Loading [Contrib]/a11y/accessibility-menu.js
McGuire, M., & Zhdanova, L. (2024). Feeling Isolated and Coping at Work Through Engagement in Workplace Deviance Behaviors:  Does Personality Matter? The Transdisciplinary Journal of Management.

Abstract

The current study was designed to examine if perceptions of social isolation in in-person workplace contexts impact engagement in behaviors which harm the organization and its members. This study sourced N = 37 Canadian and US participants. HEXACO personality traits of Honesty-Humility, Conscientiousness, and Extraversion were used as controls to determine if workplace social isolation (WSI) perceptions impacted workplace deviance behaviors (WDBs) above and beyond the influence of personality. Results indicated relationships between Honesty-Humility and Extraversion with specific dimensions of WSI and WDBs. Extraversion was found to relate to both WSI and WDBs, thus it was used as a control to test the hypothesis. However, the hypothesis was not supported. The findings extended available literature through the examination of the relationship between perceptions of social isolation in the workplace and behaviors that have not yet been examined in relation to isolation perceptions. The results and implications of the findings are further discussed.

Background

In 2018, 13 percent of Americans worked from home at least once every two weeks (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2019). By 2020, 39.1 percent of Canadian workers were working from home due to COVID-19 measures (Statistics Canada, 2020). Remote work is attractive to candidates because of decreased commuting costs, increased flexibility, and higher productivity (Ellison, 1999). However, remote work can also lead to social isolation, which is linked to decreased engagement, job performance, job satisfaction, and increased turnover intentions.

Workplace social isolation (WSI) is the perceived psychological separation from the organization and its employees (Mulki et al., 2008). While research has explored WSI’s effects on employee outcomes, its impact on harmful behaviors, such as workplace deviance behaviors (WDBs), has been underexplored.

WDBs, or counterproductive work behaviors, include theft, absenteeism, and inappropriate humor. These behaviors harm organizations and employees and cost organizations an estimated $300 billion annually (Faldetta, 2021). WDBs are influenced by employee perceptions and individual personality traits. This study examines the link between WSI and WDBs, accounting for personality traits.

Workplace Social Isolation & Perceptions

Workplace social isolation (WSI) refers to perceived psychological separation from colleagues and the organization (Mulki et al., 2008). It has both objective and subjective components. Objective isolation refers to infrequent contact with others, while subjective isolation relates to feeling socially distant. WSI is often associated with terms like loneliness, professional isolation, and lack of social support but remains distinct due to its subjective nature.

Social isolation can arise from exclusion from social networks, decision-making processes, or tight-knit settings. Professional isolation refers to the lack of beneficial social connections for career advancement (Cooper & Kurland, 2002). This study focuses on both institutional and professional isolation, which are closely related to WSI.

Marshall et al. (2007) define workplace isolation as feeling isolated from both colleagues and the social network of the organization. This two-dimensional construct acknowledges that isolation stems from more than just physical separation, emphasizing the role of perceived social opportunities. For this study, the term WSI will be used.

The distinction between objective and subjective social isolation is crucial. Social relationships involve both actual and perceived aspects, with subjective isolation often referred to as either perceived or subjective isolation.

Perceived social isolation can diminish the positive effects of social relationships. It can arise from environmental factors, personal feelings, or exclusion from social settings. Factors such as workplace competition and uncooperative climates contribute to loneliness. Social isolation has been linked to decreased job performance and increased turnover intentions. However, its impact on WDBs remains underexplored. This study seeks to fill that gap by examining WSI in in-person employees and its influence on WDBs.

Workplace Deviance Behavior

Workplace deviance behaviors (WDB) are defined as intentional actions that harm organizations and employees. These behaviors include theft, absenteeism, and wasting resources. WDB is divided into two dimensions—organizational and interpersonal deviance—based on the target and seriousness of the behavior. This results in four designations: production deviance (e.g., leaving work early), property deviance (e.g., theft), political deviance (e.g., gossiping), and personal aggression (e.g., harassment). WDB negatively affects turnover, productivity, morale, self-esteem, and overall employee well-being. Given the significant costs to organizations, understanding the antecedents of WDB is crucial. This study focuses on workplace social isolation (WSI) as a potential antecedent.

Social Isolation Perceptions and WDBs: Theoretical Foundation

Motivation plays a key role in employee behavior. According to equity theory, when employees perceive unfair treatment, they may attempt to restore balance, potentially by engaging in deviant behaviors (Henle, 2005). Organizational support theory posits that when supervisors perceive their organizations as supportive, this leads to improved subordinate perceptions of support and positive workplace behaviors (Shanock & Eisenberger, 2006). Conversely, negative perceptions, such as social isolation, may drive employees to engage in WDB as a way to cope with perceived inequities or unfair treatment.

Employee perceptions of fairness and social connectedness can be influenced by workplace dynamics. For example, discrepancies between expected and actual social connections may lead to feelings of isolation. Negative justice perceptions, whether interactional, procedural, or distributive, have been linked to deviant behaviors. Employees may engage in WDB to regain a sense of control or fairness in response to perceived social isolation.

