time, leading to indulgence in non-work-related activities such as CL. If the
Saxena and Srivastava 7

Figure 1. Conceptual model.

employee is unable to be mentally present at work after the working day, may be due
to the fear of getting ostracized the other day, he might not be able to focus on his job
tasks well. Stressor-detachment model (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2015) emphasizes the role
of PD from work during non-work time as a source of relieving strain, improving well-
being as well as performance. We argue that personal non-work time can reflect how
an individual would respond to job related activities when he is back to work the next
day. PD can act as an important factor in the stressor–strain process. Considering the
model proposed in the study, WO is the stressor and CL is the strain. PD can thus assist
in decreasing the negative impact of WO by reducing indulgence in CL. Accordingly,
we propose that:

H5: PD will moderate the mediated association between WO and CL via WO.

Figure 1 of the study depicts the conceptual framework where SP is taken as a pre-
dictor variable and a criterion variable, WO as a mediator and PD as a moderator
variable.

Research Methodology
Sample and Procedure
We utilized the convenience sampling method to collect data from multiple companies
such as technology, manufacturing, and service industries, located in the northern part
of India. Employees of numerous companies were contacted and were apprised about
purpose of the survey that was purely academic in nature. In all, 384 respondents
agreed to participate in the survey. Survey forms were sent in sealed envelopes and
were received back in a similar way. In the first wave of data collection (T1), questions
pertaining to demographics, and SP were sent to the employees. In all, 331 responses
8 International Journal of Business Communication 00(0)

were received from employees. However, three questionnaires were discarded due to
incomplete information. After 2 weeks, in the second wave (T2), respondents who
completed the first survey (328) were asked to respond to questions pertaining to WO
and PD. At T2, we received 297 responses, of which two were discarded. After
2 weeks, these 295 respondents were again sent a questionnaire on CL in the third
wave (T3). At T3, we received 270 responses, of which 267 were found to be suitable
for the study. A unique code was assigned to each of the respondents in order to keep
track on the responses received. Duration of the survey was June to July 2022.
We controlled for the effect of age, gender, marital status, and tenure, for bias free
estimation of the main effects. Demographic profile of the respondents is depicted in
Annexure 1.

Measures
All the items were measured using a five-point Likert scale (1 = “strongly disagree”
and 5 = “strongly agree”).SP was measured using the nine-item scale by Roberts and
David (2017). A sample scale item was, “When my boss’ cell phone rings or beeps, he/
she pulls it out even if we are in the middle of a conversation.” PD was measured using
six items from Sonnentag and Fritz (2007). “I distance myself from my work.” repre-
sents a typical scale item. WO was gauged using the 10-item scale developed by Bass
et al. (1974). An example is, “Others at work shut me out of the conversation.” To
measure CL, we utilized the three-item Moody and Siponen (2013) scale. A sample
item is, “I spend a significant amount of time on the Internet at work for
non-work-related.”

Common Method Bias

In order to overcome the issue of common method bias, we introduced temporal sepa-
ration in the measurement of variables by collecting data in three waves, with a gap of
2 weeks between each wave (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Further, we conducted Harman’s
single factor test where the first factor was found to account for 35%. As these esti-
mates were lower than the suggested value of 50% (Podsakoff et al., 2003), Common
Method Bias is not expected to have contaminated the study results. Furthermore, we
calculated the Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT). The values were
found to be lower that the suggested cut-off of 0.85 (Henseler et al., 2015), again rul-
ing out chances of Common Method Variance.

Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation) and correlation analysis were assessed
utilizing SPSS 21. (Table 3). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to assess fit
of the proposed model in the current context using AMOS 21. PROCESS (Hayes,
2013) (Model 1, Model 4, and Model 14) was used to test the direct, moderation,
mediation, and moderated mediation effects.
Saxena and Srivastava 9

Table 1. Reliability and Validity of the Study Constructs.

Constructs FL AVE CR Cronbach

Supervisor phubbing (SP) 0.953 0.960 .728
SP1 0.805
SP2 0.844
SP3 0.869
SP4 0.887
SP5 0.768
SP6 0.863
SP7 0.9
SP8 0.866
SP9 0.872
Workplace ostracism (WO) 0.935 0.946 .661
WO1 0.881
WO2 0.771
WO3 0.855
WO4 0.851
WO5 0.820
WO6 0.875
WO7 0.720
WO8 0.738
WO9 0.862
Psychological Detachment (PD) 0.901 0.931 .772
PD1 0.895
PD2 0.899
PD3 0.893
PD4 0.827
Cyberloafing (CL) 0.922 0.951 .865
CL1 0.922
CL2 0.942
CL3 0.927

Reliability and Validity Analysis

Table 1 of the study depicts that Composite Reliability (CR) and Cronbach alpha
values for the all the constructs were above 0.80. Significant factor loadings along
with high values of CR provided evidence of convergent validity (Anderson &
Gerbing, 1988). Discriminant validity of the constructs was found to be satisfactory
as the square root of AVE scores was more than the corresponding correlation values
(Table 2) (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Further, HTMT value for each pair of con-
structs was less than 0.9 (Table 3), which further confirmed discriminant validity
(Henseler et al., 2015).
Table 2.depicts inter-correlation and discriminant validity among the constructs.
10 International Journal of Business Communication 00(0)

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics, Correlation, and Discriminant Validity.

S.no. Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 Gender 1.47 .50 1
2 Age 3.16 .89 .05 1
3 MS 2.42 .88 .02 .03 1
4 Tenure 2.44 1.21 .08 .12 .04 1
5 CL 3.66 .91 .21** .24** .16* .21* .937
6 PD 3.12 .64 .15* .32** .14* .19* .75** .879
7 SP 3.89 .58 .17* .18* .12* .22** .55** .63** .854
8 WO 2.96 1.12 .24** .20* .02 .14* .62** .53** .37** .813

Note. MS = Marital status; SP = Supervisor phubbing; WO = Workplace ostracism; PD = Psychological

detachment; CL = Cyberloafing.
*p ≤ .05, discriminant validity is depicted diagonally.
**p ≤ .01, N = 267, √ of AVE is depicted diagonally.

Table 3. HTMT Analysis.

S# Constructs 1 2 3 4
1 CL
2 PD 0.825
3 SP 0.595 0.684
4 WO 0.679 0.582 0.398

Note. SP = Supervisor phubbing; WO = Workplace ostracism; PD = Psychological detachment; CL =

Cyberloafing.

Results
Hypothesis Testing
Direct Effects. A positive and significant association was found between SP and CL
(β = .39, p ≤ .01), thereby supporting H1 (Table 1). Positive associations between SP
and WO (β = .28, p ≤ .01), and between WO and CL (β = .69, p ≤ .01) supported H2
and H3 respectively of the study. To confirm if WO mediates the association between
SP and CL, Model 4 of PROCESS was utilized. Significant indirect effect of SP on CL
through WO in the study (Indirect effect = 0.195, CI = [0.1309, 0.2637]; Boot
SE = 0.0344), provides support for Hypothesis 4 (Table 4).

Moderating Role of PD. Model 1 of PROCESS (Hayes, 2013) was used to test the mod-
erating effect of PD on the WO and CL relationship. As shown in Table 4, the interac-
tion between WO and PD was found to exercise significant impact on CL (β = −.07*,
Adjusted R square = .143), thereby supporting Hypothesis 5. Further, as can be
observed from the interaction plot (Figure 2), positive relation between SP and CL was
found to be weaker when PD was high.
Saxena and Srivastava 11

Table 4. Direct, Mediation and Moderation Effects.

HYP Path β t p-Value Result

H1 SP----CL .3962** 8.06 .000 supported
H2 SP----WO .2816** 6.52 .000 supported
H3 WO---CL .6905** 20.64 .000 supported
Mediator Indirect effect Boot SE CI
H4 SP----WO-----CL .195 0.0344 [.1309, .2637] supported
Moderator β t CI
H5 WO × PD---- −.071 −2.21 [−.1341, .0080] supported
CL Adjusted R
square = 0.143

Note. SP = Supervisor phubbing; WO = Workplace ostracism; PD = Psychological detachment; CL =

Cyberloafing.
**p ≤ .01.

4.5

3.5 Moderator
Cyberloafing

3 Low Detachment
2.5
High Detachment
2

1.5

Low Ostracism High Ostracism

Figure 2. Moderating effect of PD on WO-CL relationship.

