The conservation of resources theory (COR)

The COR theory suggests that individuals need to conserve resources for their survival. Resources could be of personal, motivational, financial and social nature. Personal resources include physical health as well as psychological well-being [26]. When employees experience workplace ostracism, they undergo resource loss, which curtails their feelings of belongingness and affiliation [27]. The COR theory postulates that resource depletion occurring in response to stress leads to exhaustion and strain [27, 28]. Given that individuals possess limited physical, psychological, and emotional resources [29], by encountering ostracism, an individual’s limited resources deplete rapidly. Ostracism not only inhibits interactions among individuals but also obstructs meaningful collaborations within the workplace, ultimately impairing overall human functioning in that environment. The impact of ostracism extends from psychological well-being to practical behavioral functioning, showcasing its pervasive effects.

Hence, this study focuses on how ostracism erodes the individual resource of perceived control, subsequently undermining employees’ innovative behavior. Furthermore, it delves into the role of a paradox mindset, which constitutes another individual resource, in mitigating the adverse effects of ostracism. Support for innovation encompasses assistance provided by an organization to empower individuals in bolstering their personal resources, thereby fostering enhanced creative behaviors among employees [30].

Workplace ostracism and innovative work behavior

Human beings are inherently reliant on others for their well-being. Individuals are wired in a manner that prevents them from realizing their full potential if they are deprived of meaningful connections with others. Such deprivation can have a direct impact on their physical and mental capabilities [31]. Thus, ostracism characterized by avoidance and rejection extended by either individuals or groups towards other employees and groups, can lead to distress [32]. It can be purposeful, where individuals are conscious of their actions, or non-purposeful, where individuals ignore others without intent, leading to hurt feelings and social pain [33].

In the workplace, innovation involves interactions with others as it is a socially embedded process where people establish interpersonal ties to enhance the acceptance of their ideas by others [34]. Ostracism inflicts distress and prompts maladaptive responses. It can lead individuals to participate less in social interactions and dampen their willingness to communicate and share information and ideas, potentially hindering individual innovative behavior [23, 35]. Research shows that the social environment significantly impacts creativity, either enhancing or inhibiting it [22]. Ostracism inhibits creativity as it causes ostracized individuals to miss out on crucial information and knowledge due to strained social relationships. Furthermore, it is associated with reduced voicing behavior and constrains employees from offering constructive suggestions [13, 24, 36].

Episodes of ostracism undermine employees’ work engagement [37] and overall well-being outcomes, including psychological well-being, emotions, and self-perception [38], thereby impeding innovative behavior. Thus:

1. H1. Workplace ostracism is negatively associated with innovative work behavior.

Workplace ostracism and perceived control

The COR theory posits that individuals require an ample supply of resources to perform human functions adequately [39]. Perceived control, a personal resource, reflects an individual’s belief in their ability to influence behaviors or situations, serving as a buffer against adversity [40]. Early theorists underscore the pursuit of control and autonomy as fundamental human endeavors, associated with elevated self-worth and hope when perceived, and conversely linked to low self-worth and hopelessness when absent. Moreover, low perceived control has been correlated with heightened symptoms of depression [41, 42].

Research has further suggested that engagement in self-regulatory or control activities depletes self-regulatory focus [43]. Experiencing ostracism instills a sense of control loss in individuals [3, 44, 45], as evidenced by experimental studies showing that socially excluded subjects exhibited lower self-regulation compared to their non-excluded counterparts [see, 44]. Perceived control functions as a psychological mechanism influencing individuals’ behaviors and internal states. Notably, individuals consistently self-evaluate to ensure a sense of control over their environment [29, 46]. Nevertheless, ostracism evokes feelings of insignificance and worthlessness, akin to a form of "social death" [47], notably undermining individuals’ perceptions of control. Based on the preceding discussion, we hypothesize:

1. H2a. Workplace ostracism is negatively associated with perceived control.

Perceived control and innovative work behavior

In line with the COR theory, exposure to stress-inducing events can erode employees’ self-evaluations, subsequently diminishing their perceptions of control [42]. According to the social cognitive theory, individuals endowed with higher levels of perceived control tend to excel in demanding and creative tasks, in contrast to their peers with lower control perceptions [48]. The COR theory also aligns with the basic psychological needs theory, which highlights autonomy, competence, and belongingness as pivotal psychological needs that function as essential resources, facilitating self-regulation, adaptation, and overall well-being [49]. Extensive research further establishes that the fulfillment of these fundamental needs fosters the emergence of IWB [50]. Research by Philippaers, De Cuyper [51] and Ucar, Hasta [52] confirms these findings, emphasizing the influence of perceived control on shaping behavioral intentions and its positive correlation with outcomes such as job performance and life satisfaction [29]. Furthermore, an empirical investigation by Zhang, Liu [53] affirms a positive association between perceived control behaviors and innovative intentions, wherein the latter directly contributes to driving creative behaviors.

Empirical evidence consistently indicates that individuals who harbor a sense of control demonstrate a heightened willingness to invest effort, engage in adaptive actions, and outperform their peers [29, 51]. Furthermore, the study conducted by Kennett, Quinn-Nilas [54] establishes a strong link between higher levels of perceived control and increased resilience, with individuals possessing a stronger sense of control also exhibiting greater resourcefulness. Given these compelling insights, we posit that perceived control functions as a potent precursor, significantly shaping employees’ inclination towards IWB within the framework of the COR theory. Thus, building upon this foundation, we propose the following hypothesis:

1. H2b. Perceived control is positively associated with innovative work behavior.

The mediating role of perceived control

In their extensive literature review, Skinner [55] suggested that the loss of control is a psychological trauma and is considered aversive. Notably, research by Kennett, Quinn-Nilas [54] illustrated the sequential mediation of learned resourcefulness and perceived control for the effect of academic stress on student resilience. In post-layoff scenarios perceived as more unsettling, Brockner, Spreitzer [56] found a stronger correlation between perceived control and performance. Vander Elst, De Cuyper [57] further indicated that personal control played a mediating role between job insecurity, a workplace stressor, and both physical and psychological well-being. Moreover, the significance of perceived control intensifies during times of stress, particularly when individuals perceive maltreatment, as evident in studies by Philippaers, De Cuyper [51] and Kennett, Quinn-Nilas [54]. Drawing on these insights, we advance the following hypothesis:

1. H2c. The negative association between workplace ostracism and innovative work behavior is mediated by perceived control.

The moderating role of paradox mindset

Mindset-based interventions are increasingly gaining importance in contemporary times [58], influencing how individuals perceive and engage with their work responsibilities [59, 60]. In recent years, researchers have focused on understanding the dynamics of tensions and their outcomes within organizations [20, 61]. Tensions often arise due to limited resources in the workplace, and one’s mindset plays a crucial role in promoting positive outcomes, including IWB, psychological well-being, resilience, and leadership effectiveness [59]. The concept of a growth mindset is particularly noteworthy, as it serves as a personal asset that fosters engagement by guiding attention, enthusiasm, and interpersonal interactions [62, 63].

Central to our study is the notion of paradox mindset, which involves an individual’s cognitive approach to embracing contradictions and conflicts as challenges. Those who possess a paradox mindset tend to be more comfortable with tensions [20, 21], contributing to optimism [64], work engagement, and proactive behaviors [65]. Moreover, paradox mindset enhances cognitive flexibility, enabling individuals to tolerate differences [66, 67]. In the context of workplace ostracism, paradox mindset interprets it as a type of organizational tension, prompting the generation of innovative ideas and strategies to address it. Additionally, during periods of stress, the paradox mindset aids in conserving resources to effectively carry out job tasks. Drawing from the aforementioned discourse, we propose the following hypothesis:

1. H3. Paradox mindset moderates the negative association of workplace ostracism and perceived control in such a way that this effect is low with a high paradox mindset, and the effect is high with a low paradox mindset.

The moderating role of support for innovation

Numerous contextual factors play a significant role in shaping IWB. Notable among these factors are leadership styles, organizational attributes, and broader national culture, all of which exert considerable influence on employees’ inclination towards innovative behavior [68]. The support for innovation encompasses both the climate for innovation and enacted support. Climate for innovation is discernible through policy documents and informal communication, while enacted support involves active facilitation of innovative behaviors [69]. An investigation by Hsiao, Chang [69] revealed that the extent of an organization’s support for innovation profoundly impacts individual behaviors. Amabile and Conti [23] asserted that employees within organizations that nurture creativity, recognize, and reward innovative tasks are more likely to exhibit creative behaviors [70].