Social exchange theory and the norm of reciprocity further explain how employees respond to negative workplace interactions. For instance, employees who feel socially isolated or unsupported may retaliate by engaging in behaviors that harm the organization or their colleagues. Perceptions of social neglect can lead to actions like gossiping or sabotaging others’ social standing, while more generalized feelings of isolation may result in theft or property damage as a form of retaliation against the organization.

Social Isolation Perceptions and WDBs: Empirical Overview

While the theoretical link between social isolation perceptions and WDBs is strong, empirical evidence remains limited. No studies have used Marshall et al.'s (2007) workplace isolation scale to examine WDBs in either remote or in-person work contexts. However, previous research has linked WDBs to constructs related to social isolation, such as fairness, social support, and organizational perceptions.

For example, studies have explored the relationship between perceived social isolation and counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs), which are conceptually similar to WDBs. Workplace ostracism, a form of social isolation, has been associated with CWBs, as found in a meta-analysis by Howard et al. (2020). In-person employees have been shown to experience greater social support, further highlighting the need to explore social isolation perceptions in these contexts.

Moreover, research demonstrates that social isolation can have negative effects even in in-person work environments. For example, teacher stress has been linked to isolation (Dussault et al., 1999), and colleague isolation has been shown to directly impact job performance in flight attendants (Chen & Kao, 2012). Isolation in remote work environments has been linked to decreased engagement, job performance, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions (Mulki & Jaramillo, 2011).

Given the demonstrated negative impacts of social isolation perceptions in both remote and in-person work environments, further research is needed to explore the link between WSI and WDBs.

In sum, both objective and perceived isolation have negative impacts on employees in the workplace. However, there is a lack of research examining social isolation perceptions in in-person contexts, especially regarding their influence on deviant behaviors like WDBs. This study aims to fill this gap by using Marshall et al.'s (2007) workplace isolation scale and exploring the potential role of personality traits, such as Extraversion, Conscientiousness, and Honesty-Humility, in moderating the relationship between WSI and WDBs.

HEXACO Personality Model

Personality reflects individual traits pertaining to how people think, feel, and act in specific situations, exhibiting consistent patterns over time. The Big Five model has historically been the most popular and researched personality framework, receiving substantial empirical support (Berry et al., 2007; Salgado, 2002). However, some researchers have noted limitations, particularly the discovery of a sixth factor through factor analysis. To address this, Lee and Ashton (2004) developed the HEXACO personality framework, incorporating the additional trait of Honesty-Humility, based on lexical studies across twelve languages, including English. The HEXACO model has shown greater predictive validity than the Five Factor Model, primarily due to the inclusion of Honesty-Humility, with greater variance explained beyond the Big Five.

Honesty-Humility, the major departure from the Big Five Model, as Lee & Ashton (2004) noted, reflects facets of fairness, sincerity, modesty, and greed avoidance. Emotionality includes anxiety, fearfulness, sentimentality, and dependence, differing slightly from the Big Five in that it excludes irritability. Extraversion comprises expressiveness, social boldness, sociability, and liveliness, while Agreeableness includes forgiveness, flexibility, patience, and gentleness. Conscientiousness relates to perfectionism, prudence, organization, and diligence, and Openness to Experience encompasses inquisitiveness, creativity, appreciation of aesthetics, and unconventionality. The present study focuses on the personality traits of Honesty-Humility, Conscientiousness, and Extraversion.

Influence of Personality Traits on Behaviors

Personality traits are instrumental in explaining behavioral differences among employees, even when controlling for environmental factors. These traits can help explain why people behave differently, as personality variations lead to consistent behavioral tendencies based on context. For example, personality traits can explain why some individuals engage in workplace deviant behaviors (WDBs), such as stealing or manipulating, when opportunities arise. Using the HEXACO model, individual variations in behaviors can be explained by how strongly individuals score on specific traits. Thus, personality traits play a crucial role in explaining why employees engage in deviant behaviors.

Personality traits also influence perception formation and social needs. For example, they help explain why individuals perceive and react to social isolation differently. Introverts may be more satisfied with solitude, while extraverts often require more frequent social interaction to meet their social needs. Weiss (1973) concluded that loneliness represents a discrepancy between actual and desired social relationships shaped by personality preferences.

The literature highlights the role of personality traits as moderators in the relationship between perceptions and behaviors. For instance, Honesty-Humility moderates the relationship between perceptions of organizational politics and workplace behaviors (Wiltshire et al., 2014). Similarly, Extraversion moderates the relationship between other traits and WDBs (Oh et al., 2011). Given these findings, the present study will control for Honesty-Humility, Conscientiousness, and Extraversion to explore their impact on workplace behaviors.

Honesty-Humility and WDBs

Honesty-Humility reflects a lack of self-control and manipulation avoidance, with individuals high on this trait avoiding unethical behaviors such as stealing or manipulating others. O’Neill et al. (2011) found that individuals low in Honesty-Humility were more likely to engage in WDBs, particularly in response to perceived injustices. Similarly, Pletzer et al. (2019) found that Honesty-Humility had the strongest relationship with workplace deviance, followed by Conscientiousness and Agreeableness.

