907120
research-article2020
JOBXXX10.1177/2329488420907120International Journal of Business CommunicationYasin et al.
Article
Supervisor Phubbing
Phenomenon in
Organizations:
Determinants and Impacts
International Journal of
Business Communication
1­–23
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488420907120
DOI: 10.1177/2329488420907120
journals.sagepub.com/home/job
Raja Mehtab Yasin1, Sajid Bashir1 ,
Mariek Vanden Abeele2, and Jos Bartels2
Abstract
Supervisor phubbing occurs when supervisors use their mobile phone during an
interaction with a subordinate. This study explores the effects of supervisor phubbing
on employees’ organization-based self-esteem with a specific focus on subordinates’
experience of social exclusion. Drawing on data from a sample of 407 respondents,
the study findings show no direct relationship between perceived supervisor phubbing
and organization-based self-esteem. However, employees who perceive their
supervisor as using a phone more frequently during interpersonal interactions with
them reported higher feelings of social exclusion during these interactions, which, in
turn, predicted lower organization-based self-esteem. The study also examined the
facilitating effect of power distance between supervisors and employees, which was
partially supported. The implications of these findings for organizational policy are
discussed.
Keywords
supervisor phubbing, social exclusion, organization-based self-esteem, rejection
sensitivity, need to belong, power distance
1
Capital University of Science and Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan
Tilburg University, Tilburg, Noord-Brabant, the Netherlands
2
Corresponding Author:
Sajid Bashir, Department of Management Sciences, Capital University of Science and Technology, Off
Islamabad Express Way, Sihala Road, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan.
Email: profsajid@hotmail.com
2
International Journal of Business Communication 00(0)
Introduction
Phubbing is a colloquial term used to refer to the use of a mobile phone during copresent interactions (Roberts & David, 2017; Vanden Abeele, 2019). Derived from the
words “phone” and “snubbing,” phubbing can be defined as “the act of snubbing
someone in a social setting by looking at your phone instead of paying attention”
(Ugur & Koc, 2015, p. 1023). Phubbing is known to negatively affect a wide range of
relational outcomes in interpersonal relationships, such as impression formation, interaction quality, and relationship quality (e.g., Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas, 2018;
Krasnova et al., 2016; McDaniel & Coyne, 2016; Miller-Ott & Kelly, 2017; Vanden
Abeele et al., 2016).
Several studies have explored the effects of phubbing in the context of friendships
and romantic relationships (Balta et al., 2018; McDaniel & Coyne, 2016; Roberts &
David, 2016; Wang et al., 2017). For example, Roberts and David (2016) found that
being phubbed in personal contexts was found to indirectly affect depression.
Moreover, Wang et al. (2017) confirmed these findings in an Asian context and found
that partner phubbing was negatively related to relationship satisfaction. In turn, this
lower relationship satisfaction led to more feelings of depression. More recently,
Vanden Abeele et al. (2019) found that partner’s phone use was negatively related to
conversation intimacy. Finally, Çikrikci et al. (2019) found that communication disturbance as dimension of phubbing led to lower satisfaction with life.
In contrast to the rising amount of studies in a (private) relationship context, only a
few studies have explored the impact of phubbing on relationships in workplace settings (Al-Saggaf & O’Donnell, 2019). Cameron and Webster’s (2011) work on multicommunication in the workplace revealed that in some context’s employees experience
more mistrust and perceive their colleagues as more uncivil when these employees are
in different interactions at once during copresent workplace interactions. Since phubbing is a specific behavior of communicating with somebody else, when in a personal
conversation, this early study already suggests the possible negative effect of supervisor phubbing during face-to-face meetings. More recently, Roberts and David (2017)
actually found that employees’ perceptions of supervisor phubbing negatively predict
their perceptions of the supervisor’s trustworthiness. This lower perceived trust in the
supervisor, in turn, was associated with lower feelings of psychological meaningfulness and engagement in the organization. Additionally, Roberts and David (2020) also
found supervisor phubbing to have an indirect negative effect on employee’s job performance via supervisory trust and job satisfaction.
These first studies suggest that phubbing could be equally detrimental in the organizational context as in a private (social) context, and thus may lead to undesirable
organizational outcomes.
Albeit few, the extant studies show that workplace phubbing is an urgent matter, as
the implications for organizations may be profound. Therefore, the first aim of the current study is to contribute to this novel body of scholarship by examining the association
between supervisor phubbing and employees’ organization-based self-esteem (OBSE),
which refers to the degree to which employees believe that they are significant, worthy,
Yasin et al.
3
and capable at work (Pierce et al., 1989). OBSE is a relevant outcome to consider, as a
vast amount of research has indicated that OBSE leads to positive outcomes for organizations (Bowling et al., 2010; Chan et al., 2013; Ferris et al., 2009; Pierce et al., 2016;
Yang et al., 2018).
One reason why supervisor phubbing may threaten employees’ OBSE is that supervisor phubbing behavior might make subordinates feel socially excluded. Indeed, previous research suggests that people perceive phubbing as a prioritization of a virtual
conversation partner over the copresent interaction (Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas,
2018). This may lead them to experience social exclusion, which, in turn, can be
threatening to self-esteem (Leary, 1999, 2005). As OBSE is linked to acceptance or
rejection by the group, leader, or organization (Williams, 2007), we thus anticipate that
when supervisor phubbing leads employees to experience social exclusion, this may
negatively affect the employees’ OBSE, as they might feel devalued, less attached to
the organization, and isolated due to thwarted belongingness (cf. Ferris et al., 2008;
MacDonald & Leary, 2005; Williams, 2001). Hence, the current study assumes that
employees’ experience of social rejection during supervisor interactions explains the
association between perceived supervisor phubbing and OBSE.
There is reason to assume that these relationships are moderated by intrapersonal
and contextual factors (cf. Vanden Abeele, 2019). Hence, a second aim of this study is
to examine the moderating role of rejection sensitivity, need to belong and power distance. In terms of intrapersonal factors, employees’ rejection sensitivity and organizational need to belong are likely to be relevant moderators: Employees who are more
sensitive to rejection may interpret supervisor phubbing more strongly as ostracizing
behavior, and may thus respond with a stronger experience of social rejection.
However, Chotpitayasunondh and Douglas (2018) found no support for such a moderation effect in the context of nonworkplace interpersonal relationships. With respect
to organizational need to belong, individuals who generally attach greater importance
to belonging to the organization may perceive supervisor phubbing behavior as a
greater threat to their belongingness needs. Finally, with respect to contextual factors,
power distance could be a relevant cultural variable that moderates the association
between supervisor phubbing and experienced social rejection. In cultures in which
power distance is high, people are more likely to expect and accept displays of authority by the leader or superiors than in cultures in which power distance is low (Hsiung
& Tsai, 2017).
We examine these research aims by drawing on a cross-sectional survey that was
administered to 407 employees in the United States.
Theoretical Framework
Phubbing and Social Exclusion
In phubbing research, the term “phubber” refers to the person who engages in phubbing (i.e., the perpetrator), while the “phubbee” refers to the phubber’s conversation
partner, who is at the receiving end of the phubbing behavior (i.e., the victim). Studies
4
International Journal of Business Communication 00(0)
show that phubbers are considered to be impolite and inattentive (Vanden Abeele
et al., 2016), and that their behavior adversely affects indicators of interaction quality
and relationship satisfaction (Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas, 2018; Krasnova et al.,
2016; McDaniel et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2017). An effective symmetrical communication is considered during face-to-face interaction of an employee when they communicates with their manager (Lee, 2018).
