Front. Psychol. Frontiers in Psychology Front. Psychol. 1664-1078 Frontiers Media S.A. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.726009 Psychology Original Research Linking Leader’s Behavioral Integrity With Workplace Ostracism: A Mediated-Moderated Model Chaman Seemab 1 Shaheen Sadia 2 * Hussain Asrar 3 1Department of Business Administration, University of Kotli Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Kotli, Pakistan 2Lyallpur Business School, Government College University Faisalabad, Faisalabad, Pakistan 3Department of Management Sciences, Capital University of Science & Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan

Edited by: Matteo Cristofaro, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Italy

Reviewed by: Vanessa Urch Druskat, University of New Hampshire, United States; Majid Murad, Jiangsu University, China; Umair Akram, Jiangsu University, China

 *Correspondence: Sadia Shaheen, sadia_shaheen5@yahoo.com, orcid.org/0000-0001-8690-1181

This article was submitted to Organizational Psychology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology

 20 06 2022 2022 13 726009 16 06 2021 02 05 2022 Copyright © 2022 Chaman, Shaheen and Hussain. 2022 Chaman, Shaheen and Hussain

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

Drawing on the social exchange theory (SET) and research on leadership influences, we developed and inspected a multilevel model to test the conditions and mechanisms through which a leader’s behavioral integrity (LBI) deters workplace ostracism (WO). We used trust as a mediator and the narcissistic personality of a leader as a boundary condition in the connection between a LBI and WO. Data were collected from 249 employees working in different five- and four-star hotels in Pakistan over three time lags. The statistical results revealed that a LBI reduces WO. Additionally, a LBI has an indirect effect on WO through interpersonal trust. We did not find statistical support for the moderating role of the narcissistic personality of a leader in the relationship between a LBI and WO. Implications, along with limitations and future research directions, are also discussed.

 leader’s behavioral integrity interpersonal trust narcissistic personality workplace ostracism social exchange theory Introduction

Recently, research on leaders’ behavioral integrity is gaining much more attention from academic researchers and practitioners (Guohao et al., 2021). A leader’s behavioral integrity (LBI) holds key importance in boosting positive workplace attitudes and avoiding ethical breakdowns (Yip and Walker, 2021). LBI is described as “an alignment between a leader’s words and actions” (Simons, 2002). Several studies suggest leaders’ behavioral integrity results in advancing positive outcomes such as helping behavior (Usman et al., 2021), organizational identification (Ete et al., 2021), occupational safety (Halbesleben et al., 2013), and employee commitment and performance (Leroy et al., 2012). Based on the above-stated studies, it would not be wrong to say that a LBI is a truism for leadership efficacy. LBI gained immense importance due to its undeniable outcomes in the workplace (Vogelgesang et al., 2021). In contempt of its vibrant worth, the construct LBI is rarely investigated with its wide antecedents and outcomes (Choi et al., 2020; Ete et al., 2021; Vogelgesang et al., 2021). Therefore, several researchers call for further investigations of leaders’ behavioral integrity (Ete et al., 2021; Javed et al., 2021). The LBI has the potential to curb negative workplace attitudes and behaviors (Choi et al., 2020). Thus, we suggested workplace ostracism (WO) can be minimized by using a LBI as a social tool.

WO refers to a situation in which employees feel that they are ignored by their coworkers as well as their supervisors (Ferris et al., 2008b). WO affects the social belongings of employees, which in turn affects their social needs (Ferris et al., 2012; Wu et al., 2021). So, employees become unable to fulfill their social and psychological needs, which in turn affects them mentally and physically (Singh and Srivastava, 2021). Guzzo and Dickson (1996) reported in their study that working in a team contributes toward individuals and group effectiveness, which shows the importance of social interactions and group cohesiveness. However, WO reduces social interactions and, in turn, reduces the level of employee contributions to the workplace (Gürlek, 2021). The employees working in different organizations become ostracized, which may lower their performance (Ferris et al., 2008b; Lustenberger and Jagacinski, 2010; Choi, 2020; Al-Atwi et al., 2021). Several researchers (Hauge et al., 2010; Wu et al., 2011; Al-Atwi et al., 2021) have studied the influence of WO and its outcomes in the workplace. For example, employees who become ostracized may show unfavorable job attitudes, such as lower job performance (Leung et al., 2011; Al-Atwi et al., 2021), high turnover intentions (Singh and Srivastava, 2021), and even engage in counterproductive workplace behavior (Zhao et al., 2013; Jahanzeb and Fatima, 2018).

There are several studies on the outcomes of WO but only a few studies on the antecedents of ostracism (Al-Atwi et al., 2021). Leadership is a fundamental but overlooked environmental stimuli that have the potential to deal with ostracism and to stimulate a shared way of thinking and a way of boosting interpersonal relationships (Kanwal et al., 2019). Leaders formulate a culture of mutual relationships, support, and inclusion (Ali et al., 2020). Researchers also suggest that practitioners can use leadership as a tool to eliminate, reduce, and handle ostracism (Brown et al., 2005). Drawing from the social exchange theory (SET) (Blau, 1964; Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005), the extent to which individuals trust their leader, the more bonds between leader and follower develop, which eventually lead toward alleviating ostracism. Employees express confidence toward their leader when he is practicing integrity through his words and actions (Maqsood and Ahm Shamsuzzoha, 2018). Palanski and Yammarino (2009) also suggested that a LBI boosts employee trust in the leader.

The narcissistic personality of an individual also affects ostracism in the workplace (Campbell et al., 2011). It can be characterized as magnificence, superiority, egocentricity, prerogative, and insubstantial self-esteem (Rosenthal and Pittinsky, 2006). According to Penney and Spector (2002), the narcissistic personality of a leader influences their subordinates to involve in negative behavior in the workplace. In organizational settings, a leader with a narcissistic personality involves themselves in negative activities, shows aggression toward their subordinates, neglects their ideas and suggestions, and excludes (ostracizes) employees in organizational activities (Bushman et al., 1998; Pulich and Tourigny, 2004; Asrar-ul-Haq and Anjum, 2020). In line with conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll et al., 2018), when employees interact with a narcissistic leader, it exhausts their psychological resources. Consequently, depletion of resources and a fear of the narcissistic leader weaken his bond with the leader.

The objective of this study was to investigate the connection among a LBI and WO in the service industry of Pakistan. This research also intent to inspect the mediating role of interpersonal trust and the moderating role of narcissistic personality in the connection between LBI and WO. The study has several contributions to the available literature. First, this study tries to answer the recent calls for research on the investigation of antecedents as well as different leadership styles in minimizing WO (Kanwal et al., 2019; Sarwar et al., 2020). Second, we also investigated how individual, organizational, and interpersonal differences affect WO. Third, there is an immense need to investigate these factors to overcome the destructive upshot of WO in service organizations in collectivist societies, where it has severe consequences. Researchers suggest the services sector has been considered a highly labor-intensive sector where interaction between customers and employers takes place frequently. Thus, the services sector is highly dependent on its employees for the proper functioning of the organization. Hence, adding a contextual contribution to provide empirical investigation on how to taper off WO in Asian communities, whereas most of the research on ostracism has been conducted in western communities. Fourth, the development of an integrative model of WO will add great significance to the existing literature.

 Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Development Leader’s Behavioral Integrity and Workplace Ostracism

In the current research, several researchers identified the numerous antecedents of WO. Such as to Christensen-Salem et al. (2021), suggest ethical leadership deters both group and individual-level ostracism. Similarly, Kanwal et al. (2019) found several leadership styles as antecedents of ostracism, such as Laissez-faire leadership, transformational leadership, authoritative leadership, and transactional leadership style. Relying on the above-stated studies, the importance of leadership styles in deterring WO cannot be ignored. The available literature on leadership styles also suggest that the LBI have the potential to minimize several negative workplace behaviors, such as deviant workplace behavior (Dineen et al., 2006). Thus, we considered LBI as an antecedent of WO.

Simons (2002) defined leader behavioral integrity as “the perceived pattern of alignment between the leader’s words and deeds or, in other words, the extent that leaders are seen as practicing what they preach.” From time to time, supervisors adopt a certain set of norms and values, but sometimes their actions lack these newly embedded sets of values, which reflect a breach of trust of the followers (Ishaq et al., 2021). This misalignment of words and actions is generally the result of a target achievement craze or requirement, which negatively impacts their subordinates and the work environment. In this capitalist paradigm, it is necessary for organizations to use minimum resources and generate maximum outputs (Becker and Gerhart, 1996). Managers and supervisors have to accomplish these specific goals and lead their teams or groups (Arshad et al., 2021). Moreover, this clash between values and actions results in misconceptions and causes dissatisfaction, peer conflicts, and bad management (Vogelgesang et al., 2020). On the contrary, a LBI boosts trust between followers, and, due to this reason, they are more motivated to perform better and avoid destructive behaviors in the workplace (Yang and Wei, 2018; Choi et al., 2020; Ete et al., 2021).

Ete et al. (2021) found a LBI results in causing certainty among followers. Due to having these feelings of certainty regarding the leaders’ endeavors, the subordinates are more likely to trust in the leader. Additionally, according to belongingness theory, leaders who are highly capricious are less reliable than employees, who prefer to maintain a distance from such types of leaders (Choi et al., 2020). Relying on the SET (Blau, 1964), we postulated that when a leader is highly unreliable and there is no consistency between his actions and words, the mutual relationship between leader and follower will be in danger, and followers will see him as untrustworthy or unpredictable (Dirks and Ferrin, 2002). The discrepancy between the words and actions of the leader disrupts the beliefs of the followers, and the followers begin to assume that the leader is not genuinely concerned about the followers’ wellbeing (Palanski and Yammarino, 2011). Thus, their beliefs jeopardize the trust between leader and follower.

If the leader and follower have a trusting relationship, then they can spontaneously share happiness and sorrows with each other (Lapidot et al., 2007; Carnevale et al., 2020). Additionally, the element of trust encourages followers to reciprocate in a positive manner with the leader.

Once followers perceive their leader as untrustworthy, they avoid interaction with the leader, are not willing to share their ideas, and make themselves susceptible to those who have to contravene their trust (Lapidot et al., 2007; Lacroix and Pircher Verdorfer, 2017). Thus, the discernment of mistrust is considered a threat to an individual, group, and organizational functioning; wellbeing; and social exchange (Blau, 2017). Consequently, all these factors translate into WO. Thus, in the light of evidence, it is hypothesized as follows:

H1: LBI is negatively related to WO.

 Interpersonal Trust as a Mediator

McAllister (1995) referred to “interpersonal trust as the extent to which a person is confident in and willing to act on the basis of the words, actions, and decisions of another.” The conceptualization of the interpersonal trust phenomenon varies. Literature provides an immense amount of evidence regarding the multi-range of interpersonal trust. From the perspective of leader and employee, researchers consider the phenomenon of interpersonal trust as trust in supervisor and define it as “the willingness of one individual to be vulnerable to another” (Ferrin and Lyu, 2018; Ete et al., 2021). Trust helps in building a positive work atmosphere in the organization on the idea of honesty, morally supportive, and helpful relationships. It permits idea sharing without hesitation and hurdles, which affect information quantity and quality (Klaussner, 2012). It helps to motivate employees to enthusiastically cooperate and support each other in handling work-related issues (Saleem et al., 2020). The workplace environment has a valuable impact on employees, and a trust-based work environment helps in character building and gives the philosophy of honesty and moral support-based relationship (Lapidot et al., 2007). In organizations in which trust prevails, effective communication is done without hesitation, employees share their ideas and the problems they are encountering with their immediate bosses. SET (Blau, 2017) argues that positive interactions among individuals are based on the mutual response, in leader and follower case, it exists when both leader and followers’ words, action, and deeds are on the same page (Simons et al., 2007). Researchers and psychologists use SET (Blau, 2017) as a tool to understand how fairness and justice nourish the development of interpersonal trust and several researchers follow the same pattern (Deluga, 1994; Aryee et al., 2002; Camerman et al., 2007; Schoorman et al., 2007). Employee’s trust in their leaders results from their leaders’ behavioral integrity (Palanski and Yammarino, 2009). In an organizational setting, in order to achieve common organizational goals, individuals are supposed to work with coordination, but it is terrible with the existence of ostracism at the workplace (Robinson, 1996; Kramer, 1999). Thus, the presence of behavioral integrity is necessary to create the interpersonal trust that is needed for establishing coordination between workers. Zhang and Dai (2015) reported that interpersonal trust has a noteworthy toxic relationship with ostracism, which means in organizations where interpersonal trust exists among leader and employee, which channels through alignment of their action, words, and deeds, have a strong work environment and ostracism is reduced. Thus, on the basis of the above literature, it is predicted as follows:

H2: Interpersonal trust mediates the relationship between a LBI and WO.

 Narcissistic Personality as a Moderator

Narcissism is recognized as a personality trait incorporating magnificence, superiority, egocentricity, prerogative, insubstantial dignity, and aggression (Rosenthal and Pittinsky, 2006). For the past two decades, this particular concept has been attaining importance in the literature; therefore, psychologists and clinical experts are analyzing this personality trait in multiple dimensions (Asrar-ul-Haq and Anjum, 2020; Bernerth, 2020; Fehn and Schütz, 2020). From an organizational perspective, this concept is linked with the emotional stability and instability of individuals related to their performance (Ouimet, 2010). Furthermore, in this perspective of leadership, a leader’s personality influences its followers’ behaviors (Nassif et al., 2020), and it has been observed that the narcissistic personality of a leader enhances the deviant behaviors of the employees (Penney and Spector, 2002; Judge et al., 2006; Nevicka et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2018). Rosenthal and Pittinsky (2006) characterized the narcissistic personality of an individual as magnificence, superiority, egocentricity, prerogative, and insubstantial self-esteem. In the organizational setting, a leader with a narcissistic personality involves themselves in negative activities, shows aggression toward their subordinates, neglects their ideas and suggestions, and excludes (ostracizes) employees in an organizational setting on the basis of their dislikes, and this sort of behavior is a threat to the employee’s wellbeing (Nevicka et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2018). Tepper et al. (2006, 2009) conducted a study on the narcissistic personality of leaders and their impact on employees and reported that narcissistic supervisors are emotionally nuclear and are abusive in supervision. Narcissistic leaders are hypersensitive, arrogant, and self-centered (Rosenthal and Pittinsky, 2006). The characteristics of narcissistic leaders create difficulties in interpersonal relationships. The absence of empathy, support, and relatedness drains the employee’s psychological resources (Westman et al., 2004). Relying on the conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, 2002), a narcissistic leader drains employees’ psychological resources, which shapes their less supportive workplace behaviors, such as ostracism. In consonance with SET (Blau, 1964), a leader’s behavior shapes followers’ reactions through the social exchange process. When employees find their leader as supportive and kind in interpersonal relationships, they return the leader’s favor (Erkutlu and Chafra, 2017). On the contrary, when they find their leader arrogant and less supportive, they reciprocate in the same manner (Blau, 1964). The followers working under narcissistic leaders are more probably to be victims of ill-treatment like WO. Thus, a leader’s narcissistic personality boosts WO and neutralizes the effect of the LBI.

Therefore, leaders will have optimum levels of WO even if they have a high level of LBI due to narcissistic behaviors (i.e., over-confidence, egoism, entitlement, fragile self-possession, and aggression). Therefore, it is expected that WO is affected by a leader’s narcissistic personality, and it will also affect the benefits of behavioral integrity. Therefore, it is proposed as follows:

H3: Narcissistic personality moderates the relationship between a LBI and WO such that the relationship will be stronger when narcissistic personality is high than low narcissistic personality. See Figure 1.

Conceptual framework.

 Methodology

Data for this study were collected from the service sector of Pakistan. We used a time-lag approach to data collection. We chose five- and four-star hotels in Pakistan from the province of Punjab, Pakistan. Maximum hotels were approached for data collection. But only 39 hotels agreed to participate in the study. After meeting with the managers or heads of the hotels, the purpose of the study was elaborated. It was assured to them that the obtained data will be used only for academic purposes and that it would be used in an aggregate manner. Additionally, your answers will not be considered as correct or incorrect, so be comfortable while filling out the questionnaire. After taking permission from the management and heads of the hotel, the questionnaire was distributed. We collected the data from two sources, namely, the supervisor and the follower. The followers/subordinates responded to the independent variable (the LBI), the mediator (interpersonal trust), and the outcome variable (WO). The supervisors responded with narcissistic personalities. Data were collected from different subsections of hotels, such as marketing, security, housekeeping, accounts, maintenance, and human resource.

Responses were gathered on three time lags by applying a 1-month time interval between each time lag. In time period 1, responses were gathered on the LBI. In time period 2, responses were gathered on narcissistic personality and interpersonal trust. In time period 3, responses were gathered on WO. To reduce the possible issue of common method bias, we applied temporal separation between variables, which is suggested by several researchers (Podsakoff et al., 2003; Shaheen et al., 2017; Khan et al., 2020; Naseer et al., 2020). We used a convenience sampling technique to collect the data. The nesting issue has been controlled in the hypothesis analysis by recruiting one employee-leader dyad from every team. A unique identification number was assigned to each participant so that the responses at different time lags could be matched. The unique identification number also helped us in matching each leader’s response with each employee’s response.

A total of 360 questionnaires were distributed. In time period 1, we received 326 completely filled questionnaires, having a response rate of 90.50%. In time period 2, we contacted only those members who completed the survey in time period 1 and a total of 326 were floated. We received 299 completely filled questionnaires with a response rate of 91.71%. In time period 3, a total of 299 surveys were distributed, and we received 249 completely filled questionnaires, having a response rate of 83.27%.

According to the demographic information, 78.3% were male and 21.7% were female. With respect to age, 21.1% belongs to the age category of 20–30 years, 69.9% belongs to the age category of 31–40 years, and 9% belongs to the age group of 40 years and above. Regarding employee tenure, 6% had 1–3 years of experience, 13.3% had 4–6 years of experience, 37.7% had 7–9 years of experience, and 43% had 10 and above years of experience. Related to education, 24.5% belong to below 14 years of education, 19.7% had 14 years of education, 43% had 16 years of education, and 12.8% had a diploma and any other education.

Control Variables

Several researchers used demographic variables as control variables in ostracism studies. Researchers suggest that feelings of ostracism might have different effects for employees who have different age groups and gender, along with having different ranks of education and experience (Ferris et al., 2008a; Jahanzeb and Fatima, 2018). Accordingly, these different levels may also affect interpersonal trust (Kannan-Narasimhan and Lawrence, 2012). Therefore, we controlled for gender, age, education, and experience in the regression analysis. Demographic variables were measured by using coding. We measured gender, age, education, and experience as ordinal variables by using different categories. Such as, gender was measured in two groups, namely, male (classify as 1) and female (classify as 2). Similarly, age was also measured as an ordinal variable by using five categories, such as 20–24 years of age was classify as 1, 25–29 years of age was classify as 2, 30–34 years of age was classify as 3, 35–39 years of age was classify as 4, and 40 and above were classify as 5. The same procedure was used to measure other demographic variables.

 Measures

All the items in the questionnaire were responded to by using a 5-point Likert scale from 1 [strongly disagree (SD)] to 5 [strongly agree (SA)].

 Leader’s Behavioral Integrity

Employees’ perceptions of their LBI were measured using the 8-item scale developed by Simons et al. (2007). Sample questions include “There is a match between my manager’s words and actions” and “My manager conducts himself/herself by the same values he/she talks about.” The Cronbach’s α was 0.91.

 Interpersonal Trust

The 11-item scale developed by McAllister (1995) was used to measure interpersonal trust. This measure includes 5 items for affect-based trust and 6 items for cognition-based trust. The sample items include “My leader and I have a sharing relationship,” “We can both freely share our ideas, feelings, and hopes,” and “My leader approaches his/her job with professionalism and dedication.” The Cronbach’s α was 0.91.