Research by Oh et al. (2011) showed that low Honesty-Humility, combined with high Extraversion, predicted higher WDBs due to increased energy and boldness associated with high Extraversion. These findings underscore the importance of considering Honesty-Humility in the current study, particularly its influence on deviant behaviors beyond environmental factors.

Conscientiousness and WDBs

Conscientiousness is associated with self-discipline and a strong work ethic, while low Conscientiousness corresponds to impulsiveness and a lack of self-control. Colbert et al. (2004) found that individuals high in Conscientiousness were less likely to engage in WDBs, even in the face of negative workplace perceptions. Similarly, DeShong et al. (2015) found that Conscientiousness was more strongly related to organizational than interpersonal CWBs.

Extraversion and WDBs

Extraverts are outwardly expressive and seek social situations, while introverts prefer solitude. Extraversion’s relation to social behaviors makes it relevant in the context of workplace deviance, as individuals high in Extraversion may react differently to perceptions of social isolation. Although Berry et al. (2007) found a correlation between Extraversion and WDBs, this relationship was weaker than for Conscientiousness. Whaite et al. (2018) found that more extraverted individuals were less likely to experience social isolation, though the literature shows mixed results regarding Extraversion’s direct impact on WDBs.

Given these mixed results, Extraversion’s role in the current study is examined both as a potential predictor and moderator of WDBs.

Method

The current study was a quantitative correlational study using an online survey.

Participants

Participants (N = 37) were 19 or older, working in Canada or the United States, in a paid position for 20 hours per week or more, and spoke English. Participants had a minimum of six months’ organizational tenure and were working in person at the time of survey completion for at least 60% of the time over the past two months to control for objective isolation. Those working from home or remotely were not eligible to participate. A majority of participants were female (73%), of European origin (75.5%), 25 to 30 years of age (40.5%), and held roles in healthcare (45.9%) (Table 1). Most participants held non-managerial roles (64.9%), had been with their organization for 1 to 5 years (37.8%), and worked with more than 15 colleagues daily (32.4%) (see Table 1).

Table 1.Demographics summary
Variables Percentage N
Gender Female 73% 27
Male 27% 10
Non-binary 0% 0
Ethnicity European origins 75.7% 28
Other North American origins 8.1% 3
North American Aboriginal origins 8.1% 3
African origins 2.7% 1
Asian origins 5.4% 2
Age 19-24 8.1% 3
25-30 40.5% 15
31-40 10.8% 4
41-50 13.5% 5
51-60 8.1% 3
Over 60 18.9% 7
Profession Business and Financial Operations 2.7% 1
Construction and Extraction 5.4% 2
Education, Training, and Library 13.5% 5
Food Preparation and Serving Related 5.4% 2
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical 29.7% 11
Healthcare Support 16.2% 6
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair 2.7% 1
Management 13.5% 5
Office and Administrative Support 8.1% 3
Personal Care and Service 2.7% 1
Management Role Yes 35.1% 13
No 64.9% 24
Tenure 6 to 12 months 21.6% 8
1 to 5 years 37.8% 14
5 to 10 years 16.2% 6
More than 10 years 24.3% 9
Number of Daily Work Colleagues I work alone 8.1% 3
Between 1 and 5 21.6% 8
Between 5 and 10 21.6% 8

Recruitment Procedures

Snowball and convenience sampling methods were used. Participants were recruited via social media posts, direct messages, personal and organizational emails, and website postings on Call for Participants and Psychological Research on the Net.

Measures

Perceptions of Social Isolation

The Workplace Isolation Scale developed by Marshall et al. (2007) was used to measure perceived social isolation, featuring five items for the Colleague domain and five items for the Company domain. High scores on the isolation survey indicated low levels of perceived isolation.

Workplace Deviance

Workplace deviance was measured using the Workplace Deviance Scale (WDS) by Bennett & Robinson (2000), comprised of 12 organizational deviance items and seven interpersonal deviance items. High scores on the WDS indicated frequent engagement in deviant behaviors.

HEXACO Personality Inventory Dimensions

Personality traits were measured using 30 items from the original HEXACO-60 scale to assess Honesty-Humility, Extraversion, and Conscientiousness, which were used as control variables. (Ashton & Lee, 2009.) All measures were within the acceptable reliability range (see Table 2).