Test of Moderated Mediation. Model 14 of PROCESS (Hayes, 2013) was utilized to

check moderated mediation. The effect of SP on CL via WO was highest at the lowest
level of PD, and weakest at the highest level of PD (Table 5). Hence, we can conclude
that H6 of the study is also supported.

Discussion
The main objective of this study was to widen the scope of comprehension of SP at
workplace and understand how it leads to increased levels of CL through WO. SP has
turned out to be a prominent phenomenon in the current period of high technology
orientation all over the world, when smartphone usage has become essential for surf-
ing (Mangrum et al., 2001). Engagement in online activities during conversations
depletes communication quality between the phubber and phubee (Abeele et al.,
12 International Journal of Business Communication 00(0)

Table 5. Moderated Mediation Results.

Mediator: Workplace Ostracism

Bootstrap
Values of Moderator Conditional SE Lower CI Upper CI
(Psychological Detachment) Indirect Effect
±1 SD 0.1620 0.038 0.09 0.24
M 0.1339 0.028 0.08 0.19
−1 SD 0.1058 0.023 0.06 0.15
Index of moderated mediation
Index Boot SE Lower CI Upper CI
Psychological detachment −0.0181 0.0088 −0.0336 −0.002

2016). According to SET, to maintain a healthy relationship it is important that both

parties contribute to the same extent, satisfying each other’s needs throughout the
exchange process. SP acts as spoiler of expectations, connection, and relationship
between supervisor and subordinate, hence Hypothesis 1 gets accepted. As antici-
pated, the findings depict that SP has a significant positive association with CL, indi-
cating that high levels of SP impair employee’s ability to focus, and enhance indulgence
in non-work-related online activities such as CL. This is in agreement with findings of
the study of Koay (2018), that people who are around at the workplace can influence
internet usage for activities not related to work. Results of the study imply that when
employees put in efforts at work and perform duties with full dedication, they expect
that the supervisor would listen to them. When the supervisor fails to reciprocate due
to phubbing, employees may try to neutralize the impact by involving in acts of CL.
Findings suggest that SP has a significant positive relationship with CL, suggesting
that employees experiencing high levels of SP are more likely to engage in non-work-
related online activities at work.
Besides, the results also depict that SP leads to ostracism, supporting Hypothesis
2. Previous studies have shown that phubbing negatively impacts interpersonal vari-
ables which, in turn, decrease trust and satisfaction (Abeele et al., 2016). Phubbing
instigates feelings of being ostracized because digital technology usage depletes
conversational quality (Gonzales & Wu, 2016). SP decrease engagement levels of
employees (Roberts & David, 2017). Even recalling a past episode of SP or just
imagining being phubbed, can develop feelings of WO. Results corroborate with the
findings of Hales et al. (2018), in pointing to supervisor phubbing as a threat, caus-
ing feelings of being ostracized. Taking the basis of EVT, it could be explained that
due to SP, expectations of the subordinate get violated. Furthermore, the results sug-
gest that WO leads to CL. This outcome is supported by earlier studies which sug-
gest that WO is positively linked to negative as well as deviant behaviors at
workplace (Aliza et al., 2021; Jiang et al., 2020; Shafique et al., 2020). WO can lead
to dearth of attachment and belongingness toward the organization, and lead to
Saxena and Srivastava 13

social neglect (Wu et al., 2021). WO was also found to act as an important mediating
linking mechanism, between SP and CL. Mercado et al. (2017) stated that employ-
ees employ neutralization techniques for providing a rationale for CL. Ostracized
employees tend to restrain efforts at work and often get engaged in retaliatory behav-
iors to ingratiate themselves; CL is a way of withholding efforts at work (Kidwell,
2010). The person who gets ostracized develops feeling of being ignored by others
(Knowles et al., 2010). Rejection-sensitive employees may consider SP as an ostra-
cizing behavior (Yasin et al., 2023). Social rejection and exclusion could be the root
cause of a person feeling ostracized (Wan et al., 2014). Phubbers exclude and ignore
others, which is the baseline for the act of WO (Knausenberger et al., 2022). WO
weakens social ties; as a result, employees tend to have diminished connections with
people around. CL comes out as a savior, helping employees regain their need for
belongingness through social control in the virtual world.
The relationship between WO and CL becomes stronger in the presence of facilitat-
ing conditions. As expected, a positive moderating effect of PD was found on CL.
When the ability to detach oneself from work related thoughts is low, the relationship
between WO and CL is highest. This indicates that PD is a significant aspect of non-
working life, and if it is less and gets coupled with WO, it weakens the social resources
further. An increase in levels of Ostracism reduces employee’s potential to psychologi-
cally detach from work. Employees who find it difficult to get detached from work-
related thoughts, display a stronger intention to quit their jobs (Atwater et al., 2016),
and eventually develop inclination toward CL as a coping behavior against the situa-
tion (Koay, 2018).