Although research on the workplace context is scarce, the extant research suggests that phubbing is equally harmful for relationships at work (Cameron & Webster,
2011; Roberts & David, 2017). In the current study, we build further on this assumption by specifically focusing on the impact of supervisor phubbing on employee
well-being.
One reason why supervisor phubbing might hamper employee well-being is that
employees may interpret the phubbing behavior as ostracizing or socially excluding
them (Gruter & Masters, 1986; Williams, 1997). Social exclusion is defined by
Williams (2001) as “being invisible and being excluded from the social interactions of
those around you” (p. 2). Earlier work on social exclusion has shown that inattentive
behavior by an individual during interpersonal interactions can be interpreted as a sign
of social exclusion (K. D. Scott, 2007; Williams, 1997). When individuals experience
social exclusion, they feel threatened with respect to four fundamental human needs:
their need to belong, their need for self-esteem, their need for meaningful existence,
and their need for control over the situation as well as their life more generally (Gerber
&Wheeler, 2009; Williams, 2001; Zadro et al., 2004).
Previous research on phubbing in the context of friendships has revealed that
individuals may experience social exclusion when they are phubbed by a friend
(Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas, 2018; David et al., 2018). Hence, we may assume
that supervisors who phub create an ostracizing experience for their interaction partner by focusing their attention on their phone rather than on the employee with
whom they are interacting. Thus, we expect the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Employees who perceive that their supervisor phubs them more
frequently will experience greater social exclusion during interactions with their
supervisor, which is manifest in a greater threat to their (a) belongingness, (b) selfesteem, (c) meaningful existence, and (d) control needs.
Phubbing, Social Exclusion, and Organization-Based Self-Esteem
Supervisor phubbing may harm OBSE both directly and indirectly via its threat to
employees’ fundamental needs. OBSE refers to the degree to which individuals
believe that they are significant, valued, and capable at work (Pierce et al., 1989).
Members of an organization can judge their value from the signals they receive during their communication with managers in the organization (Baumeister, 1999;
Gardner et al., 2004). When the routine behaviors and words used during interactions
between supervisors and their employees transmit the message that the employees are
Yasin et al.
5
needed and valuable to the organization, these employees will feel competent and
valued (Korman, 1970; Pierce & Gardner, 2004). Supervisor phubbing can interfere
with these routine behaviors and therefore directly lead to less positive feelings (e.g.,
self-esteem):
Hypothesis 2: Employees who perceive that their supervisor phubs them more
frequently will report lower OBSE.
Supervisor phubbing may also indirectly hamper OBSE by eliciting an experience
of social exclusion. Previous studies show that experiencing social exclusion in the
workplace can harm employee well-being. For example, employees who feel socially
rejected by their colleagues are more likely to feel aggression toward others (Twenge
et al., 2001), engage in self-defeating actions (Twenge et al., 2002), suffer psychologically (Wu et al., 2012), and experience reduced self-esteem (Leung et al., 2011;Williams,
2001, 2007).
We assume that when supervisor phubbing elicits an experience of social exclusion among employees, their perceptions of their own value and worth for the organization decrease; after all, the supervisor’s phubbing behavior can be interpreted as
a signal that they are not considered worthy of the supervisor’s full attention. For
this reason, we expect that when employees feel socially excluded during interactions with their supervisor due their supervisor’s phubbing behavior, their OBSE
level will be lower:
Hypothesis 3: Employees’ experience of a threat to their fundamental needs: (a)
belongingness, (b) self-esteem, (c) meaningful existence, and (d) control needs
mediates the relationship between perceived supervisor phubbing and OBSE.
Moderators
It is likely that not all employees experience their supervisor’s phubbing behavior as
equally ostracizing. For this reason, it is important to consider potential mechanisms
influencing the relationship between supervisor phubbing and the experience of social
exclusion. Important moderators may include intrapersonal and contextual factors (cf.
Vanden Abeele, 2019).
The first intrapersonal factor we examine is employees’ rejection sensitivity, or
their propensity to “anxiously expect, readily perceive, and overreact to rejection” (cf.
Downey & Feldman, 1996, p. 1327). People with high rejection sensitivity have a
greater ability to sense and attend to social rejection signals. For example, individuals
with high rejection sensitivity experienced more pain in reaction to vague social rejection (Downey et al., 1998; Downey & Feldman, 1996; Kawamoto et al., 2015) and
reported higher conflictual ratings in response to their partners (Norona et al., 2014).
In the current study, we examine rejection sensitivity as a moderator in the context of
the supervisor-employee relationship. We thus expect the following hypothesis:
6
International Journal of Business Communication 00(0)
Hypothesis 4: Rejection sensitivity moderates the negative relationship between
perceived supervisor phubbing and threatened fundamental needs for (a) belongingness, (b) self-esteem, (c) meaningful existence, and (d) control in such a way
that the relationship is stronger among employees with higher rejection sensitivity
than among employees with low rejection sensitivity.
A second important intrapersonal factor that we explore as a moderator is employees’
workplace need to belong. Need to belong refers to humans’ fundamental desire to have
lasting and positive interpersonal relationships with others (Baumeister & Leary, 1995,
Downey & Feldman, 1996; Staebler et al., 2011). While the need to belong need is universal, there are variations in how people express and satisfy this need (Baumeister &
Leary, 1995). Interpersonal relationships formed at work serve a critical role in employees’ workplace success and career advancement (Allen et al., 2004; Dreher & Ash, 1990;
Scandura, 1992). Employees’ workplace need to belong can be understood as employees’
desire to have such relationships in the workplace. The impact of supervisor phubbing
may be more threatening for employees with a higher need to belong than for employees
with a lower need to belong, as they may attach greater importance to a positive interpersonal relationship with their supervisor. Hence, we expect the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 5: Need to belong moderates the negative relationship between perceived supervisor phubbing and fundamental threatened needs for (a) belongingness, (b) self-esteem, (c) meaningful existence, and (d) controlling such a way that
the relationship is stronger among employees with a high need to belong than
among employees with a low need to belong.
A third moderator in this study is a cultural factor, namely the power distance between
the supervisor and employees. People living in high power distance cultures are more
likely to accept and follow orders from leaders without questioning the leader’s authority
than those living in low power distance cultures (Clugston et al., 2000; Kirkman & Shapiro,
1997). A positive significant relationship was found between downward communication
and employee work outcomes in a research study conducted by Raina and Roebuck (2016).
Therefore, supervisor phubbing may be experienced as more threatening in workplaces
where supervisor-employee relationships are characterized by a low power distance
because socially excluding behavior by the supervisor may be less tolerated. Hence, the
third moderator we explore for the relationship between supervisor phubbing and the experience of threatened needs is power distance. We expect the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 6: Power distance moderates the negative relationship between perceived supervisor phubbing and fundamental threatened needs for (a) belongingness, (b) self-esteem, (c) meaningful existence, and (d) control in such a way that
the relationship will be weaker for employees who are low in power distance rather
than high in power distance.
The hypotheses guiding our study are visualized in the following theoretical model
(see Figure 1):
Yasin et al.