Table 2.Means, standard deviations, reliability coefficients, ranges, and skewness of study variables
Skewness
Mean Std. Dev. Reliability Coefficient (α) Range Min. Max. Statistic Std. Error Z-Value
WSI Overall 5.19 1.25 .93 4.70 2.30 7.00 -.63 .39 -1.62
WSI Colleague 5.42 1.38 .91 5.20 1.80 7.00 -1.2 .39 -3.08
WSI Company 4.95 1.32 .88 4.80 2.20 7.00 -.15 .39 -.38
WDB Overall 1.75 .71 .89 2.95 1.00 3.95 1.61 .39 4.13
WDB Interpersonal 1.67 .72 .77 3.00 1.00 4.00 1.98 .39 5.08
WDB Organizational 1.80 .83 .87 2.92 1.00 3.92 1.54 .39 3.95
Honesty-Humility 3.83 .62 .72 2.80 2.20 5.00 -.49 .39 -1.26
Conscientiousness 3.95 .56 .79 2.70 2.30 5.00 -.77 .39 -1.97
Extraversion 3.30 .66 .81 2.90 1.60 4.50 -.37 .39 -0.95
Valid N (listwise) 37
Demographics

Demographic data were collected on gender, ethnicity, age, job position, organizational tenure, and the approximate number of people participants worked with daily.

Data Analysis

Exploratory analyses of demographic data included frequency analyses of biographical questions, and relationships between study variables were examined through bootstrapped bivariate correlations. The predictive effect of perceived social isolation on workplace deviant behaviors (WDBs), beyond personality traits, was examined using hierarchical multiple regression analyses. Two hierarchical regressions were conducted based on statistically significant correlations relating WSI, WDB, and personality traits.

In the first hierarchical regression, Extraversion was the predictor in the first step, and WSI Overall was the predictor in the next step. In the second hierarchical regression, Extraversion was again the first-step predictor, but WSI Colleague was the next-step predictor. The dependent variable for both regressions was WDB Organization. A significant increase in variance explained by social isolation beyond that explained by personality factors would support the hypothesis.

Results

Correlational Analyses

Bivariate correlation analyses using both traditional and bootstrap methods were conducted to account for the small sample size. Correlations from traditional analyses are primarily discussed because the results were consistent across both methods, except for relationships that approached significance (see Table 3).

Participants experiencing greater workplace social isolation tend to report higher levels of deviant behaviors directed toward the organization, reflected in overall isolation scores and the WSI Company domain. Additionally, participants with higher Honesty-Humility scores tended to report lower engagement in overall deviance and interpersonally-oriented deviant behaviors. Lastly, participants higher in Extraversion reported lower social isolation across both isolation dimensions and overall, as well as less engagement in organizational and overall deviant behaviors. Bivariate correlation analyses between predictors and control variables showed no multicollinearity between predictors (i.e., WSI scales) and control variables (i.e., personality traits) (see Table 3 for bivariate correlations).

Table 3.Bivariate correlations for the study variables (N = 37)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 WSI Overall 1
2 WSI Colleague .93**
(.88; .97)
1
3 WSI Company .93**
(.87; .96)
.73**
(.54; .86)
1
4 WDB Overall -.23
(-.50; .02)
-.16
(-.41; .04)
-.28
(-.57; .04)
1
5 WDB Interpersonal .05
(-.23; .33)
.10
(-.11; .31)
-.01
(-.32; .33)
.80**
(.49; .93)
1
6 WDB Organizational -.34*
(-.59; -.08)
-.26
(-.53; -.04)
-.38*
(-.63; -.07)
.95**
(.91; .98)
.57**
(.20; .82)
1
7 Honesty-Humility 02
(-.29; .32)
.06
(-.25; .36)
-.02
(-.34; .29)
-.38*
(-.68; .00)
-.39*
(-.72; .03)
-.31
(-.60; .01)
1
8 Conscientiousness .29
(-.01; .53)
.30
(.04; .55)
.24
(-.13; .51)
.03
(-.39; .40)
.25
(.00; .48)
-.08
(-.50; .34)
.06
(-.29; .39)
1
9 Extraversion .49**
(.23; .71)
.54**
(.32; .73)
.38*
(.04; .63)
-.45**
(-.69; -.15)
-.31
(-.58; .07)
-.45**
(-.67; -.17)
.11
(-.22; .42)
.22
(-.06; .49)
1

Notes: ** p < .01, * p < .05. Values in parentheses represent Bootstrap based confidence intervals (BCa 95%)

Hypotheses Testing

The study hypothesized a positive relationship between WSI and WDBs beyond the impact of personality traits. Thus, hypothesis testing was conducted for WDB Organizational as the dependent variable, with WSI Overall and WSI Company as predictors and Extraversion as a control variable.

Hierarchical regression analysis was used to test the study’s hypothesis. In the first regression, Extraversion was entered as a predictor in the first block, followed by WSI Overall in the second. However, WSI Overall was not a significant predictor of WDB Organizational, and the hypothesis was not supported (see Table 4).

Table 4.Hierarchical regression for WDB Organizational with the predictor of WSI Overall, controlling for Extraversion.
R square change B Std. Error Beta t p-value Part
Model 1 .204*
Extraversion -.562 .188 -.452 -2.995 .005** -.452
Model 2 .018
Extraversion -.466 .216 -.375 -2.155 .038* -.326
WSI Overall -.103 .115 -.156 -.898 .376 -.136

Notes: ** p < .01, * p < .05.

For the second regression, Extraversion was again entered as a predictor in the first block, followed by WSI Company in the second. Extraversion remained a significant predictor, but WSI Company was not (see Table 5).