 Narcissistic Personality

The Narcissistic Personality Inventory-16 developed by Ames et al. (2006) was used to assess the narcissistic personality of the leader. This is a 16-item scale. The sample includes “I know that I am good because everybody keeps telling me so,” “I like to be the center of attention,” and “I think I am a special person.” The Cronbach’s α was 0.86.

 Workplace Ostracism

A 10-item scale developed by Ferris et al. (2008a) was used to measure WO. Sample items include “Others ignored you at work,” “Your greetings have gone unanswered at work,” and “Others left the area when you entered.” The Cronbach’s α was 0.93.

 Results Measurement Model

Before testing the main hypothesis, we analyzed the measurement model through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to determine the discriminant validity. We performed CFA by using AMOS software, which has been widely used by researchers (Naseer et al., 2020; Irshad et al., 2021). The obtained results support the uniqueness of all the theoretical variables as additionally also prove that the hypothesized model is free from common method bias. According to the statistical results, the four-factor model had an acceptable model fit in contrast to alternative models such as the three-factor and two-factor models. χ2/df = 1.455, RMSEA = 0.043, IFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.94, and CFI = 0.95 (Hair et al., 2006). See Table 1.

Fit indices of hypothesized model and alternative models.

Model χ2 df Δχ2 Δ df RMSEA CFI SRMR
M0-Hypothesized 4-Factor Model 831.024 571 – – 0.043 0.95 0.0516
M1-3-Factor Model by combining LBI and IT 1888.535 591 1057.511 20 094 0.754 0.1128
M2-2-Factor Model by combining LBI, IT, and NP 2969.825 593 2138.80 22 0.127 0.549 0.1590

LBI, leader’s behavioral integrity; IT, interpersonal trust; NP, narcissistic personality; WOS, workplace ostracism.

 Descriptive Analysis, Correlation Analysis, Average Variance Extracted, and Square Root of Average Variance Extracted

In Table 2, mean, standard deviation, correlation analysis, average variance extracted (AVE), and the square root of average variance extracted (SQRAVE) have been reported. The construct validity of the theoretical model was assessed through convergent and construct validity using SPSS 23. The convergent validity is satisfactory as depicted by AVE values. The values of AVE are above 0.5, which is a cutoff point recommended by Hair et al. (2006). Additionally, the discriminant validity was also assessed by utilizing a criterion recommended by Fornell and Larcker (1981). The statistical results prove the discriminant validity of the theoretical model because the square root values of all the theoretical variables are bigger than their correlations (Fornell and Larcker, 1981) (refer to Table 2 the square root values given on diagonal). The Cronbach’s alpha (α) reliabilities of LBI, interpersonal trust, narcissistic personality, and WO were 0.91, 0.91, 0.68, and 0.93, respectively, which also satisfied the cutoff criteria, which is 0.6 (Hair et al., 2006, Hair et al., 2016). The correlation analysis is also presented in Table 2.

Descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, and discriminant validity.

Variables Mean SD CR α AVE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 Gender 1.22 0.41 −
2 Age 1.86 0.53 0.029 −
3 Education 2.31 0.93 0.058 −0.190** −
4 Experience 3.18 0.88 −0.130* 0.011 −0.230** −
5 LBI 3.45 0.84 0.913 0.91 0.601 0.088 −0.178** –0.093 –0.105 0.775
6 IT 3.82 0.85 0.918 0.91 0.652 0.003 −0.196** 0.010 –0.103 0.184** 0.808
7 NP 3.97 0.79 0.912 0.86 0.421 0.017 –0.056 0.009 –0.083 0.010 –0.031 0.815
8 WOS 2.99 0.89 0.933 0.93 0.664 0.083 –0.069 0.0176** 0.266** −0.159* −0.290** –0.106 0.649

N = 249, *p < 0.05, **P < 0.001. LBI, leader’s behavioral integrity; IT, interpersonal trust; NP, narcissistic personality; WOS, workplace ostracism.

The correlation analysis shows leaders’ behavioral integrity is positively and significantly related with the interpersonal trust (r = 0.184, P < 0.0), positively but insignificantly related with the narcissistic personality (r = 0.10, P > 0.05), and negatively but significantly related with the WO (r = –0.159, P < 0.01). Likewise, interpersonal trust is negatively and insignificantly related with the narcissistic personality (r = –0.031, P > 0.05) and negatively but significantly related with the WO (r = –0.290, P < 0.01). Narcissistic personality is negatively and insignificantly related with the WO (r = –0.106, P > 0.05). Please see Figure 2.

Summary of the findings. T1, time lag 1; T2, time lag 2; T3, time lag 3; *p < 0.10, ***p < 0.01.

 Hypothesis Analysis

We utilized the most popular method proposed by Preacher et al. (2007) to analyze the proposed model. Specifically, the hypotheses were confirmed using PROCESS macro by Hayes (2013). We utilized model 4 to test the mediation hypothesis and model 3 to test the moderation hypothesis, which have been widely used previously by academic researchers to test mediation and moderation relationships. We controlled the demographic variables in the regression analysis. The findings of the hypothesis analysis are presented in Tables 3, 4. In line with hypothesis 1, LBI is negatively related with the WO, which was proven by the obtained results (r = –0.116, P < 0.01). Thus, hypothesis 1 is supported. Hypothesis 2 stated that interpersonal trust mediates the connection between LBI and WO, which was also supported by the results. As 95% of bootstrapped confidence interval results did not have zero [–0.100, –0.017] and based on statistical results, it is stated that interpersonal trust acts as a mediator in the direct connection between LBI and WO. Hypothesis 2 is supported. Hypothesis 3 stated that narcissistic personality moderates the relationship between LBI and WO such that the connection will be weaker when narcissistic personality is high. We did not find support for this hypothesis as proven by the statistical results of the interaction term (r = –0.017, P > 0.05). For this reason, hypothesis 3 is rejected.

Results of the mediation analyses.

Coefficient SE Bootstrap 95% CI
IV to mediator (A path)
LBI → IT 0.187*** 0.0635
Mediator to DV (B path)
IT → WOS −0.0282* 0.064
Total effect of IV on DV (C path) −0.169* 0.067
Direct effect of IV on DV (C path) −0.116* 0.065
An indirect effect of IV on DV through the proposed mediator
LBI → IT → WOS −0.052* 0.021 [−0.100, −0.017]

N = 249, *p < 0.10, ***p < 0.01. LBI, leader’s behavioral integrity; IT, interpersonal trust; NP, narcissistic personality; WOS, workplace ostracism.

Moderation analysis.