Theoretical Implications
Phubbing is a new concept and the literature is full of studies related to partner phub-
bing (Roberts & David, 2016). Only a few studies have explored phubbing by manag-
ers or supervisors (Roberts & David, 2017, 2020; Yasin et al., 2023). Hence this study
adds to the literature of SP at work. In addition, the study diversifies the budding inter-
est in the precursors of CL and expands development in this research area (Mashal,
2020; Mercado et al., 2017; Reizer et al., 2022). Past scholarships have explored how
SP can lead to impacts on subordinates’ job outcomes (Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas,
2018; Roberts & David, 2017), but literature lacks in understanding the underlying
mechanism of how SP can lead to CL. According to Roberts and David (2020),
researchers should enquire into the underlying mechanisms of SP and its impact on job
related outcomes. The present study provides evidence for application of both SET
and EVT theories. By employing the theories to CL research, the study depicts that SP
had a promotional effect on CL, through WO. When supervisors are preoccupied in
online activities, they get distracted and fail to give due attention to the subordinates,
which eventually violates expectations of the subordinates. Hence, the study contrib-
utes to expansion of SET and EVT applications.
Managers get an insightful view of how CL is becoming more apparent in orga-
nizations. In addition, by taking PD as a moderator, the study explicitly explains
14 International Journal of Business Communication 00(0)

the process of how subordinates react, and behave when they are phubbed. The
study puts forth a novel psychological mechanism to understand the relationship
between SP and CL. PD was found balancing the effects of WO on CL as a mod-
erator. The relationship between WO and CL turned out to be weaker with high
PD. The role of PD as a moderator lays emphasis on the proposition that one
should avoid negative job-oriented thoughts when away from work; else, the
thoughts would keep disturbing the person to the extent where he/she does not care
anymore about the relevant job duties and responsibilities. Results suggest that
high PD can make an employee stay focussed so that CL could be reduced. The
study is unique in that it provides an understanding of how employees of technol-
ogy, manufacturing and service industries respond to SP and WO in an overt
manner.

Practical Implications
Empirical findings of the study may generate various practical implications for
organizations. Knowledge of how SP and CL can be regulated at workplace can
provide significant insights for organizational growth. Training, campaigning on
effective information security and creating awareness programs should be specifi-
cally done to guide and coach managers not to indulge in phubbing and cyberloaf-
ing at work. Supervisors must be taught the consequence of phubbing in impression
management.
WO is associated with negative workplace behaviors such as interpersonal conflict,
aggression, and job withdrawal (Chung, 2015; Ferris et al., 2008). Practice of con-
stantly observing and monitoring for incidences of SP and WO taking place within the
organizational setting should be encouraged. Measurement of graveness of the issue
can be done by utilizing organization wide survey of the employees, with assurance of
complete anonymity (Zhao & Xia, 2017).To reduce ostracism, supervisors should pro-
mote amiable, and interactive corporate culture. Although certain negative work
events or emotions may be inevitable, organizations can make use of employee assis-
tance programs that extend support to employees in managing challenging relation-
ships at the workplace. Protocols for technology usage can prevent employees from
sending texts, scrolling social media or playing games during meetings. Role plays can
act as a good tool to sensitize supervisors about the impacts of SP and WO. Employees
should be trained on how to psychologically detach from work. Creating end-of-day
plans can help employees detach from work related thoughts. Through end-of-day
plans, employees can stay focussed about their responsibilities at home, which can
divert their mind from work assignments.
Focus on negative aspects alone of CL will not be a good strategy since positive
ramifications cannot be ignored. Complete eradication of CL may not be possible,
hence the employer must use it wisely and allow CL during micro breaks, to get the
better of stressful environments (Koay & Soh, 2019).
Saxena and Srivastava 15