Moreover, the ongoing growth of support for innovation underpins continuous innovation, underscoring its paramount importance in today’s environment [71]. Gumusluoğlu and Ilsev [72] posited that organizational values, culture, and norms are potential influencers of employees’ creative capacity. Recent research by Afshar Jahanshahi, Adiguzel [73] also highlighted that the innovation management process is contingent upon organizational values and belief systems. Additionally, a study conducted by Demircioglu [74] underscored that an innovation-supportive environment can enhance commitment and engagement among employees, ultimately contributing to job satisfaction. In light of the above, we propose the following hypothesis:

1. H4. Support for innovation moderates the positive association of perceived control and innovative work behavior in such a way that this relationship will be more pronounced when support for innovation is high rather than when it is low.

Based on the above, we formulate the moderated mediation hypothesis as follows:

1. H5. The negative effect of ostracism on innovative work behavior through perceived control would be buffered when paradox mindset and support for innovation are high.

The conceptual framework is presented in Fig 1.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 1. Proposed relationships of workplace ostracism and innovative work behavior.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294163.g001

Participants and procedure

This study employed a time-lagged quantitative approach, with data collected at three intervals. The sample consisted of 513 public sector employees of Pakistan. The reason behind using quantitative study design in this study is that it has many potential benefits, that is, it is relatively easy, quick, less expensive and provides more understandable and useful results. Moreover, it is easier to form generalizations and replicability from the results of the quantitative study. Closed-ended questionnaires were used for data collection in this study because it helps to collect responses from a large number of respondents and make coding easy for analysis [75].

Given the central focus on addressing perceived workplace ostracism among individuals, the unit of analysis was individual employees working in departments such as local government, community development, planning and development, services and general administration, labor, and human resource departments. With inefficiency being prevalent in the public sector and human resources playing a pivotal role in organizational efficiency, the public sector provided an appropriate context to understand how the impact of workplace stressors on individual IWB could be mitigated.

Approval from the "Institutional Review Board" of Government College University Faisalabad, Pakistan, was obtained. Further, respondents were informed that their responses would be kept confidential and that their participation was voluntary. We obtained written informed consent from the respondents when questionnaires were got filled. Questionnaires were distributed by visiting offices in person as well as through online mediums. Surveys were administered in the English language, as English is the official language of communication in government offices of Pakistan.

A time-lagged research design was employed, consisting of three waves of data collection, with a 4-week interval wedged between each wave. It serves to curtail the common method bias (CMB) issue, and the causal mediation analyses inherent in our study render the time interval wedged between waves of data collection meaningful, as time is required for effects to manifest [76]. The data for workplace ostracism and paradox mindset was obtained at T1; at T2, the respondents rated perceived control and support for innovation; whereas at T3, IWB ratings were obtained. Seven hundred questionnaires were distributed at T1, yielding 660 responses, of which 30 questionnaires were discarded due to incomplete responses. In the subsequent T2 wave, occurring a month later, the 630 remaining respondents were contacted through email/WhatsApp and office visits, resulting in 580 responses, 25 of which were incomplete and therefore discarded. The researchers contacted the same 555 respondents at T3 wave, yielding 520 responses. Out of these 520 responses, 7 responses were discarded due to incomplete data, resulting in n = 513 with a response rate of 73.3%.

Measures and variables

Responses for all the items were collected on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from "1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree."

Workplace ostracism was evaluated using a 10-item questionnaire developed by Ferris, Brown [6]. A sample item is "others ignored me at work." We measured perceived control using a 3-item instrument from Lee, Ashford [28]. A sample item is "I can prevent negative things from affecting my work situation." IWB was measured using a 10-item measure from De Jong and Den Hartog [77]; a sample item includes "I find new approaches to execute tasks." A 9-item questionnaire from Miron-Spektor, Ingram [19] was used to measure paradox mindset; a sample item out of this scale is "when I consider conflicting perspectives, I gain a better understanding of an issue." Support for innovation was measured by using 5 items developed by Siegel and Kaemmerer [78] & Scott and Bruce [79], also used by Choi, Moon [80]. A sample item is "Creativity is encouraged here."