7
Rejection
Sensitivity
Power
Distance
Belonging
Self Esteem
Perceived
Supervisor
Phubbbing
Meaningful
Existence
Organizational
Based Self
Esteem
Control
Need to
Belong
Figure 1. Theoretical framework.
Method
Participants and Design
To test the hypotheses, we administered an online survey via Amazon Mechanical
Turk to persons who were actively employed in an organization. Participation was
remunerated with US$1.5 dollars. After removing participants who were not from the
United States (29%),1 failed to notice the attention check (n = 16), completed the
survey in an unrealistically short amount of time (n = 8) or had missing data (n = 1),
the final sample consisted of 407 American individuals who were employed in an
organization at the time of the survey. Of these individuals, 59% were male. The mean
age was 34.75 years (SD = 9.20). The study was approved by the Institutional Review
Board of Tilburg University, Netherlands.
Measures
Organization-Based Self-Esteem
We used K. L. Scott et al.’s (2008) five-item scale to measure OBSE. Sample items are
“I count around here,” “I am valuable around here,” and “There is faith in me around
here.” Responses were recorded on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The internal consistency of the scale was good, α = .92.
Perceived Supervisor Phubbing
We measured supervisor phubbing (SPhubbing) using a slightly modified version of
Roberts and David’s (2017) nine-item scale for boss phubbing. Respondents were
asked to rate their direct supervisor’s phone behavior during face-to-face meetings or
interactions with them. Sample items included “My supervisor places his or her cell
8
International Journal of Business Communication 00(0)
phone where I can see it when we are together,” and “When my supervisor’s cell
phone rings or beeps, he/she pulls it out even if we are in the middle of a conversation.” We removed one item that correlated very weakly with the other scale items. A
7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) was
used to record responses. The final scale was internally consistent, α = .94.
Social Exclusion/Threat to Fundamental Needs
We used an adapted version of Jamieson et al.’s (2010) 20-item Need Threat Measure
to assess the threat to four fundamental needs employees may feel in response to an
experience of social exclusion or ostracism (cf. Williams, 2009). This scale consisted of five items per need. Example items are “During interactions with my supervisor, I feel disconnected” (Belonging); “During interactions with my supervisor, I
feel liked” (Self-esteem); “During interactions with my supervisor, I feel invisible”
(Meaningful existence); and “During interactions with my supervisor, I feel powerful” (Control). A 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely)
was used. Similar to the scale validation study by Gerber et al. (2017), a factor
analysis revealed a two-factor solution, with one factor representing positively
worded and the other factor representing negatively worded items. A forced fourfactor solution did not exhibit the anticipated four-factor structure, but rather suggested that subscales could be differentiated most optimally by reducing the number
of items per dimension. We therefore used three items per dimension. The reliability
of the subscales measuring threatened belonging needs (α = .92), self-esteem needs
(α = .88), meaningful existence needs (α = .93), and control needs (α = .87) was
satisfactory. For all scales, we computed the variables so that a lower score indicates
that the respondent experiences a greater threat to the respective need, while a higher
score indicates that the need is more satisfied.
Rejection Sensitivity
The Rejection Sensitivity Adult Questionnaire (Downey & Feldman, 1996) was used
to assess rejection sensitivity. This scale presents nine scenarios and asks respondents
to assess, first, their concern about, and second, the perceived potential for rejection in
each scenario (e.g., “How concerned or anxious would you be over whether or not
your family would want to help you?” and “I would expect that they would agree to
help me as much as they can”). The responses were measured on a 6-point Likert-type
scale ranging from 1 (very unconcerned/very unlikely) to 6 (very concerned/very
likely). The reliability of the Rejection Sensitivity Adult Questionnaire scale was satisfactory, α = .76. Rejection sensitivity was used as a moderator.
Workplace Need to Belong
We used a slightly modified 10-item scale originally developed by Leary et al. (2013)
to measure workplace need to belong. A sample item is “I try hard not to do things that
Yasin et al.
9
Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among Study Variables.
Variables
1. PSP
2. Belonging (NTM)
3. Self-esteem (NTM)
4. Meaningful Existence
(NTM)
5. Control (NTM)
6. OBSE
7. A-RSQ
8. NTB
9. PD
M
SD
1
4.2
3.8
3.5
3.8
1.5
—
1.2 −.64**
1.0 −.19**
1.3 −.58**
2.9
5.4
9.2
4.5
3.82
1.2
.03
1.1 −.07
3.5
.25**
1.2
.31**
1.5
.43**
2
—
.22**
.89**
3
—
.18**
4
5
6
7
8
9
—
−.12*
.68** −.18**
—
.28** .63** .25** .52**
—
−.31** −.32** −.29** −.15** −.34** —
−.28** .21** −.31** .23** .23** .18** —
−.52** .07 −.54** .26** .06 .28** .36** —
Note. PSP = perceived supervisor phubbing; NTM = Need Threat Measure; OBSE = organization-based self-esteem;
A-RSQ = adult rejection sensitivity questionnaire; NTB = need to belong; PD = power distance.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
will make my supervisor avoid or reject me.” Responses were rated on a 7-point
Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely). The reliability of the
scale was satisfactory, α = .84. Workplace need to belong was used as a moderator.
Power Distance
We used Dorfman and Howell’s (1988) six-item power distance scale. Responses were
rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly
agree). The reliability of the power distance scale in this study was good, α = .87.
Power distance was used as a moderator.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
Before addressing the hypotheses, we first discuss some descriptive findings. Table 1
shows the means, standard deviations, and correlations for the different measures in
the total sample. In general, the employees in our study were fairly neutral in terms of
disagreeing/agreeing that their supervisor phubs them during interpersonal interactions (M = 4.16, SD = 1.54; Likert-type scale ranging from 1 to 7). We also see that,
in general, participants reported high levels of OBSE (M = 5.43, SD = 1.11).
A correlation analysis showed that there was no direct association between perceived supervisor phubbing and participants’ OBSE (r = −.07, p = .155). Significant
negative associations were found between supervisor phubbing and three of the fundamental needs (belonging, meaningful existence, and self-esteem). Table 1 further
shows that these three needs are positively related to each other. However, while participants’ control needs were positively associated with their self-esteem needs, we
found weak, albeit significant negative associations with belonging (r = −.12, p =
.014) and meaningful existence (r = −.18, p < .000).
10
International Journal of Business Communication 00(0)
Test of the Theoretical Model
We first used Process Model 4 (Preacher & Hayes, 2008) to test our mediation model,
disregarding the moderators. In this model, gender and age were included as covariates. With respect to the total effect of supervisor phubbing on OBSE, the results show
that when controlling for gender (b = −.11, standard error (SE) = .11, 95% confidence
interval [CI: −.338, .110]) and age (b = −.00, SE = .01, 95% CI [−.012, .012]), there
is no significant negative association between supervisor phubbing and OBSE (b =
−.05, SE =.04, 95% CI [−.121, .022]).