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Alleviation of limitations was one of the main concerns taken into consideration
while planning this study. Nevertheless, a few limitations are significant to be
addressed and taken care of in future research. The sample included employees
from North Indian only. The study can be replicated using different samples from
other regions. The research design was cross-sectional in nature; it may cause
Common Method Variance. Video monitoring to measure employees’ social CL
could be adopted. Also, future research should incorporate and examine the longi-
tudinal effect of SP on employees’ attitudes and behaviors. It would furnish further
evidence for the predictive validity of this study. The study was conducted in the
Indian context; hence, it is not clear if the findings can be generalized for employee
behaviors in other cultural settings and contexts. Future studies can extend this
research by exploring impact of other mediating variables such as work engage-
ment, smartphone addiction, trust in supervisor, work life balance, negligence
behavior etc. It would be interesting to find how self-efficacy can act as a modera-
tor on the second stage of the model.

Annexure 1. Demographic details (267).

Variable Frequency Percentage

Gender
Male 145 54.30
Female 122 45.69
Marital status
Married 139 52.05
Unmarried 128 47.94
Age (Years)
21–30 76 28.46
31–40 137 51.31
41–50 39 14.60
More than 50 21 7.86
Tenure (Years)
0–5 110 41.19
6–10 73 27.34
11–15 65 24.34
16–20 17 6.36
More than 20 8 2.99

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
16 International Journal of Business Communication 00(0)

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.

ORCID iD
shalini srivastava https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5027-2851

References
Abeele, M. M. V., Antheunis, M. L., & Schouten, A. P. (2016). The effect of mobile messag-
ing during a conversation on impression formation and interaction quality. Computers in
Human Behavior, 62, 562–569.
Abeele, M. M. P. V., Hendrickson, A. T., Pollmann, M. M. H., & Ling, R. (2019). Phubbing
behavior in conversations and its relation to perceived conversation intimacy and distrac-
tion: An exploratory observation study. Computers in Human Behavior, 100, 35–47.
Agarwal, U. A., & Avey, J. B. (2020). Abusive supervisors and employees who cyberloaf:
Examining the roles of psychological capital and contract breach. Internet Research, 30(3),
789–809.
Aliza, K., Shaheen, S., Malik, M. J., Zulfiqar, S., Batool, S. A., Ahmad-ur-Rehman, M., &
Javed, A. (2021). Linking ostracism with employee negligence behavior: A moderated
mediation model. The Service Industries Journal. Advance online publication. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02642069.2021.1933456.
Al-Saggaf, Y., & O'Donnell, S. B. (2019). Phubbing: Perceptions, reasons behind, predictors,
and impacts. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 1(2), 132–140.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review
and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.
Atwater, L., Kim, K. Y., Witt, A., Latheef, Z., Callison, K., Elkins, T. J., & Zheng, D. (2016).
Reactions to abusive supervision: Examining the roles of emotions and gender in the USA.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(16), 1874–1899.
Bass, B. M., Cascio, W. F., & O’Connor, E. J. (1974). Magnitude estimations of expressions of
frequency and amount. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(3), 313–320.
Betts, T. K., Setterstrom, A. J., Pearson, J. M., & Totty, S. (2014). Explaining cyberloafing
through a theoretical integration of theory of interpersonal behavior and theory of organiza-
tional justice. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 26(4), 23–42.
Blanchard, A. L., & Henle, C. A. (2008). Correlates of different forms of cyberloafing: The role
of norms and external locus of control. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 1067–1084.
Chen, Y., & Li, S. (2019). The relationship between workplace ostracism and sleep quality: A
mediated moderation model. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 319.
Chen, Z. (2021). Influence of working from home during the COVID-19 crisis and HR practi-
tioner response. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 710517.
Chotpitayasunondh, V., & Douglas, K. M. (2018). Measuring phone snubbing behavior:
Development and validation of the Generic Scale of Phubbing (GSP) and the Generic Scale
of Being Phubbed (GSBP). Computers in Human Behavior, 88, 5–17.
Chung, Y. W. (2015). The mediating effects of organizational conflict on the relationships
between workplace ostracism with in-role behavior and organizational citizenship behav-
ior. International Journal of Conflict Management, 26, 366–385.
Eatough, E. M., Chang, C. H., Miloslavic, S. A., & Johnson, R. E. (2011). Relationships of
role stressors with organizational citizenship behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 96(3), 619–632.
Saxena and Srivastava 17

