Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Quantitative research reveals workplace ostracism linked to unfair allocation of idiosyncratic deals in religious minorities, indicating the need for equitable HR practices.
Fairness in the workplace is a key component of organizational justice. However, disparities in the granting of Idiosyncratic deals (I-deals) can lead to a perception of injustice among bystanders. These perceived inequities can trigger negative emotional and behavioral responses, such as malicious envy and workplace ostracism. This study investigates the relationship between co-worker perception of other employees’ I-deals and workplace ostracism, with serial mediation considering perceived I-deals differentiation and malicious envy. Using a quantitative research design, data were collected from 330 employees across 26 departments within the Government of Balochistan, Pakistan. Religious minority groups were chosen as participants in this study with the perception of purposive and snowball sampling techniques. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) was utilized to test the relationships that were proposed. The findings demonstrate that perceptions of inequality in the allocation of I-deals ignite the process of social comparisons, boost an ill feeling of envy, and eventually culminate in ostracism in the workplace. The results emphasize the essence of fair and transparent human resource practices in reducing these negative organization aspects. Enhancing equity in assigning I-deals enables the organization to practice inclusiveness at the workplace, which improves the well-being of employees and social cohesion. The study fits the overall discussion on workplace fairness, social exchange processes, and relationships between different groups and other goals, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), namely SDG 10, that are related to inequality reduction, and SDG 16, which promotes peace, justice, and stable institutions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bhatti et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: