Organizational scholars have recently recognized ostracism as conceptually and empirically distinct from harassment (Ferris, Brown, Berry, & Lian, 2008). Drawing from theory and research that suggests that employees have a strong need to belong in their organizations, we examine the comparative frequency and impact of ostracism and harassment in organizations across three field studies. Study 1 finds that a wide range of employees perceive ostracism, compared to harassment, to be more socially acceptable, less psychologically harmful, and less likely to be prohibited in their organization. Study 2 surveyed employees from a variety of organizations to test our theory that ostracism is actually a more harmful workplace experience than harassment. Supporting our predictions, compared to harassment, ostracism was more strongly and negatively related to a sense of belonging and to various measures of employee well-being and work-related attitudes. We also found that the effects of ostracism on well-being and work-related attitudes were at least partially mediated by a sense of belonging. Study 3 replicated the results of Study 2 with data collected from employees of a large organization and also investigated the comparative impact of ostracism and harassment on employee turnover. Ostracism, but not harassment, significantly predicted actual turnover three years after ostracism and harassment were assessed, and this was mediated by a sense of belonging (albeit at p < .10). Implications for theory, research, and practice are discussed.

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

Why do third parties, individuals who are not the direct target of an act of mistreatment, attempt to either punish the perpetrator or help the victim? Starting with the basic proposition that third parties intervene when they perceive an act of mistreatment as morally wrong and that intervening is the morally right thing to do, I construct a model of third parties' morallymotivated responses to others' mistreatment. I draw from theories of deontic justice, moral intuitions, moral identity and moral emotions to explain why some third parties will be motivated to respond while others will not. I incorporate third party power, in the form of personal resources and hierarchical position, to provide a more nuanced explanation of how third parties will respond once motivated to do so in an actual workplace setting. In Studies 1 to 3, I test the basic propositions of my model. Study 1 finds that moral anger mediates the relationship between third parties' moral identity and injustice cognitions. Study 2 finds that moral anger mediates the relationship between third parties' moral identity and punishment. Study 3 finds that resource power is associated with helping the victim and indirect punishment and that relative position power is associated with direct and indirect punishment. In Studies 4 to 6, I extend my research to consider whether third parties react differently depending on the type of justice violation. I test the proposition that third parties' moral reactions are stronger in response to interpersonal injustice than the other types of injustice commonly studied in the organizational sciences. I find evidence for the stronger impact of interpersonal injustice in comparison to distributive injustice (Studies 4 and 5) and procedural injustice (Study 6). I conclude with a discussion of the theoretical and practical implications of this dissertation.

Nonverbal behavior is a hot topic in the popular management press. However, management scholars have lagged behind in understanding this important form of communication. Although some theories discuss limited aspects of nonverbal behavior, there has yet to be a comprehensive review of nonverbal behavior geared toward organizational scholars. Furthermore, the extant literature is scattered across several areas of inquiry, making the field appear disjointed and challenging to access. The purpose of this paper is to review the literature on nonverbal behavior with an eye towards applying it to organizational phenomena. We begin by defining nonverbal behavior and its components. We review and discuss several areas in the organizational sciences that are ripe for further explorations of nonverbal behavior. Throughout the paper, we offer ideas for future research as well as information on methods to study nonverbal behavior in lab and field contexts. We hope our review will encourage organizational scholars to develop a deeper understanding of how nonverbal behavior influences the social world of organizations.

This research takes a moral perspective to studying third parties' reactions to injustice as a function of their moral identity. Drawing from theories of deontic justice, moral intuition, moral heuristics, and moral identity, we develop and test a model of the moral underpinnings of third parties' reactions to injustice. First, we compare third parties' responses with interpersonal, distributive, and procedural justice violations. We hypothesize that third parties are more likely to intuit that interpersonal justice violations are morally wrong, compared with distributive and procedural justice violations. As a result, third parties are more likely to experience stronger moral anger and punish violators in response to interpersonal transgressions compared with distributive and procedural justice transgressions. Second, we test the proposition that third parties with a strong moral identity will react more strongly to justice violations than third parties with a comparatively weak moral identity. Results from 3 studies support these predictions.