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.
Geurts, S. A., & Sonnentag, S. (2006). Recovery as an explanatory mechanism in the relation
between acute stress reactions and chronic health impairment. Scandinavian Journal of
Work, Environment & Health, 32, 482–492.
Ghosh, D., Sekiguchi, T., & Fujimoto, Y. (2020). Psychological detachment: A creativity per-
spective on the link between intrinsic motivation and employee engagement. Personnel
Review, 49, 1789–1804.
Glassman, J., Prosch, M., & Shao, B. B. M. (2015). To monitor or not to monitor: Effectiveness
of a cyberloafing countermeasure. Information Management, 52(2), 170–182.
Gonzales, A. L., & Wu, Y. (2016). Public cellphone use does not activate negative responses
in Others. . .Unless they hate cellphones. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,
21(5), 384–398.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American
Sociological R eview, 25, 161–178.
Greco, L. M., Whitson, J. A., O'Boyle, E. H., Wang, C. S., & Kim, J. (2019). An eye for an eye?
A meta-analysis of negative reciprocity in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology,
104(9), 1117–1143.
Greenberg, J., & Scott, K. S. (1996). Why do workers bite the hands that feed them? Employee
theft as a social exchange process (Vol. 18, pp. 111–156). CT JAI Press.
Hales, A. H., Dvir, M., Wesselmann, E. D., Kruger, D. J., & Finkenauer, C. (2018). Cell phone-
induced ostracism threatens fundamental needs. The Journal of Social Psychology, 158(4),
460– 473.
Haigh, A. (2015). Stop phubbing. http://stopphubbing.com.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. In A. F.
Hayes (Ed.), Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A
Regression-Based Approach (Vol. 1, p. 20). The Guilford Press.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discrimi-
nant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 43, 115–135.
Hu, Y., Chen, Y., & Ye, M. (2021). Eager to belong: Social cyberloafing as a coping response
to workplace ostracism. Current Psychology, 42(4), 1–10.
Jeong, S.-H., Kim, H., Yum, J., & Hwang, Y. (2016). What type of content are smartphone users
addicted to?: SNS vs. Games. Computers in Human Behaviors, 54, 10–17.
Jiang, H., Jiang, X., Sun, P., & Li, X. (2020). Coping with workplace ostracism: The roles
of emotional exhaustion and resilience in deviant behavior. Management Decision, 59(2),
358–371. https://doi. org/10.1108/MD-06-2019-0848.
Kaplan, S., Bradley, J. C., Luchman, J. N., & Haynes, D. (2009). On the role of positive and
negative affectivity in job performance: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 94(1), 162–176.
Karadağ, E., Tosuntaş, Ş. B., Erzen, E., Duru, P., Bostan, N., Şahin, B. M., Çulha, İ., & Babadağ,
B. (2015). Determinants of phubbing, which is the sum of many virtual addictions: A struc-
tural equation model. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 4(2), 60–74.
Kidwell, R. E. (2010). Loafing in the 21st century: Enhanced opportunities—and remedies—for
withholding job effort in the new workplace. Business Horizons, 53(6), 543–552.
Knausenberger, J., Giesen-Leuchter, A., & Echterhoff, G. (2022). Feeling ostracized by others’
smartphone use: The effect of phubbing on fundamental needs, Mood, and Trust. Frontiers
in Psychology, 13, 883901.
18 International Journal of Business Communication 00(0)