Our first hypothesis stated that an increase in supervisor phubbing would predict a
decrease in employees’ experienced belongingness needs (Hypothesis 1a), self-esteem
needs (Hypothesis 1b), meaningful existence needs (Hypothesis 1c), and control needs
(Hypothesis 1d) during face-to-face interactions. When exploring the direct relationship between perceived supervisor phubbing and respondents’ experiences of need
threat during supervisor interactions, we found that supervisor phubbing significantly
and negatively predicted belonging needs (Hypothesis 1a: b = −.50, SE = .03, 95%
CI [−.569, −.444]), self-esteem needs (Hypothesis 1b: b = −.13, SE = .03, 95% CI
[−.191, −.065]), and meaningful existence needs (Hypothesis 1c: b = −.47, SE = .03,
95% CI [−.538, −.406]). Supervisor phubbing did not predict control needs (Hypothesis
1d: b = .02, SE = .04, 95% CI [−.048, .091]). Thus, the more employees perceive
supervisor phubbing, the lower their feelings of belonging, feelings of self-esteem,
and feelings of meaningful existence during interactions with their supervisor
(Hypothesis 1a, Hypothesis 1b, Hypothesis 1c supported, and Hypothesis 1d not supported; see Table 2).
Hypothesis 3 stated that the experience of threatened needs would predict OBSE,
thus mediating the relationship between supervisor phubbing and OBSE. The results
revealed that perceived supervisor phubbing significantly and negatively indirectly
predicted OBSE via belonging needs (Hypothesis 3a: b = −.11, SE =.04, 95% CI
[−.191, −.022]), and self-esteem needs (Hypothesis 3b: b = −.05, SE = .02, 95% CI
[−.092, −.024]), but not via meaningful existence needs (Hypothesis 3c: b = −.07,
SE = .03, 95% CI [−.143, .000]) or control needs (Hypothesis 3d: b = .01, SE = .01,
95% CI [−.018, .034]). Interestingly, the direct relationship between perceived
supervisor phubbing and OBSE turned significantly positive when controlling for
these needs (b = .18, SE = .03, 95% CI [.110, .242]). This suggests an inconsistent
mediation (i.e., the direction of the association between perceived supervisor phubbing and OBSE is reversed when accounting for the mediators; see also MacKinnon
et al., 2007). Hence Hypothesis 3a and Hypothesis 3b were supported, whereas
Hypothesis 3c and Hypothesis 3d were not supported; see Table 2.
The Moderating Role of Rejection Sensitivity, Need to Belong, and
Power Distance
Hypothesis 4a to Hypothesis 4d, Hypothesis 5a to Hypothesis 5d, and Hypothesis 6a
to Hypothesis 6d stated that rejection sensitivity, need to belong and power distance
would moderate the relationship between perceived supervisor phubbing and threat to
Yasin et al.
11
Table 2. Mediation Results.
95% CI
B
SE
t
p
Mediator models
Outcome variable = Belonging; R2 = .41, F = 93.32, p < .000
Gender
−.05
.096
−0.54
.59
Age
.01
.01
2.08
.04
Supervisor phubbing
−.50
.03
−16.43
.00
Outcome variable = Self-esteem; R2 = .04, F = 5.63, p < .000
Gender
−.04
.10
−0.43
.67
Age
−.00
.01
−0.43
.39
Supervisor phubbing
−.13
.03
−3.98
.00
Outcome variable = Meaningful existence; R2 = .34, F = 68.08, p < .000
Gender
−.04
.11
−0.41
.68
Age
.01
.01
1.95
.05
Supervisor phubbing
−47
.03
−0.41
.00
Outcome variable = Control; R2 = .03, F = 4.61, p < .005
Gender
−.29
.11
−2.62
.01
Age
−.01
.01
−2.20
.03
Supervisor phubbing
.02
.04
0.610
.54
Dependent variable model
Outcome variable = OBSE; R2 = .50, F = 56.61, p < .000
Gender
.02
.08
0.19
.85
Age
.00
.00
0.48
.63
Belonging
.21
.08
2.80
.01
Self-esteem
.43
.06
7.25
.00
Meaningful existence
.15
.07
2.21
.03
Control
.32
.05
5.93
.00
Supervisor phubbing
.18
.03
5.25
.00
Total effects model
Outcome variable = OBSE; R2 = .01, F = 1.03, p > .1
Gender
−.11
.11
−1.00
.32
Age
−.00
.01
−0.02
.98
Supervisor phubbing
−.05
.04
−1.37
.17
LL
UL
−.2419
.0006
−.5648
.1379
.0209
−.4441
−.2427
−.0153
−.1913
.1554
.0060
−.0648
−.2518
−.0001
−.5384
.1651
.0222
−.4059
−.5078
−.0247
−.048
−.0730
−.0014
.091
−.1468
−.0065
.0623
.3106
.0166
.2155
.1101
.1774
.0107
.3572
.5420
.2889
.4294
.2419
−.3384
−.0121
−.1207
.1095
.0119
.0216
95% CI
Standardized indirect effects
Total
Belongingness
Self-esteem
Meaningful Existence
Control
Effect
SE
−.23
−.11
−.05
−.07
.01
.04
.04
.02
.03
.01
LL
−.3046
−.1906
−.0916
−.1432
−.0175
UL
−.1483
−.0223
−.0235
.0001
.0335
Note. CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit; SE = standard error; OBSE =
organization-based self-esteem.
12
International Journal of Business Communication 00(0)
fundamental needs. We tested these hypotheses using Hayes’ (2017) Process Model 7
for testing moderated mediation in SPSS.
The results of the moderated mediation analysis revealed that rejection sensitivity
did not moderate the negative relationship between perceived supervisor phubbing
and belonging needs, self-esteem needs, meaningful existence needs, or control needs
(see Table 3). Thus, Hypothesis 4a to Hypothesis 4d were not supported.
With respect to Hypothesis 5, which concerned the moderating role of employees’ need to belong, the results of the moderated mediation analysis revealed that
need to belong did not moderate the negative relationship between perceived supervisor phubbing and self-esteem needs or control needs (see Table 3). However, the
need to belong did moderate the negative relationship between perceived supervisor phubbing and belonging needs (Hypothesis 5a: b = −.10, p < .001) as well as
meaningful existence needs (Hypothesis 5c: b = −.13, p < .001). Table 3 shows the
moderating effect of need to belong on the relationship between perceived supervisor phubbing and belonging needs as well as meaningful existence needs: When
employees’ need to belong is high, the negative effect of supervisor phubbing on
belongingness needs and meaningful existence needs is low. Support for a moderated mediation for belonging needs (Index = −.02, 95% CI [−.041, −.004]) was
found (Hypothesis 5a and Hypothesis 5c supported, Hypothesis 5b and Hypothesis
5d not supported).
With respect to power distance, the results of the moderated mediation analysis
revealed that power distance moderated the negative relationship between perceived
supervisor phubbing and (a) belonging needs, (b) self-esteem needs, (c) meaningful
existence needs, and (d) control needs. Table 3 shows that when employees’ power
distance is low, the negative effects of perceived supervisor phubbing on belonging
(Hypothesis 6a: b = −.07, p<.001), self-esteem (Hypothesis 6b: b = .10, p < .000),
meaningful existence (Hypothesis 6c: b = .10, p < .000), and control needs
(Hypothesis 6d: b = .15, p < .000) are lower. Thus, support for a moderated mediation for belonging needs (Index = −.01, 95% CI [−.027, −.002], self-esteem needs
(Index = .05, 95% CI [.021, .074]), meaningful existence needs (Index = −.02, 95%
CI [−.034, −.001]), and control needs (Index = .05, 95% CI [.023, .072]) was found
(Hypothesis 6a-Hypothesis 6d supported).