Control variables

In our analysis, we accounted for several demographic characteristics of respondents as control variables, including gender, age, education, and experience. We included gender as a control variable due to findings from previous studies indicating that, when subjected to ostracism, females tend to experience more pronounced harmful effects and psychological distress than males [81]. Similarly, Rajchert, Konopka [82] highlighted the significant impact of gender differences on individuals’ post-ostracism behavior. Additionally, age, education, and experience were controlled for, as these factors commonly influence employee organizational behaviors [44]. Notably, age was found to exhibit a negative correlation with ostracism, implying that adults report experiencing ostracism less frequently [83]. Madrid, Patterson [34] stated that when employees have more work experience, it gives them confidence in innovative ideas. Carmeli and Spreitzer [84] prompted us to control education level and age, as they hypothesized that these variables might yield distinct positive or negative effects on innovation.

Demographics

The demographic profile of the respondents is given in Table 1.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. Sample characteristics.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294163.t001

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)

Most constructs had a sizeable number of items, so the item parceling technique was applied to analyze the final model [85] for CFA. This study used a random algorithm for item parceling, randomly assigning items to a parcel [85]. The items of workplace ostracism, IWB, and paradox mindset, thus, were categorized into three parcels each. Perceived control had three items, and support for innovation had five items. Hence, these variables were measured by their specific individual items.

The results of CFA revealed that the measurement model showed an excellent fit, as the goodness-of-fit indices were comfortably above the acceptable thresholds (see Table 3, Model-1). Furthermore, Table 2 presents that factor loadings are higher than the benchmark value of 0.70, the construct values for composite reliability (CR) and Cronbach’s α are higher than the criterion value of 0.70, and the construct values of average variance extracted (AVE) are above the criterion value of 0.50. Therefore, the outcomes confirm convergent validity.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 2. Factor loadings, Cronbach’s Alpha (α), composite reliability and AVE.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294163.t002

The discriminant validity was evaluated by analyzing the initial five-factor model in comparison with other possible measurement models, as given in Table 3, which affirmed the superiority of the proposed five-factor model’s fit over others. In addition, the Fornell and Larcker [86] criterion presented that the square root of AVE of all variables is higher than that particular variable correlations with others, as given in Table 4. These outcomes confirm discriminant validity.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 3. Comparison of alternative measurement models for main constructs.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294163.t003

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 4. Descriptive statistics and observed correlations.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294163.t004

Common method bias (CMB)

To overcome the issue of CMB, different procedural remedies were applied. The respondents were instructed that they should remain honest while answering the questions. To avoid social desirability bias, the identities of the individuals were kept anonymous [87]. Moreover, to avoid CMB, a time-lagged study design was used. By wedging temporal separation in the form of time lags, the respondents could be restricted from using familiar cues to retrieve information from long-term memory [87].

To estimate the common variance, we used the common latent factor (CLF) method following Podsakoff, MacKenzie [88]. We resorted to using CLF as the previously widely used Harman’s single-factor test is considered outdated and an approach with certain limitations [89]. In the CLF method, a new latent variable is introduced, called CLF, which is linked directly to all the observed variables. We constrained all the factor loadings from CLF to the observed variables as equal, and the variance of the common factor was constrained to 1. The estimate of common variance can be calculated by taking the square of the equally constrained loading of the common factor to the observed variables before standardization. The common variance for our model was estimated to be 0.04 or 4% by computing the square of 0.206 (equally constrained loading of CLF to the observed variables). This common variance is much lower than the proposed threshold of 50% [90], thus indicating that the presence of CMB can be safely ruled out.

Descriptive statistics and correlations

As can be evidenced from Table 4, ostracism was found to have a negative correlation with perceived control (-.31, p < .01) and IWB (-.65, p < .01). Perceived control had a positive correlation with IWB (.36, p < .01). Paradox mindset had a positive correlation with perceived control (.37, p < .01), while support for innovation’s correlation was insignificant with IWB (.05, p > .05).