Table 5.Hierarchical regression for WDB Organizational with the predictor of WSI Company, controlling for Extraversion.
R square change B Std. Error Beta t p-value Part
Model 1 .204
Extraversion -.562 .188 -.452 -2.995 .005** -.452
Model 2 .049
Extraversion -.449 .199 -.361 -2.253 .031* -.334
WSI Company -.151 .101 -.240 -1.501 .143 -.222

Notes: ** p < .01, * p < .05.

Thus, the hypothesized relationship between WSI and WDB was not supported. Some relationships were non-significant at the bivariate level, while others became non-significant after controlling for personality traits.

Discussion

The current study sought to determine if workplace social isolation (WSI) impacts employee engagement in workplace deviant behaviors (WDBs) after accounting for personality. While the literature explored earlier mentions the influence of workplace perceptions on WDBs, the body of research is not extensive. Furthermore, social isolation perceptions have not been widely studied in in-person workplace settings.

However, substantial research exists regarding personality traits, particularly Honesty-Humility, and their relationship to WDBs. Given the established connections between perceptions, personality, and behaviors, exploring how perceptions influence behaviors that incur financial costs to organizations is crucial. This study contributed to the research by examining WSI in environments where employees are not physically isolated and its impact on WDBs in relation to personality traits.

While a relationship between WSI and WDBs was initially observed, the hypothesized link between social isolation and WDBs, after considering personality traits, was not supported. The results suggest that isolation perceptions affect WDBs related to the organization but not peers or colleagues. Specifically, participants who felt more isolated from their colleagues and organizations engaged more frequently in organizational WDBs. This finding aligns with theory and research on workplace perceptions conceptually linked to isolation, such as perceived social support (Howard et al., 2020) and justice perceptions (Khattak et al., 2019). However, it contrasts with research by Anaza and Nowlin (2017), which did not find a link between social isolation and WDBs in an in-person context.

Honesty-Humility was negatively related to overall WDB and interpersonal WDB, consistent with attributes of individuals high in Honesty-Humility. Prior research has identified this trait as a strong predictor of counterproductive work behaviors. Zettler and Hilbig’s (2010) study on the interaction between Honesty-Humility, perceptions of organizational politics, and CWBs highlights how situational factors may restrain deviant behaviors in individuals low in humility. However, no relationship was found between Honesty-Humility and organizational WDB. This may reflect the situational nature of Honesty-Humility, with interpersonal behaviors being more tempting due to their personal satisfaction and lower perceived risk of retaliation. It is possible that organizational opportunities for deviance were less available or that interpersonal opportunities were more prevalent (e.g., gossiping about a co-worker being easier than intentionally slowing down work).

A notable outcome was the absence of a relationship between Conscientiousness and both interpersonal and organizational WDBs. Previous research has established negative correlations between Conscientiousness and WDBs, making this result unexpected. However, this finding aligns with Anaza and Nowlin’s (2017) study on knowledge-withholding behavior. Conscientious individuals are less likely to experience social isolation, suggesting that they may not perceive discrepancies in their social circumstances, thus limiting deviant behaviors.

Extraversion was positively related to all WSI factors and negatively related to both overall WDB and organizational WDB. This indicates that extraverted participants, who tend to be more outgoing and expressive, experienced less social isolation and engaged less frequently in WDBs. This aligns with research showing that extraverted individuals are less prone to experiencing social isolation (Whaite et al., 2018), likely because they actively seek out social interactions.

Hypothesis Testing

The results indicated that Honesty-Humility was related to overall and interpersonal WDBs, while Extraversion was related to both WSI dimensions and organizational WDBs. Therefore, only Extraversion was controlled for in hypothesis testing. After controlling for Extraversion, WSI was no longer a predictor of organizational WDB, and the hypothesis was not supported. Several methodological and theoretical explanations might account for the lack of observed relationships.

The small sample size, which limited statistical power, likely contributed to the non-significant results. Selection bias, a threat to validity in snowball sampling, and desirability bias, given the potential familiarity between participants and the researcher, may have also influenced responses.

Theoretical Considerations

Alternative explanations are worth considering, given the lack of support for the hypothesis. Although the current study did not find relationships between WSI and WDBs, the theoretical framework remains supported by related constructs, such as fairness perceptions and social support. Surprisingly, no relationship was observed between Conscientiousness and WDBs despite prior research establishing Conscientiousness as a predictor of CWBs (Dalal, 2005). The pandemic’s impact on team culture and the increased communication within teams may have reduced deviant behavior, further complicating the relationship between Conscientiousness and WDBs.

It is possible that WSI is tied to psychological contracts in in-person workplace environments. Employees may expect a certain level of interaction, and perceived violations of these expectations could impact job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and performance. Though WDBs were not significantly influenced by WSI beyond personality, other organizational outcomes might still be affected by perceived discrepancies in workplace environments.

For remote workers, expectations of social interaction likely differ due to the physical isolation inherent in such roles. Remote employees may anticipate infrequent social interactions, which could explain why isolation perceptions are not as impactful in remote contexts.