Moderator: Narcissistic personality Dependent variable: Workplace ostracism
β SE LL CL UL CL
Constant 3.80 1.29 1.246 6.364
Leader’s behavioral –0.100 0.35 –0.8025 0.600
Narcissistic personality –0.057 0.323 –0.694 0.578
Leader’s behavioral × Narcissistic personality –0.017 0.088 –0.191 0.157
Discussion

WO has been considered a staid threat to employees’ workplace behaviors and attitudes as verified by several researchers (Sarwar et al., 2020; Takhsha et al., 2020; Singh and Srivastava, 2021; Uslu, 2021). Due to its negative effects, it can also harm the wellbeing of the service sector and its employees in delivering effective services. Thus, it is pivotal to understand how to minimize ostracism, particularly in service organizations. The results of this study address this central issue. The findings of the study reveal a LBI, such as an alignment between a leader’s words and actions, fair treatment of the leader, and morality of the leader, have a negative impact on WO. Previous findings on the leader-member exchange, ethical leadership, transformational leadership, spiritual leadership, and WO also provide support for our findings (Fiset and Boies, 2018; Babalola et al., 2019; Kanwal et al., 2019; Greenbuam et al., 2020). Additionally, SET (Blau, 2017) serves as a theoretical pillar in justifying the obtained results. In line with SET (Blau, 2017), helpful behaviors are reciprocated with positive acts. When employees experience justice and fair treatment by their leader, a sense of trust is developed. These feelings of trust motivate employees to exchange work-related problems with the leader. Thus, a friendly relationship boosts an environment of collaboration and sharing. Employees feel like a part of the organization. Resultantly, they feel less ostracized. In contrast to a situation where employees do not trust their leader due to his/her misalignment in deeds and acts. In this situation, employees prefer to withhold information and keep their distance from the leader, which ultimately results in WO.

The findings suggest that interpersonal trust mediates the connection between LBI and WO. When employees experience fair treatment by the leader, transparency in words and actions strengthens their trust in their leader (Blau, 2017). The positive feelings regarding a leader’s transparent behavior eventually enhance a follower’s trust, and the aura of trust motivates followers to share their problems with their leader. Contrary to our expectations and available literature, we found no support for the moderating role of the narcissistic personality of the leader in the connection between the LBI and WO. There may be certain reasons for the rejection of this prediction. Pakistan, for example, is categorized as having a high collectivistic culture. Due to the attributes of collectivist culture, leaders wish to maintain harmonious relationships and esteem in the eyes of their followers. Therefore, they avoid demonstrating aggression to their followers. The other reason could be the service sector, where leaders have to play the role as role models in behaving well and having a harmonious relationship with their followers. Therefore, they avoid demonstrating aggression and antipathy toward the followers.

Theoretical Implications

This study is an extension of the available literature by providing a unique investigation between LBI and WO with the lens of interpersonal trust. Additionally, the investigation of the moderating role of narcissistic personality enriches the literature on leadership and individual differences. Despite having the utmost importance of these constructs in organizational studies, little was known about the impact of LBI on reducing WO in the service sector of Pakistan. Thus, the current study adds an essential contextual contribution to the available literature. Despite having several consequences of WO in the services sector, such as its negative impact on service sector performance, wellbeing, and productivity, the empirical investigation of a LBI in attenuating its harmful impact in the service sector was less investigated.

Additionally, existing empirical pieces of evidence on the negative connection among leadership approaches like ethical leadership, transformational leadership, and spiritual leadership with WO call for further leadership styles to attenuate its destructive impact in the services sector (Kanwal et al., 2019). The empirical investigation of the negative connection between LBI and WO strengthens the literature of leadership in understanding the importance of LBI to overcome ostracism in the service industry.

Additionally, the present literature undermines the empirical shreds of evidence in understanding the role of interpersonal trust as a mediator in the connection between LBI and WO. By establishing interpersonal trust as a mediator in the relationship between a LBI and WO, this study extends the scope of SET theory in understanding the trust as a fundamental source in curbing ostracism. Thus, the empirical investigation adds the potential antecedents of ostracism in the service sector. The outcomes of the research also reinforce the conclusions of the previous investigations that suggested a leader’s positive behavior reduces the negative behavior of employees. The relationship between the variables is mainly theorized based on SET. The SET theory helps us in analyzing the leadership–ostracism relationship. The negative relationship between LBI and ostracism extends the scope of SET in the context of the service sector. Additionally, the inclusion of trust as a mediator in the LBI and ostracism relationship enriches the scope of LBI in reducing ostracism. Finally, the empirical investigation of the moderating role of the narcissistic personality of a leader in strengthening ostracism in the workplace extends the literature of leadership in understanding the negative outcomes of leadership styles in the service sector.

 Practical Implications

We suggested several implications for the practitioners and managers in the services sector to curb the practices of WO. The findings of the study revealed that service organizations have to bear a high cost when employees and their leaders experience ostracism. Therefore, we suggested that it is necessary to deal with the WO before its emergence in the service organization.

We suggested that service organizations should direct their leaders or managers to inspire their followers/employees by developing transparency in their words and actions (behavioral integrity) and provide support so they can develop feelings of relatedness and belongingness, which may help followers mitigate the feelings of WO. To address this concern, organizations need to educate their leaders about the prominence of behavioral integrity in minimizing the impact of WO through training, seminars, and workshops. Leaders should cultivate an atmosphere of trust through their actions and words. For this, leaders need to enforce integrity on a permanent basis. Leaders/managers should create an atmosphere of transparent relationships where employees perceive feelings of trust and relatedness, which can help in safeguarding employees’ social and emotional needs. For this, they should demonstrate a transparent system in all aspects, not only in reward allocation but also in punishments. Such relational transparency helps employees in boosting feelings of trust in their leaders. Resultantly, they will start to rely on their leader without any hesitation, which ultimately results in reducing WO. The interdependence between leader and employee is a robust tool to develop a strong bond between leader and employee. The managers should also consider the consequences of the narcissistic personality of leader (e.g., arrogance, self-centeredness, and low leader member exchange) and take preventive measures to minimize such behaviors through professional trainings and workshops. When the negative impact of the narcissistic personality of leader is weakened, there are greater chances of strengthening the positive impact of LBI on WO.

 Limitations and Future Research Directions

Despite having several strengths, the study is not limitation-free. First, the only time-lag approach is not sufficient to mitigate common method bias. We suggested that a longitudinal approach should be utilized. Second, we emphasized the personality trait of a leader as a moderating mechanism, but it would be very interesting to investigate some cultural variables as a moderating mechanism impacting WO. The findings of the study suggest that LBI relieves ostracism. Furthermore, this line of research could be extended by adding mechanism that helps the practitioners in reducing ostracism in the service sector, such as social support, psychological capital, and ethical leadership. The presence of ostracism has greater threats for collectivist cultures as contrast to individualistic cultures. Collectivist cultures pay more attention to interpersonal relationships, bonding, and pleasant relationships. Thus, employees, leaders, and consumers belonging to collectivist cultures are prominently overwhelmed by ostracism. The study has been conducted in Pakistan, so the findings may not be applicable to individualistic cultures. In the present research we investigated only the antecedents of ostracism in the service organization, which depicts only a half picture of the story; it would be fruitful to analyze the outcomes of ostracism. For example, the behaviors of employees when they experience ostracism (e.g., work engagement, negligence and tardiness, and passion at work).