Discussion
The aim of this inquiry was to extend our understanding of supervisor phubbing in the
workplace and how it lowers followers’ self-esteem through an array of employee
needs. As expected, supervisor phubbing lowered employees’ sense of belonging,
which is in line with previous studies (e.g., Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas, 2018;
Hales et al., 2018). However, contrary to expectations, employees’ need for control
was not affected by phubbing. We believe that this is related to low mean score of the
control needs measure; due to the hierarchical nature of relationships between supervisors and subordinates, the latter may generally not feel powerful and not expect to feel
powerful during their interactions with their supervisors—regardless of whether the
supervisor phubs them or not.
Yasin et al.
13
Table 3. Moderated Mediation Results.
Moderator = need to
belong
B (SE)
Moderation effects on mediators
Outcome variable = Belonging
Gender
−.08 (.09)
Age
.01 (.01)
Supervisor phubbing (SP)
−.04 (.10)
Moderator
.32 (.10)
Moderator * SP
−.10 (.02)
Conditional effect
Moderator value = 3.2; 2.3
Moderator value = 4.6; 3.8
Moderator value = 5.8; 5.3
Moderated mediation index
Moderator = rejection
sensitivity
Moderator = power
distance
t
B (SE)
t
B (SE)
t
−.856
1.91
−.41
3.30
−.86
−.03 (.10)
.01 (.01)
−.46 (.07)
−.05 (.04)
−.00 (.01)
−0.357
2.252
−6.761
−1.443
−0.146
−.08 (.09)
.01 (.00)
−.15 (.08)
.07 (.10)
−.07 (.02)
−0.909
1.305
−1.910
0.669
−3.411
R2 = .45, F = 63.20,
p < .001
R2 = .44, F = 61.45,
p < .001
R2 = .49, F = 74.65,
p < .001
B (SE)
B (SE)
B (SE)
−.36 (.04)
−.49 (.03)
−.61 (.04)
−.02 (.01)
−.31 (.04)
−.42 (.03)
−.52 (.05)
−.01 (.01)
Moderator = need to
belong
B (SE)
Outcome variable = Self-esteem
Gender
−.06 (.10)
Age
−.00 (.01)
Supervisor phubbing (SP)
−.24 (.11)
Moderator
.18 (.10)
Moderator * SP
.01 (.02)
Moderator = rejection
sensitivity
Moderator = power
distance
t
B (SE)
t
B (SE)
t
−0.609
−0.753
−2.30
1.752
0.585
.00 (.10)
−.00 (.01)
−.21 (.07)
−.15 (.04)
.01 (.01)
0.022
−0.770
−2.966
−4.089
2.008
.04 (.10)
−.00 (.01)
−.54 (.09)
−.35 (.11)
.10 (.02)
0.382
−0.298
−6.219
−3.235
4.635
R2 = .11, F = 10.19,
p < .000
R2 = .12, F = 11.24,
p < .000
R2 = .11, F = 9.539,
p < .001
B (SE)
B (SE)
B (SE)
Conditional effect
Moderator value = 3.2; 2.3
Moderator value = 4.6; 3.8
Moderator value = 5.8; 5.3
Moderated Mediation Index
−.30 (.04)
−.14 (.04)
.01 (.05)
.05 (.01)
.01 (.01)
Moderator = need to
belong
B (SE)
Outcome variable = Meaningful existence
Gender
−.08 (.10)
Age
.01 (.01)
Supervisor phubbing (SP)
.15 (.11)
Moderator
.40 (.11)
Moderator * SP
−.13 (.02)
Moderator = rejection
sensitivity
Moderator = power
distance
t
B (SE)
t
B (SE)
t
−0.747
1.748
1.390
3.785
−5.615
−.03 (.11)
.01 (.01)
−.427 (.08)
−.05 (.04)
−.00 (.01)
−0.246
2.103
−5.647
−1.267
−0.199
−.09 (.10)
.01 (.01)
.01 (.08)
.14 (.11)
.10 (.02)
−0.932
1.045
0.158
1.305
−4.579
(continued)
14
International Journal of Business Communication 00(0)
Table 3. (continued)
Conditional effect
Moderator value = 3.2; 2.3
Moderator value = 4.6; 3.8
Moderator value = 5.8; 5.3
Moderated mediation index
R2 = .40, F = 52.87,
p < .000
R2 = .36, F = 44.97,
p < .000
R2 = .46, F = 66.49,
p < .001
B (SE)
B (SE)
B (SE)
−.27 (.05)
−.45 (.03)
−.61 (.05)
−.02 (.01)
−.22 (.04)
−.37 (.03)
−.52 (.05)
−.02 (.01)
Moderator = need to
belong
Outcome variable = Control
Gender
Age
Supervisor phubbing (SP)
Moderator
Moderator * SP
Conditional effect
Moderator value = 3.2; 2.3
Moderator value = 4.6; 3.8
Moderator value = 5.8; 5.3
Moderated mediation index
Moderator = rejection
sensitivity
Moderator = power
distance
B (SE)
t
B (SE)
t
B (SE)
t
−.30 (.11)
−.01 (.01)
−.19 (.12)
.07 (.11)
.04 (.02)
−2.809
−2.087
−1.632
0.645
1.410
−.26 (.11)
−.01 (.01)
−.02 (.08)
−.09 (.04)
.01 (.01)
−2.397
−2.155
−0.226
−2.114
0.958
−.22 (.10)
−.01 (.01)
−.59 (.09)
−.44 (.11)
.15 (.02)
−2.085
−1.332
−6.496
−3.886
6.238
R2 = .09, F = 8.016,
p < .001
R2 = .06, F = 5.059,
p < .001
R2 = .18, F = 17.041,
p < .001
B (SE)
B (SE)
B (SE)
.01 (.01)
.00 (.00)
−.25 (.05)
−.03 (.04)
.19 (.05)
.04 (.01)
Note. SE = standard error. The values are significant at p<.05.
The three fundamental needs that were predicted by supervisor phubbing behavior
were positive predictors of employees’ OBSE. However, while the findings supported
a fully mediated effect of supervisor phubbing on OBSE via threats to employees’
belongingness and self-esteem needs, we found no mediation via meaningful existence. Thus, while this finding supports Roberts and David’s (2016) claim that phubbing in the workplace can have detrimental consequences for employees’ well-being,
and by extension the organization, it also add nuance to this claim by pointing to certain mechanisms upon which the association between supervisor phubbing and OBSE
appears to be conditional.
In addition to the aforementioned effects, we also explored the role of rejection
sensitivity, need to belong and power distance as potential moderators of the relationship between supervisor phubbing and need threats. Rejection sensitivity did not
moderate the relationship between perceived supervisor phubbing and fundamental
needs. Despite strong evidence of this moderating effect, a few studies, such as
Chotpitayasunondh and Douglas (2018), likewise found no moderating effect of
Yasin et al.
15
rejection sensitivity on the relationship between phubbing and the experience of
ostracism. These findings were explained with reference to previous observations
that ostracism experiences appear fairly robust to moderation by individual differences and situational factors. However, as expected, we did find a moderating effect
of employees’ workplace need to belong, which suggests that forms of ostracism that
are highly situation specific, such as supervisor phubbing in the workplace, may be
contingent upon the extent to which these situations matter to persons. The need to
belong was operationalized as the extent to which employees attach importance to
being accepted by individuals in their workplace. This makes it an important aspect
of working life; hence, we argue that without a need to belong, the workplace social
context is incomplete, which affects all workplace interactions, including supervisor
phubbing and its outcomes.
Finally, the moderation by power distance suggests that supervisor phubbing has a
positive effect on needs at high power distances, but a negative effect at low power
distances. Power distance is a cultural framework in which high power distance and
low power distance are associated with hierarchy and equality, respectively. In high
power distance countries, people accept and expect the supervisor to exercise their
power and do not expect to participate in the decision-making process (Hofstede,
1980). This interesting finding suggests that in high power distance cultures, phubbing
can also be seen as something that followers cannot question and the boss has an inherent right to engage in. A low power distance culture, on the other hand, has a weakening effect on the relationship between phubbing and needs, thus implying that phubbing
is considered a bigger problem, as its weakening effect indicates that more phubbing
causes greater damages to employees’ needs in cultures with a low power distance.
Managerial Implications
The findings of our study have some managerial implications. First, our study shows
that supervisor phubbing is a practice that cannot only be observed in organizations
but also affects the working life of employees subjected to it by threatening some of
their fundamental needs and thereby lowering their OBSE. OBSE is known to be an
important factor for both the well-being of individual employee as well as organizational success, because employees are known to contribute more to the organization
when they feel that they are accepted and valued (Pierce et al., 1989; Williams, 2007).
Given the importance of OBSE, this study’s findings are relevant for organizational
leaders, who may wish to take action to prevent this supervisor behavior, whether
intentional or unintentional, from having a negative effect on employees. For instance,
they may wish to develop workplace policies on phone use and/or organize campaigns
to increase awareness of the adverse effects of phubbing in the workplace, particularly
during face-to-face interactions when employees anticipate receiving the undivided
attention of their supervisor (Roberts & David, 2017). As face-to-face interaction is
critical to achieve concerted work (Mangrum et al., 2001). Similar to creating smokefree environments, workplaces may wish to create work spaces in which phone use is
restricted, while perhaps also designating specific areas for smartphone use.
16
International Journal of Business Communication 00(0)
Finally, the current study also extends a wide variety of organizational communication research on the positive effects of communication satisfaction (Raina & Roebuck,
2016; Varona, 1996), communication climate (Bartels et al., 2007; Smidts et al., 2001),
and supervisor-employee communication (Mikkelson et al., 2015; van Vuuren et al.,
2007) on employees’ attitudes toward the organization (e.g., satisfaction, motivation,
and organizational commitment). Since phubbing is perceived as a specific new form
of possible disrespectful online communication in organizations, managers should be
aware of the negative consequences of this behavior. The danger of supervisor phubbing lies in the fact that it could lead to negative perceptions of supervisor-employee
communication, leading to less communication satisfaction among employees, which,
in turn, could harm the organization overall.
Limitations and Future Research Directions
Although the present study is the first to investigate supervisors’ phubbing in the
workplace, it nevertheless has a few limitations.
First, the data were collected using an online survey and had a cross-sectional
nature. Future research could focus on the longitudinal effect of supervisor phubbing
at a specific moment in time on employees’ perceptions and behaviors toward the
organization in a later stage. To avoid possible common method bias and to be able to
investigate the negative organizational effects of supervisor phubbing in the long run.
Future research is also needed to further test the underlying processes of being
phubbed at workplace due to the use of specific social media. Research could focus on
the moderating or mediating role of for example employees’ feelings of organizational
justice (McAllister & Bigley 2002; Schroth & Pradhan Shah, 2000), employees’ perceptions of vertical communication in organizations (Bartels et al., 2010) or negative
perceptions of leader-membership-exchange (Rafferty & Restubog, 2011) to explain
the relationship between supervisor phubbing and OBSE better.
Finally, this study focused on employee’s perceptions of organizational based selfesteem. Although previous studies have already emphasized the importance of OBSE
(Bowling et al., 2010; Pierce et al., 2016; Yang et al., 2018), future studies could more
closely examine several specific (negative) behaviors as a consequence of supervisor
phubbing. For example, studies show that negative perceptions of supervisor-employee
communication is associated with cyberloafing (e.g., private online social media use
during work hours; Lim, 2002; Usman et al., 2019). Future research could investigate
whether supervisor phubbing eventually leads to this negative online employee behavior via for example OBSE.
Conclusion
Mobile phones provide an important medium for social interactions in social life,
including in the workplace. However, excessive mobile phone use affects the quality
of relationships in the workplace and creates psychological harm. This study provides
a way forward for studying workplace phubbing in greater detail, which ultimately
Yasin et al.
17
will guide us in how to use technology for functional purposes rather than dysfunctional. This, in turn, will affect both employees and organizations.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
ORCID iD
Sajid Bashir
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0496-4056
Note
1.
Indeed, 29% of the original sample of participants were Indian. A data quality analysis
revealed that a substantial subset of these participants displayed behavior indicative of
straight lining. As this may jeopardize the reliability of the data set, we opted to work only
with the subset of responses provided by U.S. participants.
References
Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., Poteet, M. L., Lentz, E., & Lima, L. (2004). Career benefits associated
with mentoring for protégés: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 127136. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.127
Al-Saggaf, Y., & O’Donnell, S. B. (2019). Phubbing: Perceptions, reasons behind, predictors,
and impacts. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 1(2), 132-140. https://doi.
org/10.1002/hbe2.137
Balta, S., Kircaburun, K., & Griffiths, M. D. (2018). Neuroticism, trait-fear of missing out, and
phubbing: The mediating role of state-fear of missing out and problematic Instagram use.
International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction. Advance online publication. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11469-018-9959-8
Bartels, J., Peters, O., de Jong, M., Pruyn, A., & van der Molen, M. (2010). Horizontal and
vertical communication as determinants of professional and organisational identification.
Personnel Review, 39(2), 210-226. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483481011017426
Bartels, J., Pruyn, A., De Jong, M., & Joustra, I. (2007). Multiple organizational identification
levels and the impact of perceived external prestige and communication climate. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 28(2), 173-190. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.420
Baumeister, R. F. (Ed.). (1999). The self in social psychology. Psychology Press.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497-529. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
Bowling, N. A., Eschleman, K. J., Wang, Q., Kirkendall, C., & Alarcon, G. (2010). A
meta-analysis of the predictors and consequences of organization-based self-esteem.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(3), 601-626. https://doi.
org/10.1348/096317909X454382
18
International Journal of Business Communication 00(0)
Cameron, A. F., & Webster, J. (2011). Relational outcomes of multicommunicating: Integrating
incivility and social exchange perspectives. Organization Science, 22(3), 754-771. https://
doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0540
Chan, S. C., Huang, X., Snape, E., & Lam, C. K. (2013). The Janus face of paternalistic leaders: Authoritarianism, benevolence, subordinates’ organization-based self-esteem, and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(1), 108-128. https://doi.org/10.1002/
job.1797
Chotpitayasunondh, V., & Douglas, K. M. (2018). The effects of “phubbing” on social interaction. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 48(6), 304-316. https://doi.org/10.1111/
jasp.12506
Çikrikci, Ö., Griffiths, M. D., & Erzen, E. (2019). Testing the mediating role of phubbing
in the relationship between the Big Five personality traits and satisfaction with life.