Knowles, M. L., Lucas, G. M., Molden, D. C., Gardner, W. L., & Dean, K. K. (2010). There’s
no substitute for belonging: Self-affirmation following social and nonsocial threats.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(2), 173–186.
Koay, K. Y. (2018). Workplace ostracism and cyberloafing: A moderated–mediation model.
Internet Research, 28, 1122–1141.
Koay, K. Y., & Soh, P. C. H. (2019). Does cyberloafing really harm employees’ work per-
formance? an overview. In Proceedings of the Twelfth international conference on man-
agement science and engineering management (pp. 901–912). Springer International
Publishing.
Lee, Y. (2022). Dynamics of symmetrical communication within organizations: The impacts
of channel usage of CEO, managers, and peers. International Journal of Business
Communication, 59(1), 3–21.
Li, M., Xu, X., & Kwan, H. K. (2021). Consequences of workplace ostracism: A meta-analytic
review. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 641302.
Lichtash, A. (2004). Inappropriate use of e-mail and the internet in the workplace. Dispute
Resolution Journal, 59(1), 26–37.
Lim, V. K. (2002). The IT way of loafing on the job: Cyberloafing, neutralizing and organiza-
tional justice. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial,
Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 23(5), 675– 694.
Litzky, B. E., Eddleston, K. A., & Kidder, D. L. (2006). The good, the bad, and the misguided: How
managers inadvertently encourage deviant behaviors. Academy of Management Perspectives,
20(1), 91– 103.
Mangrum, F. G., Fairley, M. S., & Wieder, D. L. (2001). Informal problem solving in the technol-
ogy-mediated work place. Journal of Business Communication, 38(3), 315–336.
Mashal, H. M. (2020). A review of cyberloafing predictors in literature. Sustainable Business
and Society in Emerging Economies, 2(1), 21–27.
Mazidi, A. M., Rahimnia, F., Mortazavi, S., & Lagzian, M. (2021). Cyberloafing in public sec-
tor of developing countries: Job embeddedness as a context. Personnel Review, 50(7/8),
1705–1738.
Meijman, T. F., & Mulder, G. (1998). Psychological aspects of workload. In P. J. D. Drenth, H.
Thierry & C. J. de Wolff (Eds.), Handbook of work and organizational: Work psychology
(pp. 5–33). Psychology Press/Erlbaum (UK) Taylor & Francis.
Mei, W., Wu, J., Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara, P., Liu, L., He, Y., & Song, M. (2022). Lose at sun-
rise, but gain at sunset: Linking social cyberloafing to psychological detachment, personal
life enhancement of work, and mental health. Work, Preprint, 1–10.
Mercado, B. K., Giordano, C., & Dilchert, S. (2017). A meta-analytic investigation of cyber-
loafing. Career Development International, 22(5), 546–564.
Moody, G. D., & Siponen, M. (2013). Using the theory of interpersonal behavior to explain
non-work-related personal use of the Internet at work. Information Management, 50(6),
322–335.
Nohe, C., Michel, A., & Sonntag, K. (2014). Family-work conflict and job performance: A
diary study of boundary conditions and mechanisms. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
35(3), 339–357.
Ohly, S., & Schmitt, A. (2015). What makes us enthusiastic, angry, feeling at rest or worried?
Development and validation of an affective work events taxonomy using concept mapping
methodology. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30, 15– 35.
Saxena and Srivastava 19