Third, we considered only the services sector for the investigation of the theoretical model. Furthermore, we suggested a comparison study between services and production organizations to understand the impact of WO.

 Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

 Author Contributions

All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication.

 Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

 Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

 References Al-Atwi A. A. Cai Y. Amankwah-Amoah J. (2021). Workplace ostracism, paranoid employees and service performance: a multilevel investigation. J. Manag. Psychol. 36 121–137. 10.1108/JMP-01-2020-0008 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. Int. J. Hos. Manage. 91:102696. 10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102696 Ames D. R. Rose P. Anderson C. P. (2006). The NPI-16 as a short measure of narcissism. J. Res. Pers. 40 440–450. 10.1016/j.jrp.2005.03.002 Arshad M. Abid G. Torres F. V. C. (2021). Impact of prosocial motivation on organizational citizenship behavior: the mediating role of ethical leadership and leader–member exchange. Qual. Quant. 55 133–150. 10.1007/s11135-020-00997-5 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. J. Organ. Behav. 23 267–285. 10.1002/job.138 Asrar-ul-Haq M. Anjum T. (2020). Impact of narcissistic leadership on employee work outcomes in banking sector of Pakistan. Futur. Bus. J. 6:34. 10.1186/s43093-020-00040-x Babalola M. T. Stouten J. Camps J. Euwema M. (2019). When Do Ethical Leaders Become Less Effective? The Moderating Role of Perceived Leader Ethical Conviction on Employee Discretionary Reactions to Ethical Leadership. J. Bus. Ethics 154 85–102. 10.1007/s10551-017-3472-z Becker B. Gerhart B. (1996). The Impact of Human Resource Management on Organizational Performance: Progress and Prospects. Acad. Manage. J. 39 779–801. 10.5465/256712 256712 Bernerth J. B. (2020). Does the Narcissist (and Those Around Him/Her) Pay a Price for Being Narcissistic? An Empirical Study of Leaders’ Narcissism and Well-Being. J. Bus. Ethics 8 1–14. 10.1007/s10551-020-04595-1 Blau P. M. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Blau P. M. (2017). Exchange and Power in Social Life. In Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York, NY: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203792643 Brown M. E. Treviño L. K. Harrison D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organ. Behav. Hum. Dec. Proc. 97 117–134. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.03.002 Bushman B. J. Baumeister R. F. Burrell S. Hunn R. Mackey D. Mellinger T. (1998). Threatened Egotism, Narcissism, Self-Esteem, and Direct and Displaced Aggression : Does Self-Love or Self-Hate Lead to Violence? J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 75 219–229. 10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.219 9686460 Camerman J. Cropanzano R. Vandenberghe C. (2007). The benefits of justice for temporary workers. Group Organ. Manag. 32 176–207. 10.1177/1059601102287112 Campbell W. K. Hoffman B. J. Campbell S. M. Marchisio G. (2011). Human Resource Management Review Narcissism in organizational contexts. Hum. Res. Manag. Rev. 21 268–284. 10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.10.007 Carnevale J. B. Huang L. Uhl-Bien M. Harris S. (2020). Feeling obligated yet hesitant to speak up: Investigating the curvilinear relationship between LMX and employee promotive voice. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 93 505–529. 10.1111/joop.12302 Choi Y. (2020). A study of the influence of workplace ostracism on employees’ performance: moderating effect of perceived organizational support. Eur. J. Manag. Bus. Econ. 29 333–345. 10.1108/EJMBE-09-2019-0159 Choi Y. Yoon D. J. Kim D. (2020). Leader behavioral integrity and employee in-role performance: The roles of coworker support and job autonomy. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17:4303. 10.3390/ijerph17124303 32560172 Christensen-Salem A. Walumbwa F. O. Babalola M. T. Guo L. Misati E. (2021). A Multilevel Analysis of the Relationship Between Ethical Leadership and Ostracism: The Roles of Relational Climate, Employee Mindfulness, and Work Unit Structure. J. Bus. Ethics 171 619–638. 10.1007/s10551-020-04424-5 Cropanzano R. Mitchell M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An Interdisciplinary review. J. Manag. 31 874–900. 10.1177/0149206305279602 Deluga R. J. (1994). Supervisor trust building, leader-member exchange and organizational citizenship behaviour. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 67 315–326. 10.1111/j.2044-8325.1994.tb00570.x Dineen B. R. Lewicki R. J. Tomlinson E. C. (2006). Supervisory guidance and behavioral integrity: Relationships with employee citizenship and deviant behavior. J. Appl. Psychol. 91 622–635. 10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.622 16737359 Dirks K. T. Ferrin D. L. (2002). Trust in Leadership : Meta-Analytic Findings and Implications for Research and Practice. J. Appl. Psychol. 87 611–628. 10.1037//0021-9010.87.4.611 Erkutlu H. V. Chafra J. (2017). Leader narcissism and subordinate embeddedness: The moderating roles of moral attentiveness and behavioral integrity. Euro. Med. J. Bus. 12 146–162. 10.1108/EMJB-04-2016-0012 Ete Z. Epitropaki O. Zhou Q. Graham L. (2021). Leader and Organizational Behavioral Integrity and Follower Behavioral Outcomes: The Role of Identification Processes. J. Bus. Ethics 176 741–760. 10.1007/s10551-020-04728-6 Fehn T. Schütz A. (2020). What You Get is What You See: Other-Rated but not Self-Rated Leaders’ Narcissistic Rivalry Affects Followers Negatively. J. Bus. Ethics 174 549–566. 10.1007/s10551-020-04604-3 Ferrin D. L. Lyu S. C. (2018). “Determinants, Consequences, and Functions of Interpersonal Trust: What is the Empirical Evidence?,” in The Routledge Companion to Trust, eds Searle R. H. Nienaber A. I. Sitkin S. B. (London: Routledge). Ferris D. L. Brown D. J. Berry J. W. Lian H. (2008b). The Development and Validation of the Workplace Ostracism Scale. J. Appl. Psychol. 93 1348–1366. 10.1037/a0012743 19025252 Ferris D. L. Berry J. Brown D. J. Lian H. (2008a). “When silence isn’t golden: measuring ostracism in the workplace,” in Proceedings of the 68th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, (Anaheim, CA: AOM), 10.5465/ambpp.2008.33725266 Ferris D. L. Spence J. R. Brown D. J. Heller D. (2012). Interpersonal Injustice and Workplace Deviance: The Role of Esteem Threat. J. Manag. 38 1788–1811. 