International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction. Advance online publication. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11469-019-00115-z
Clugston, M., Howell, J. P., & Dorfman, P. W. (2000). Dispositional influences on
pay preferences. Journal of Business and Psychology, 15(2), 311-320. https://doi.
org/10.1023/A:1007824118977
David, M. E., Roberts, J. A., & Christenson, B. (2018). Too much of a good thing: Investigating
the association between actual smartphone use and individual well-being. International
Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 34(3), 265-275. https://doi.org/10.1080/104473
18.2017.1349250
Dorfman, P. W., & Howell, J. P. (1988). Dimensions of national culture and effective leadership
patterns: Hofstede revisited. Advances in International Comparative Management, 3(1),
127-150.
Downey, G., & Feldman, S. I. (1996). Implications of rejection sensitivity for intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(6), 1327-1343. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.6.1327
Downey, G., Lebolt, A., Rincón, C., & Freitas, A. L. (1998). Rejection sensitivity and children’s interpersonal difficulties. Child Development, 69(4), 1074-1091. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1998.tb06161.x
Dreher, G. F., & Ash, R. A. (1990). A comparative study of mentoring among men and women
in managerial, professional, and technical positions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(5),
539-546. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.5.539
Ferris, D. L., Brown, D. J., Berry, J. W., & Lian, H. (2008). The development and validation of
the Workplace Ostracism Scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1348-1366. https://
doi.org/10.1037/a0012743
Ferris, D. L., Brown, D. J., & Heller, D. (2009). Organizational supports and organizational deviance: The mediating role of organization-based self-esteem. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 108(2), 279-286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.09.001
Gardner, D. G., Van Dyne, L., & Pierce, J. L. (2004). The effects of pay level on organization-based self-esteem and performance: A field study. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 77(3), 307-322. https://doi.org/10.1348/0963179041752646
Gerber, J., & Wheeler, L. (2009). On being rejected: A meta-analysis of experimental research
on rejection. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(5), 468-488. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1745-6924.2009.01158.x
Gerber, J. P., Chang, S. H., & Reimel, H. (2017). Construct validity of Williams’ ostracism needs
threat scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 115, 50-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
paid.2016.07.008
Yasin et al.
19
Gruter, M., & Masters, R. D. (1986). Ostracism as a social and biological phenomenon: An
introduction. Ethology and Sociobiology, 7(3-4), 149-158. https://doi.org/10.1016/01623095(86)90043-9
Hales, A. H., Dvir, M., Wesselmann, E. D., Kruger, D. J., & Finkenauer, C. (2018). Cell phoneinduced ostracism threatens fundamental needs. Journal of Social Psychology, 158(4), 460473. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2018.1439877
Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis:
A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture and organizations. International Studies of Management &
Organization, 10(4), 15-41. https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.1980.11656300
Hsiung, H. H., & Tsai, W. C. (2017). The joint moderating effects of activated negative moods
and group voice climate on the relationship between power distance orientation and
employee voice behavior. Applied Psychology, 66(3), 487-514.
Jamieson, J. P., Harkins, S. G., & Williams, K. D. (2010). Need threat can motivate performance
after ostracism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(5), 690-702. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0146167209358882
Kawamoto, T., Ura, M., & Nittono, H. (2015). Intrapersonal and interpersonal processes
of social exclusion. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 9, Article 62. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fnins.2015.00062
Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (1997). The impact of cultural values on employee resistance
to teams: Toward a model of globalized self-managing work team effectiveness. Academy
of Management Review, 22(3), 730-757. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1997.9708210724
Korman, A. K. (1970). Toward an hypothesis of work behavior. Journal of Applied psychology,
54(1, Pt. 1), 31-41. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0028656
Krasnova, H., Abramova, O., Notter, I., & Baumann, A. (2016, June). Why phubbing is toxic for
your relationship: Understanding the role of smartphone jealousy among “Generation y”
users. (Research Paper No. 109). https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5c39/610f9ee13c10176
8b06169153d580605d7ec.pdf
Leary, M. R. (1999). Making sense of self-esteem. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
8(1), 32-35. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00008
Leary, M. R. (2005). Sociometer theory and the pursuit of relational value: Getting to the
root of self-esteem. European Review of Social Psychology, 16(1), 75-111. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10463280540000007
Leary, M. R., Kelly, K. M., Cottrell, C. A., & Schreindorfer, L. S. (2013). Construct validity
of the need to belong scale: Mapping the nomological network. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 95(6), 610-624. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2013.819511
Lee, Y. (2018). Dynamics of symmetrical communication within organizations: The impacts
of channel usage of CEO, managers, and peers. International Journal of Business
Communication. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488418803661
Leung, A. S., Wu, L. Z., Chen, Y. Y., & Young, M. N. (2011). The impact of workplace ostracism in service organizations. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(4),
836-844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.01.004
Lim, V. K. (2002). The IT way of loafing on the job: Cyberloafing, neutralizing and organizational justice. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(5), 675-694. https://doi.org/10.1002/
job.161
MacDonald, G., & Leary, M. R. (2005). Why does social exclusion hurt? The relationship
between social and physical pain. Psychological Bulletin, 131(2), 202-223. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.2.202
20
International Journal of Business Communication 00(0)
MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007). Mediation analysis. Annual Review of
Psychology, 58, 593-614. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085542
Mangrum, F. G., Fairley, M. S., & Wieder, D. L. (2001). Informal problem solving in the technology-mediated work place. Journal of Business Communication, 38(3), 315-336. https://
doi.org/10.1177/002194360103800307
McAllister, D. J., & Bigley, G. A. (2002). Work context and the definition of self: How organizational care influences organization-based self-esteem. Academy of Management Journal,
45(5), 894-904.
McDaniel, B. T., & Coyne, S. M. (2016). “Technoference”: The interference of technology
in couple relationships and implications for women’s personal and relational well-being.
Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 5(1), 85-98. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000065
McDaniel, B. T., Galovan, A. M., Cravens, J. D., & Drouin, M. (2018). “Technoference”
and implications for mothers’ and fathers’ couple and coparenting relationship quality.