Pee, L. G., Woon, I. M. Y., & Kankanhalli, A. (2008). Explaining non-work-related computing
in the workplace: A comparison of alternative models. Information Management, 45(2),
120–130.
Pindek, S., Krajcevska, A., & Spector, P. E. (2018). Cyberloafing as a coping mechanism:
Dealing with workplace boredom. Computers in Human Behavior, 86, 147–152.
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 rem-
edies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
Reizer, A., Munk, Y., & Katz Frankfurter, L. (2022). Laughing all the way to the lockdown:
On humor, optimism, and well-being during COVID-19. Personality and Individual
Differences, 184, 111164.
Roberts, J. A. and M. E. & David (2016). My life has become a major distraction from my cell
phone: Partner phubbing and relationship satisfaction among romantic partners. Computers
in Human Behavior, 54, 134– 141.
Roberts, J. A., & David, M. E. (2017). Put down your phone and listen to me: How boss
phubbing undermines the psychological conditions necessary for employee engagement.
Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 206–217.
Roberts, J. A., & David, M. E. (2020). Boss phubbing, trust, job satisfaction, and employee
performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 155, 109702.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multi-
dimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 555–572.
Ryan, R. M., and Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and
new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25 (1), 54–67.
Shafique, I., Qammar, A., Kalyar, M. N., Ahmad, B., & Mushtaq, A. (2020). Workplace ostra-
cism and deviant behaviour among nurses: A parallel mediation model. Journal of Asia
Business Studies, 15(1), 50–71. https://doi.org/10.1108/JABS-03-2020-0096
Sheikh, A., Atashgah, M. S., & Adibzadegan, M. (2015). The antecedents of cyberloafing: A
case study in an Iranian copper industry. Computers in Human Behavior, 51(Pt A), 172–
179.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive,
procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 434.
Song, M., Ugrin, J., Li, M., Wu, J., Guo, S., & Zhang, W. (2021). Do deterrence mechanisms
reduce cyberloafing when it is an observed workplace norm? A moderated mediation
model. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18, 6751.
Sonnentag, S., Binnewies, C., & Mojza, E. J. (2010). Staying well and engaged when demands
are high: The role of psychological detachment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5),
965–976.
Sonnentag, S., & Fritz, C. (2007). The recovery experience questionnaire: Development and
validation of a measure for assessing recuperation and unwinding from work. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 12(3), 204–221.
Sonnentag, S., & Fritz, C. (2015). Recovery from job stress: The stressor‐detachment model as
an integrative framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(S1), S72S103.
Syrek, C. J., Kühnel, J., Vahle-Hinz, T., & De Bloom, J. (2018). Share, like, twitter, and con-
nect: Ecological momentary assessment to examine the relationship between non-work
social media use at work and work engagement. Work and Stress, 32(3), 209–227.
Wan, E. W., Xu, J., & Ding, Y. (2014). To be or not to be unique? The effect of social exclusion
on consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(6), 1109–1122.
20 International Journal of Business Communication 00(0)

Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 425–452.

Wu, J., Mei, W., Ugrin, J., Liu, L., & Wang, F. (2021). Curvilinear performance effects of
social cyberloafing out of class: The mediating role as a recovery experience. Information
Technology and People, 34(2), 581–598.
Yang, J., & Treadway, D. C. (2018). A social influence interpretation of workplace ostracism
and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 148, 879–891.
Yasin, R. M., Bashir, S., Abeele, M. V., & Bartels, J. (2023). Supervisor phubbing phenom-
enon in organizations: Determinants and impacts. International Journal of Business
Communication, 60(1), 150–172.
Yousaf, S., Imran Rasheed, M., Kaur, P., Islam, N., & Dhir, A. (2022). The dark side of phub-
bing in the workplace: Investigating the role of intrinsic motivation and the use of enterprise
social media (ESM) in a cross-cultural setting. Journal of Business Research, 143, 81–93.
Zhao, H., Peng, Z., & Sheard, G. (2013). Workplace ostracism and hospitality employees’ coun-
terproductive work behaviors: The joint moderating effects of proactive personality and
political skill. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 33, 219–227.
Zhao, H., & Xia, Q. (2017). An examination of the curvilinear relationship between workplace
ostracism and knowledge hoarding. Management Decision, 55(2), 331–346.
Zou, P., Huo, D., & Li, M. (2020). The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on firms: A survey
in Guangdong Province, China. Global Health Research and Policy, 5, 41.

Author Biographies
Anubhuti Saxena is working as an assistant professor at Bennett University, Greater Noida.
She is UGC NET JRF qualified in HRM. She has written several research papers and articles
which have got published in international and national journals.
Dr Shalini Srivastava is working as a professor (OB & HR) at Jaipuria Institute of Management,
Noida. She is HR PAN area chair and an ex-dean (Research) at Jaipuria, Noida. She has around
25 years of teaching experience. Dr Srivastava is an associate editor of Employee Relations and
a guest editor of Frontiers of Psychology. She is in the Reviewer Board International Journal of
Information Management, an A* Journal and reviewer of top A* and A category Journals. Dr
Srivastava’s research papers have been extensively accepted and published in top category A*
and A category Journals like International Journal of Hospitality Management, European
Marketing Journal, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, Journal of Business Research, Internet
Research, Personnel Review, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, International
Journal of Conflict Management, Journal of Hospitality Marketing Management, and Human
Resource Development Quarterly to name a few.