Supervisor support, which was not considered in this study, is another factor that could mitigate the negative effects of isolation. It is possible that supervisor support in the current sample reduced the likelihood of WDBs.

Given the significant relationships between WSI and organizational WDBs, future research should focus on organizational deviance. No relationship was found between WSI and interpersonal or overall deviance, suggesting that employees may be less inclined to engage in interpersonally oriented deviance due to the potential repercussions of targeting colleagues.

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

Several limitations warrant mentioning, primarily concerning the reliance on subjective and self-report surveys. Subjective scales can introduce errors in measuring psychological constructs, and self-reports can lead to inflation and common-method bias. However, given the challenges of measuring behaviors like WDBs that often go unnoticed, the use of self-report surveys was necessary despite these limitations. The focus on individual perceptions in this study mitigates some concerns about the use of self-reports, as the intention was to assess personal, subjective experiences rather than objective isolation.

Collecting peer data to address the limitation of self-reported personality measures would have improved the study, but this was not feasible. Another limitation is the cross-sectional nature of the data, a choice driven by the practical challenges of securing participants for multiple survey administrations. Social desirability bias is also a potential concern, as participants may have tailored their responses to appear more favorable. However, the anonymity and self-administered format of the survey helped control for this bias.

The small sample size affected the power of the analysis and limited the generalizability of the findings. Cultural values influence individual perceptions and behavior, as demonstrated in previous research linking cultural values to perceptions of organizational politics and corruption. Research also shows that cultural context significantly impacts experiences like loneliness.

Cultural influences also shape cognitive processes and ethical decision-making. Research comparing US and Egyptian professionals found that US participants perceived ethical decisions as more unethical than their Egyptian counterparts (Beekun et al., 2008). This highlights the role of cultural values in shaping behaviors like WDBs and suggests that the results of the current study might vary if conducted in different cultural contexts.

Another significant limitation of this study was the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic has been shown to exacerbate stress, anxiety, and social isolation, which may have influenced participants’ perceptions. While the study targeted in-person workers to mitigate the effects of objective isolation, the pandemic’s overall influence on social isolation cannot be entirely ruled out.

Demographic variables, such as age, tenure, and gender, have also been linked to workplace isolation and deviant behavior. Research suggests that younger male employees with shorter tenure are more likely to engage in deviant behaviors. Given the majority of female participants in this study, a more balanced sample may have yielded different results.

Implications

Theoretical Implications

The study’s findings align with existing research highlighting the role of personality traits in shaping both perceptions and behaviors. While the hypothesis regarding WSI and WDBs was not supported, the observed relationships between personality traits like Extraversion and Honesty-Humility and deviant behaviors provide valuable insights. For example, previous research supports the idea that employees use deviant behaviors as a way to restore perceived equity or justice (O’Neill & Hastings, 2011). However, the current study’s results emphasize the stronger influence of personality traits over WSI in predicting WDBs, suggesting that personality traits may play a more significant role in workplace deviance than previously thought.

Practical Implications

At the employee level, the findings suggest that personality traits, particularly Extraversion and Honesty-Humility, have a greater influence on deviant behaviors than perceptions of workplace isolation. Organizations may benefit from screening for these traits during the hiring process to reduce the likelihood of deviant behaviors. In particular, HR practitioners should consider using interviews and personality assessments to identify individuals prone to deviance.

For managers, increasing communication about organizational norms and expectations could help reduce deviant behaviors, especially among employees with low Honesty-Humility. Regular check-ins with employees can foster a supportive workplace culture, reinforcing norms and expectations.

Conclusion

The current study aimed to determine if WSI influences employee engagement in WDBs in in-person workplace environments while controlling for the influence of personality traits.

While preliminary research has provided a strong theoretical foundation supporting the relationship between the experience of WSI and WDBs, research is lacking in the exploration of this relationship. The findings emphasize the importance of personality traits, particularly Extraversion and Honesty-Humility, in predicting deviant behaviors. These results contribute to the literature on workplace perceptions and deviant behaviors, highlighting the need for further research, particularly in different cultural contexts. By better understanding the interplay between isolation perceptions, personality traits, and workplace behaviors, organizations can more effectively address harmful employee behaviors and create healthier work environments.