Hypotheses testing

Regression results from PROCESS macro model 4 (see Table 5) showed that ostracism showed a negative relationship with perceived control (-.28, p < .01) as well as with IWB (-.52, p < .01). Thus, H1 and H2a were supported. Perceived control had a positive effect on IWB (.16, p < .01); therefore, H2b was supported.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 5. Parameter estimates.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294163.t005

Mediation analysis

Results reported in Table 6 support H2c regarding the mediation of perceived control. Employing bootstrapping procedure supplied in the PROCESS macro, the results reported in Table 6 revealed that perceived control significantly mediated the relationship between ostracism and IWB (indirect effect = -0.05, p < 0.01). Therefore, H2c was supported.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 6. Total, direct and indirect effects of ostracism on innovative work behavior.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294163.t006

Moderated mediation analysis

The PROCESS macro model 21 was used to evaluate moderated mediation. The results in Table 7 reveal that perceived control was significantly affected by the interaction of ostracism and paradox mindset (ostracism*paradox mindset = 0.33, p < .01). Likewise, IWB was significantly predicted by the interaction of perceived control and support for innovation (perceived control*support for innovation = 0.06, p < .05). These findings indicated that paradox mindset and support for innovation had a moderating effect on the link between ostracism and perceived control and the relationship between perceived control and IWB, respectively. Thus, H3 and H4 were supported.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 7. Results of the moderated mediation analysis.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294163.t007

The moderation analysis results reveal that the negative impact of ostracism on perceived control is neutralized if the employees have paradoxical mindset. It can be seen from the conditional effects reported in Table 8 that as the score of the paradox mindset increases, the effect of ostracism on perceived control becomes less negative. This indicates alleviation of the negative effect of ostracism on perceived control as the score for the paradox mindset increases. In addition, the positive effect of perceived control on IWB is enhanced in case the organization offers support for innovation. Conditional effects depict a strengthening of the positive impact of perceived control on IWB as the score for support for innovation increases (see Table 8).

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 8. Conditional effects of the focal predictor at values of the moderator.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294163.t008

Combined with the whole model, the results revealed that the negative effect of ostracism on IWB through perceived control would be alleviated effectively when the scores of paradox mindset and support for innovation were high. Conditional indirect effects reported in Table 9 reveal that the negative indirect effect of ostracism on IWB through the mediation of perceived control would gradually become less negative as the score for paradox mindset increases for low, average, and high values of the support for innovation. As shown in Table 9, the index of moderated mediation was significant (Index = 0.02, CI = 0.002–0.038). H5, therefore, was supported.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 9. Conditional indirect effects of X on Y.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294163.t009

Theoretical implications

This study substantiates our hypothesized research model, employing perceived control as a personal resource to mitigate the stress induced by ostracism within the boundary conditions of paradox mindset and support for innovation. Notably, our findings have noteworthy implications for theoretical advancements. A significant contribution lies in the introduction of perceived control as a proximal antecedent of IWB, elucidating the linkage between workplace ostracism and IWB. By establishing perceived control as a mediating mechanism, this study bridges gaps within ostracism and innovation literature, shedding light on the ostracism-IWB nexus. Consequently, our research enriches IWB literature by introducing a robust predictor.

Furthermore, our exploration extends the paradox mindset literature by employing it as a boundary condition for the association between ostracism and perceived control. Unveiling the paradox mindset as a moderator provides valuable insights into the nuances of cognitive resource depletion and effective coping strategies among ostracized individuals. This elucidates when and why employees perceive ostracism as a challenge and how they effectively navigate it. Additionally, our study contributes to the discourse on support for innovation as a moderator for the perceived control-IWB relationship. The significant role of support for innovation in reinforcing the positive connection between perceived control and IWB is underscored, adding depth to our understanding.

Moreover, our research advances the field by empirically examining the impact of ostracism in real-time workplace settings, in contrast to the prevalent experimental manipulations in laboratory settings. Our study stands as one of the few conducted in real-time, offering a valuable perspective on workplace ostracism’s effects and coping mechanisms. In conclusion, our study’s multifaceted theoretical contributions enhance our comprehension of the intricate interplay between psychological factors, organizational dynamics, and individual behavior.