10.1177/0149206310372259 Fiset J. Boies K. (2018). Seeing the unseen: ostracism interventionary behaviour and its impact on employees. Euro. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 27 403–417. 10.1080/1359432X.2018.1462159 Fornell C. Larcker D. F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Mark. Res. 18 39–50. 10.2307/3151312 Greenbuam R. L. Babalola M. Quade M. J. Guo L. Kim Y. C. (2020). Moral Burden of Bottom-Line Pursuits: How and When Perceptions of Top Management Bottom-Line Mentality Inhibit Supervisors’ Ethical Leadership Practices. J Bus. Ethics 174 109–123. 10.1007/s10551-020-04546-w Guohao L. Pervaiz S. Qi H. (2021). Workplace friendship is a blessing in the exploration of supervisor behavioral integrity, affective commitment, and employee proactive behavior – An empirical research from service industries of Pakistan. Psychol. Res. Behav. Manag. 14 1447–1459. 10.2147/PRBM.S329905 34584468 Gürlek M. (2021). Workplace ostracism. J. Hos. Tourism Manag. 46 336–346. 10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.01.012 Guzzo R. A. Dickson M. W. (1996). Teams in Organizations: Recent Research on Performance and Effectiveness. Ann. Rev. Psychol. 47 307–338. 10.1146/annurev.psych.47.1.307 15012484 Hair F. J. Hult G. T. M. Ringle C. Sarstedt M. (2016). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Hair J. F. Black W. C. Babin B. J. Anderson R. E. Tatham R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis 6th Edition. J. Abnormal Psychol. 10.1198/tech.2007.s455 12611515 Halbesleben J. R. B. Leroy H. Dierynck B. Simons T. Savage G. T. McCaughey D. (2013). Living up to safety values in health care: The effect of leader behavioral integrity on occupational safety. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 18 395–405. 10.1037/a0034086 24099159 Hauge L. J. Skogstad A. Einarsen S. (2010). The relative impact of workplace bullying as a social stressor at work. Scand. J. Psychol. 51 426–433. 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2010.00813.x 20338011 Hayes A. (2013). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach (Methodology in the Social Sciences). New York, NY: Guilford. Hobfoll S. E. (2002). Social and Psychological Resources and Adaptation. Rev. General Psychol. 6 307–324. 10.1037/1089-2680.6.4.307 Hobfoll S. E. Halbesleben J. Neveu J. P. Westman M. (2018). Conservation of resources in the organizational context: The reality of resources and their consequences. Ann. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 5 103–128. 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104640 Irshad M. Majeed M. Khattak S. A. (2021). The Combined Effect of Safety Specific Transformational Leadership and Safety Consciousness on Psychological Well-Being of Healthcare Workers. Front. Psychol. 12:688463. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.688463 34234723 Ishaq E. Raja U. Bouckenooghe D. Bashir S. (2021). Leaders’ trait signaling effect on followers’ psychological contract dynamics. Pers. Rev. 51 876–899. 10.1108/PR-09-2019-0472 Jahanzeb S. Fatima T. (2018). How Workplace Ostracism Influences Interpersonal Deviance: The Mediating Role of Defensive Silence and Emotional Exhaustion. J. Bus. Psychol. 33 779–791. 10.1007/s10869-017-9525-6 Javed M. Niazi A. Hoshino Y. Hassan H. Hussain M. (2021). Making leaders’ and followers’ relationship sustainable: The impact of leaders’ behavioral integrity on employees’ voice in the banking sector of Pakistan. Sustainability 13 11733. 10.3390/su132111733 Judge T. A. LePine J. A. Rich B. L. (2006). Loving yourself abundantly: Relationship of the narcissistic personality to self- and other perceptions of workplace deviance, leadership, and task and contextual performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 91 762–776. 10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.762 16834504 Kannan-Narasimhan R. Lawrence B. S. (2012). Behavioral Integrity: How Leader Referents and Trust Matter to Workplace Outcomes. J. Bus. Ethics 111 165–178. 10.1007/s10551-011-1199-9 Kanwal I. Lodhi R. N. Kashif M. (2019). Leadership styles and workplace ostracism among frontline employees. Manag. Res. Rev. 42 991–1013. 10.1108/MRR-08-2018-0320 Khan J. Malik M. Saleem S. (2020). The Impact of Psychological Empowerment of Project-Oriented Employees on Project Success: A Moderated Mediation Model. Econ. Res.-Ekon. Istraz. 33 1311–1329. 10.1080/1331677X.2020.1756374 Klaussner S. (2012). Trust and Leadership: Toward an Interactive Perspective. J. Change Manag. 12 417–439. 10.1080/14697017.2012.728766 Kramer R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Ann. Rev. Psychol. 50 569–598. 10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.569 15012464 Lacroix M. Pircher Verdorfer A. (2017). Can Servant Leaders Fuel the Leadership Fire? The Relationship between Servant Leadership and Followers’. Leader. Avoid. Admin. Sci. 7:6. 10.3390/admsci7010006 Lapidot Y. Kark R. Shamir B. (2007). The impact of situational vulnerability on the development and erosion of followers’ trust in their leader. Leader. Quart. 18 16–34. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.11.004 Leroy H. Palanski M. E. Simons T. (2012). Authentic Leadership and Behavioral Integrity as Drivers of Follower Commitment and Performance. J. Bus. Ethics 107 255–264. 10.1007/s10551-011-1036-1 Leung A. S. M. Wu L. Z. Chen Y. Y. Young M. N. (2011). The impact of workplace ostracism in service organizations. Int. J. Hos. Manag. 30 836–844. 10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.01.004 Lustenberger D. E. Jagacinski C. M. (2010). Exploring the effects of ostracism on performance and intrinsic motivation. Hum. Perform. 23 283–304. 10.1080/08959285.2010.501046 Maqsood A. S. Ahm Shamsuzzoha P. H. (2018). Impact of behavioral integrity on workplace ostracism The moderating roles of narcissistic personality and psychological distance. Eletron. Libr. 34 1–5. McAllister D. J. (1995). Affect- and Cognition-Based Trust as Foundations for Interpersonal Cooperation in Organizations. Acad. Manag. J. 38 24–59. 10.5465/256727 Naseer S. Donia M. B. L. Syed F. Bashir F. (2020). Too much of a good thing: The interactive effects of cultural values and core job characteristics on hindrance stressors and employee performance outcomes. Hum. Res. Manag. 59 271–289. 10.1002/hrm.21993 Nassif A. G. Hackett R. D. Wang G. (2020). Ethical, Virtuous, and Charismatic Leadership: An Examination of Differential Relationships with Follower and Leader Outcomes. J. Bus. Ethics 172 581–603. 10.1007/s10551-020-04491-8 Nevicka B. De Hoogh A. H. B. Den Hartog D. N. Belschak F. D. (2018). Narcissistic leaders and their victims: Followers low on self-esteem and low on core self-evaluations suffer most. Front. Psychol. 9:422. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00422 29651266 Ouimet G. (2010). Dynamics of narcissistic leadership in organizations: Towards an integrated research model. J. Manag. Psychol. 25 713–726. 10.1108/02683941011075265 Palanski M. E. Yammarino F. J. (2009). Integrity and leadership : A multi-level conceptual framework. Leader. Quart. 20 405–407. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.03.008 Palanski M. E. Yammarino F. J. (2011). Impact of behavioral integrity on follower job performance: A three-study examination. Leader. Quart. 22 765–786. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.05.014 Penney L. M. Spector P. E. (2002). Narcissism and counterproductive work behavior: Do bigger egos mean bigger problems? Int. J. Selection Assess 10 126–134. 10.1111/1468-2389.00199 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. J. Appl Psychol. 88 879–903. 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 14516251 Preacher K. J. Rucker D. D. Hayes A. F. (2007). Addressing Moderated Mediation Hypotheses: Theory, Methods, and Prescriptions. Multivar. Behav. Res. 42 185–227. 10.1080/00273170701341316 26821081 Pulich M. Tourigny L. (2004). Workplace deviance: Strategies for modifying employee behavior. Health Care Manag. 23 290–301. 10.1097/00126450-200410000-00002 15638336 Robinson S. L. (1996). Trust and Breach of the Psychological Contract. Admin. Sci. Quart. 41 574–599. 10.2307/2393868 Rosenthal S. A. Pittinsky T. L. (2006). Narcissistic leadership. Leader. Quart. 17 617–633. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.005 Saleem F. Zhang Y. Z. Gopinath C. Adeel A. (2020). Impact of Servant Leadership on Performance: The Mediating Role of Affective and Cognitive Trust. SAGE Open 10:21582440199. 10.1177/2158244019900562 Sarwar A. Abdullah M. I. Hafeez H. Chughtai M. A. (2020). How Does Workplace Ostracism Lead to Service Sabotage Behavior in Nurses: A Conservation of Resources Perspective. Front. Psychol. 11:850. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00850 32528346 Schoorman F. D. Mayer R. C. Davis J. H. Mayer R. C. Davis J. H. (2007). An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust: Past, Present, and Future. Acad. Manag. Rev. 32 344–354. 10.5465/amr.2007.24348410 Shaheen S. Bashir S. Khan A. K. (2017). Examining Organizational Cronyism as an Antecedent of Workplace Deviance in Public Sector Organizations. Public Personnel Manag. 46 308–323. 10.1177/0091026017716655 Simons T. Friedman R. Liu L. A. McLean Parks J. (2007). Racial differences in sensitivity to behavioral integrity: Attitudinal consequences, in-group effects, and “trickle down” among Black and non-Black employees. J. Appl. Psychol. 92 650–665. 10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.650 17484548 Simons T. L. (2002). Behavioral Integrity: The Perceived Alignment between Managers’ Words and Deeds as a Research Focus. Organ. Sci. 13 18–35. 10.1287/orsc.13.1.18.543 19642375 Singh L. B. Srivastava S. (2021). Linking workplace ostracism to turnover intention: A moderated mediation approach. J. Hos. Tourism Manag. 46 244–256. 10.1016/j.jhtm.2020.12.012 Takhsha M. Barahimi N. Adelpanah A. Salehzadeh R. (2020). The effect of workplace ostracism on knowledge sharing: the mediating role of organization-based self-esteem and organizational silence. J. Workplace Learning 32 417–435. 10.1108/JWL-07-2019-0088 Tepper B. J. Carr J. C. Breaux D. M. Geider S. Hu C. Hua W. (2009). Abusive supervision, intentions to quit, and employees’ workplace deviance: A power/dependence analysis. Organ. Behav. Hum. Dec. Proc. 109 156–167. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.03.004 Tepper B. J. Duffy M. K. Henle C. A. Lambert L. S. (2006). Procedural injustice, victim precipitation, and abusive supervision. Personnel Psychol. 59 101–123. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00725.x 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 Euro. Bus. Rev. 10 19–37. 10.18267/j.cebr.257 Usman M. Ghani U. Cheng J. Farid T. Iqbal S. (2021). Does Participative Leadership Matters in Employees’ Outcomes During COVID-19? Role of Leader Behavioral Integrity. Front. Psychol. 21:646442. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.646442 34093327 Vogelgesang G. R. Crossley C. Simons T. Avolio B. J. (2020). Behavioral Integrity: Examining the Effects of Trust Velocity and Psychological Contract Breach. J. Bus Ethics 172, 175–190. Vogelgesang G. R. Crossley C. Simons T. Avolio B. J. (2021). Behavioral Integrity: Examining the Effects of Trust Velocity and Psychological Contract Breach. J. Bus. Ethics 172 175–190. 10.1007/s10551-020-04497-2 Westman M. Hobfoll S. E. Chen S. Davidson O. B. Laski S. (2004). Organizational Stress Through the Lens of Conservation of Resources (Cor) Theory. Res. Occup. Stress Well Being 4 167–220. 10.1016/S1479-3555(04)04005-3 Wu C. H. Kwan H. K. Liu J. Lee C. (2021). When and how favour rendering ameliorates workplace ostracism over time: Moderating effect of self-monitoring and mediating effect of popularity enhancement. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 94 107–131. 10.1111/joop.12328 Wu L. Wei L. Hui C. (2011). Dispositional antecedents and consequences of workplace ostracism: An empirical examination. Front. Bus. Res. China 5:23–44. 10.1007/s11782-011-0119-2 Yang Q. Wei H. (2018). The impact of ethical leadership on organizational citizenship behavior: The moderating role of workplace ostracism. Leader. Organ. Develop. J. 39 100–113. 10.1108/LODJ-12-2016-0313 Yip J. Walker D. O. H. (2021). Leaders mentoring others: the effects of implicit followership theory on leader integrity and mentoring. Int. J. Hum. Res. Manag. 0 1–31. 10.1080/09585192.2021.1875493 Zhang P. Li S. Liu W. Han Y. Muhammad N. A. (2018). Exploring the role of moral disengagement in the link between perceived narcissistic supervision and employees’ organizational deviance: A moderated mediation model. Asian J. Soc. Psychol. 21 223–236. 10.1111/ajsp.12323 Zhang X. Dai L. (2015). The Relationship between Neuroticism and Experience of Workplace Ostracism in New Employees. Open J. Soc. Sci. 03 80–87. 10.4236/jss.2015.32011 Zhao H. Peng Z. Sheard G. (2013). Workplace ostracism and hospitality employees’ counterproductive work behaviors: The joint moderating effects of proactive personality and political skill. Int. J. Hos. Manag. 33 219–227. 10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.08.006