Accepted: November 18, 2024 PDT

References

Anaza, N. A., & Nowlin, E. L. (2017). What’s mine is mine: A study of salesperson knowledge withholding & hoarding behavior. Industrial Marketing Management, 64, 14–24. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.indmarman.2017.03.007
Google Scholar
Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2009). The HEXACO-60: A short measure of the major dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(4), 340–345. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1080/​00223890902935878
Google Scholar
Beekun, R. I., Hamdy, R., Westerman, J. W., & HassabElnaby, H. R. (2008). An exploration of ethical decision-making processes in the United States and Egypt. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(3), 587–605. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​s10551-007-9578-y
Google Scholar
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 349–360. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1037/​/​0021-9010.85.3.349
Google Scholar
Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 410. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1037/​0021-9010.92.2.410
Google Scholar
Chen, C. F., & Kao, Y. L. (2012). Investigating the antecedents and consequences of burnout and isolation among flight attendants. Tourism Management, 33(4), 868–874. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.tourman.2011.09.008
Google Scholar
Cooper, C. D., & Kurland, N. B. (2002). Telecommuting, professional isolation, and employee development in public and private organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 23(4), 511–532. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1002/​job.145
Google Scholar
Dalal, R. S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1241. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1037/​0021-9010.90.6.1241
Google Scholar
DeShong, H. L., Grant, D. M., & Mullins-Sweatt, S. N. (2015). Comparing models of counterproductive workplace behaviors: The Five-Factor Model and the Dark Triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 74, 55–60. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.paid.2014.10.001
Google Scholar
Dussault, M., Deaudelin, C., Royer, N., & Loiselle, J. (1999). Professional isolation and occupational stress in teachers. Psychological Reports, 84, 943–946. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.2466/​pr0.1999.84.3.943
Google Scholar
Ellison, N. B. (1999). Social impacts: New perspectives on telework. Social Science Computer Review, 17(3), 338–356. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1177/​089443939901700308
Google Scholar
Faldetta, G. (2021). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance: The role of negative reciprocity. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 29(4), 935–949. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1108/​IJOA-03-2020-2062
Google Scholar
Howard, M. C., Cogswell, J. E., & Smith, M. B. (2020). The antecedents and outcomes of workplace ostracism: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(6), 577–596. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1037/​apl0000453
Google Scholar
Khattak, M. N., Khan, M. B., Fatima, T., & Shah, S. Z. A. (2019). The underlying mechanism between perceived organizational injustice and deviant workplace behaviors: Moderating role of personality traits. Asia Pacific Management Review, 24(3), 201–211. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.apmrv.2018.05.001
Google Scholar
Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2004). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO personality inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(2), 329–358. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1207/​s15327906mbr3902_8
Google Scholar
Marshall, G. W., Michaels, C. E., & Mulki, J. P. (2007). Workplace isolation: Exploring the construct and its measurement. Psychology & Marketing, 24(3), 195–223. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1002/​mar.20158
Google Scholar
Mulki, J. P., Locander, W. B., Marshall, G. W., Harris, E. G., & Hensel, J. (2008). Workplace isolation, salesperson commitment, and job performance. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 28(1), 67–78. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.2753/​PSS0885-3134280105
Google Scholar
Oh, I. S., Lee, K., Ashton, M. C., & de Vries, R. E. (2011). Are dishonest extraverts more harmful than dishonest introverts? The interaction effects of honesty-humility and extraversion in predicting workplace deviance. Applied Psychology, 60(3), 496–516. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1111/​j.1464-0597.2011.00445.x
Google Scholar
O’Neill, T. A., & Hastings, S. E. (2011). Explaining workplace deviance behavior with more than just the “Big Five.” Personality and Individual Differences, 50(2), 268–273. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.paid.2010.10.001
Google Scholar
Pletzer, J. L., Bentvelzen, M., Oostrom, J. K., & de Vries, R. E. (2019). A meta-analysis of the relations between personality and workplace deviance: Big five versus HEXACO. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 112, 369–383. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.jvb.2019.04.004
Google Scholar
Salgado, J. F. (2002). The Big Five personality dimensions and counterproductive behaviors. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10(1–2), 117–125. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1111/​1468-2389.00198
Google Scholar
Shanock, L. R., & Eisenberger, R. (2006). When supervisors feel supported: Relationships with subordinates’ perceived supervisor support, perceived organizational support, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 689. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1037/​0021-9010.91.3.689
Google Scholar
Statistics Canada. (2020). Canadian perspectives survey series 1: Impacts of COVID-19 on job security and personal finances, 2020. https:/​/​www150.statcan.gc.ca/​n1/​daily-quotidien/​200420/​dq200420b-eng.htm
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2019). Job flexibilities and work schedules summary. https:/​/​www.bls.gov/​news.release/​flex2.nr0.htm
Weiss, R. S. (1973). Loneliness: The experience of emotional and social isolation. The MIT Press.
Google Scholar
Whaite, E. O., Shensa, A., Sidani, J. E., Colditz, J. B., & Primack, B. A. (2018). Social media use, personality characteristics, and social isolation among young adults in the United States. Personality and Individual Differences, 124, 45–50. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.paid.2017.10.030
Google Scholar
Wiltshire, J., Bourdage, J. S., & Lee, K. (2014). Honesty-humility and perceptions of organizational politics in predicting workplace outcomes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(2), 235–251. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​s10869-013-9310-0
Google Scholar
Zettler, I., & Hilbig, B. E. (2010). Honesty–humility and a person–situation interaction at work. European Journal of Personality, 24(7), 569–582. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1002/​per.757
Google Scholar

Appendix

Demographics Questions

  1. What is your gender?

    a. Female

    b. Male

    c. Non-binary

  2. What is your ethnic origin?

    a. North American Aboriginal origins

    b. Other North American origins

    c. European origins

    d. Caribbean origins

    e. Latin, Central and South American origins

    f. African origins

    g. Asian origins

    h. Oceania origins

  3. How old are you?

    a. 19-24

    b. 25-30

    c. 31-40

    d. 41-50

    e. 51-60

    f. Over 60

  4. What is your profession?

    a. Architecture and Engineering profession

    b. Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports and Media profession

    c. Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance profession

    d. Business and Financial Operations profession

    e. Community and Social Services profession

    f. Computer and Mathematical profession

    g. Construction and Extraction profession

    h. Education, Training, and Library profession

    i. Farming, Fishing, and Forestry profession

    j. Food Preparation and Serving related profession

    k. Healthcare Practitioners and Technical profession

    l. Healthcare Support profession

    m. Installation, Maintenance, and Repair profession

    n. Legal profession

    o. Life, Physical, and Social Science profession

    p. Management profession

    q. Military specific profession

    r. Office and Administrative Support profession

    s. Personal Care and Service profession

    t. Production profession

    u. Protective Service profession

    v. Sales and Service profession

    w. Other, please specify:

  5. Are you in a management role?

    a. Yes

    b. No

  6. How long have you been employed at your current organization?

    a. 6 to 12 months

    b. 1 to 5 years

    c. 5 to 10 years

    d. More than 10 years

  7. Approximately how many colleagues do you work with daily?

    a. I work alone

    b. Between 1 and 5

    c. Between 5 and 10

    d. Between 10 and 15

    e. More than 15

Variables Measures for WSI, WDBs, and HEXACO

Workplace Isolation Scale (Marshall et al., 2007)

  1. I have friends available to me at work,

  2. I am well integrated with the department/company where I work.

  3. I have one or more co-workers available who I talk to about day-to-day problems at work.

  4. I am kept in the loop regarding company social events/functions.

  5. I have co-workers available whom I can depend on when I have a problem.

  6. I am part of the company network.

  7. I have enough people available at work with whom I can talk about my job.

  8. Upper management knows about my achievements.

  9. I have people around me at work.

  10. My supervisor communicates my achievements to upper management.

Workplace Deviance Scale (Bennett & Robinson, 2000)

  1. Made fun of someone at work.

  2. Said something hurtful to someone at work.

  3. Made an ethnic, religious or racial remark at work.

  4. Cursed at someone at work.

  5. Played a mean prank on someone at work.

  6. Acted rudely toward someone at work.

  7. Publicly embarrassed someone at work.

  8. Taken property from work without permission.

  9. Spent too much time fantasizing or daydreaming instead of working.

  10. Falsified a receipt to get reimbursed for more money than you spent on business expenses.

  11. Taken an additional or longer break than is acceptable at your workplace.

  12. Come in late to work without permission.

  13. Littered your work environment.

  14. Neglected to follow your boss’s instructions.

  15. Intentionally worked slower than you could have worked.

  16. Discussed confidential company information with an unauthorized person.

  17. Used an illegal drug or consumed alcohol on the job.

  18. Put in little effort into your work.

  19. Dragged out work in order to get overtime.

HEXACO-60 (Ashton & Lee, 2009)

  1. I plan ahead and organize things, to avoid scrambling at the last minute.

  2. I feel reasonably satisfied with myself overall.

  3. I wouldn’t use flattery to get a raise or promotion at work, even if I thought it would succeed.

  4. I often push myself very hard when trying to achieve a goal.

  5. I rarely express my opinions in group meetings.

  6. If I knew I could never get caught, I would be willing to steal a million dollars.

  7. When working on something, I don’t pay much attention to small details.

  8. I prefer jobs that involve social interaction to those that involve working alone

  9. Having a lot of money is not especially important to me.

  10. I make decisions based on the feeling of the moment rather than on careful thought.

  11. On most days, I feel cheerful and optimistic.

  12. I think that I am entitled to more respect than the average person is.

  13. When working, I sometimes have difficulties due to being disorganized.

  14. I feel that I am an unpopular person.

  15. If I want something from someone, I will laugh at that person’s worst jokes.

  16. I do only the minimum amount of work needed to get by.

  17. In social situations, I’m usually the one who makes the first move.

  18. I would never accept a bribe, even if it were very large.

  19. I always try to be accurate in my work, even at the expense of time.

  20. The first thing that I always do in a new place is to make friends.

  21. I would get a lot of pleasure from owning expensive luxury goods.

  22. I make a lot of mistakes because I don’t think before I act.

  23. Most people are more upbeat and dynamic than I generally am.

  24. I want people to know that I am an important person of high status.

  25. People often call me a perfectionist.

  26. I sometimes feel that I am a worthless person.

  27. I wouldn’t pretend to like someone just to get that person to do favors for me.

  28. I prefer to do whatever comes to mind, rather than stick to a plan.

  29. When I’m in a group of people, I’m often the one who speaks on behalf of the group.

  30. I’d be tempted to use counterfeit money, if I were sure I could get away with it.