Computers in Human Behavior, 80, 303-313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.019
Mikkelson, A. C., York, J. A., & Arritola, J. (2015). Communication competence, leadership
behaviors, and employee outcomes in supervisor-employee relationships. Business and
Professional Communication Quarterly, 78(3), 336-354. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329
490615588542
Miller-Ott, A. E., & Kelly, L. (2017). A politeness theory analysis of cell-phone usage in the
presence of friends. Communication Studies, 68(2), 190-207. https://doi.org/10.1080/1051
0974.2017.1299024
Norona, J. C., Salvatore, J. F., Welsh, D. P., & Darling, N. (2014). Rejection sensitivity and adolescents’ perceptions of romantic interactions. Journal of Adolescence, 37(8), 1257-1267.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2014.09.003
Pierce, J. L., & Gardner, D. G. (2004). Self-esteem within the work and organizational context:
A review of the organization-based self-esteem literature. Journal of Management, 30(5),
591-622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2003.10.001
Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., & Crowley, C. (2016). Organization-based self-esteem and well-being:
Empirical examination of a spillover effect. European Journal of Work & Organizational
Psychology, 25(2), 181-199. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2015.1028377
Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., & Dunham, R. B. (1989). Organization-based
self-esteem: Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management
Journal, 32(3), 622-648. https://doi.org/10.2307/256437
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing
and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods,
40(3), 879-891. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
Rafferty, A. E., & Restubog, S. L. D. (2011). The influence of abusive supervisors
on followers’ organizational citizenship behaviours: The hidden costs of abusive
supervision. British Journal of Management, 22(2), 270-285. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1467-8551.2010.00732.x
Raina, R., & Roebuck, D. B. (2016). Exploring cultural influence on managerial communication in relationship to job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and the employees’
propensity to leave in the insurance sector of India. International Journal of Business
Communication, 53(1), 97-130. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488414525453
Roberts, J. A., & David, M. E. (2016). My life has become a major distraction from my cell
phone: Partner phubbing and relationship satisfaction among romantic partners. Computers
in Human Behavior, 54, 134-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.058
Yasin et al.
21
Roberts, J. A., & David, M. E. (2017). Put down your phone and listen to me: How boss
phubbing undermines the psychological conditions necessary for employee engagement.
Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 206-217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.05.021
Roberts, J. A., & David, M. E. (2020). Boss phubbing, trust, job satisfaction and employee
performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 155. Article 109702. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109702
Scandura, T. A. (1992). Mentorship and career mobility: An empirical investigation. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 169-174. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130206
Schroth, H. A., & Pradhan Shah, P. (2000). Procedures: Do we really want to know them?
An examination of the effects of procedural justice on self-esteem. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85(3), 462-471. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.462
Scott, K. D. (2007). The development and test of an exchange-based model of interpersonal
workplace exclusion [Doctoral dissertations, University of Kentucky]. https://www.mobt3ath.com/uplode/book/book-28083.pdf
Scott, K. L., Shaw, J. D., & Duffy, M. K. (2008). Merit pay raises and organization-based
self-esteem. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial,
Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 29(7), 967-980. https://doi.
org/10.1002/job.539
Smidts, A., Pruyn, A. T. H., & Van Riel, C. B. (2001). The impact of employee communication
and perceived external prestige on organizational identification. Academy of Management
Journal, 44(5), 1051-1062. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069448
Staebler, K., Helbing, E., Rosenbach, C., & Renneberg, B. (2011). Rejection sensitivity and borderline personality disorder. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 18(4), 275-283. https://
doi.org/10.1002/cpp.705
Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Stucke, T. S. (2001). If you can’t join them,
beat them: Effects of social exclusion on aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 81(6), 1058-1069. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.1058
Twenge, J. M., Catanese, K. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2002). Social exclusion causes selfdefeating behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(3), 606-615. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.3.606
Ugur, N. G., & Koc, T. (2015). Time for digital detox: Misuse of mobile technology and phubbing. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 195, 1022-1031. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
sbspro.2015.06.491
Usman, M., Javed, U., Shoukat, A., & Bashir, N. A. (2019). Does meaningful work reduce
cyberloafing? Important roles of affective commitment and leader-member exchange.
Behaviour & Information Technology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.108
0/0144929X.2019.1683607
Vanden Abeele, M. M. P. (2019). The social consequences of phubbing: A framework and a
research agenda. In R. Ling, G. Goggin, L. Fortunati, S. S. Lim, & Y. Li (Eds.), Handbook
of mobile communication, culture, and information. Oxford University Press. Section 4.3.
Vanden Abeele, M. M. P., Antheunis, M. L., & Schouten, A. P. (2016). The effect of mobile messaging during a conversation on impression formation and interaction quality. Computers
in Human Behavior, 62, 562-569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.04.005
Vanden Abeele, M. M. P., Hendrickson, A. T., Pollmann, M. M. H., & Ling, R. (2019).
Phubbing behavior in conversations and its relation to perceived conversation intimacy and
distraction: An exploratory observation study. Computers in Human Behavior, 100, 35-47.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.06.004
22
International Journal of Business Communication 00(0)
van Vuuren, M., de Jong, M. D., & Seydel, E. R. (2007). Direct and indirect effects of supervisor communication on organizational commitment. Corporate Communications: An
International Journal, 12(2), 116-128. https://doi.org/10.1108/13563280710744801
Varona, F. (1996). Relationship between communication satisfaction and organizational
commitment in three Guatemalan organizations. International Journal of Business
Communication, 33(2), 111-140. https://doi.org/10.1177/002194369603300203
Wang, X., Xie, X., Wang, Y., Wang, P., & Lei, L. (2017). Partner phubbing and depression among married Chinese adults: The roles of relationship satisfaction and relationship length. Personality and Individual Differences, 110, 12-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
paid.2017.01.014
Williams, K. D. (1997). Social ostracism. In R. M. Kowalski (Ed.), The Plenum series in social/
clinical psychology: Aversive interpersonal behaviors (pp. 133-170). Springer.
Williams, K. D. (2001), Ostracism: the power of silence. Guilford Press.
Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 425-452. https://doi.
org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085641
Williams, K. D. (2009). Ostracism: Effects of being excluded and ignored. In M. Zanna (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 275-314). Academic Press.
Wu, L. Z., Yim, F. H. K., Kwan, H. K., & Zhang, X. (2012). Coping with workplace
ostracism: The roles of ingratiation and political skill in employee psychological distress. Journal of Management Studies, 49(1), 178-199. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14676486.2011.01017.x
Yang, Z., Zhang, H., Kwan, H. K., & Chen, S. (2018). Crossover effects of servant leadership
and job social support on employee spouses: The mediating role of employee organizationbased self-esteem. Journal of Business Ethics, 147(3), 595-604. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10551-015-2943-3
Zadro, L., Williams, K. D., & Richardson, R. (2004). How low can you go? Ostracism by a
computer is sufficient to lower self-reported levels of belonging, control, self-esteem, and
meaningful existence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(4), 560-567. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2003.11.006
Author Biographies
Raja Mehtab Yasin is a PhD scholar in HRM at the department of management and social sciences at Capital University of Science and Technology, Islamabad and he was a visiting research
scholar at Department of Communication and Cognition, Tilburg University, the Netherlands.
His research areas are phubbing, smartphone and work ethics.
Sajid Bashir is a professor of Management at the Capital University of Science and Technology,
Islamabad . His research interests include personality, employee attitudes, and application of
Human Resource Management in various sectors such as Public Administration, Project
Management, Health Care Management, and Hospitality Management. He has published in the
American Review of Public Administration, Learning and Individual Differences, International
Journal of Human Resource Management, Applied Psychology: An International Review and
the International Journal of Project Management, among others.
Mariek Vanden Abeele is associate professor, Tilburg School of Humanities and Digital
Sciences, Tilburg University (the Netherlands). Her research focuses on the social implications
of mobile communication technology, with a particular focus on children and youths.
Yasin et al.
23
Jos Bartels is currently assistant professor in the Department of Communication and Cognition at
Tilburg University. His research activities focus on quantitative studies on 1) organizational communication, media usage and organizational identification, 2) corporate social responsibility and
environmental sustainability. He has published in peer-reviewed journals like, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Journal of Business Research, British Journal of Management, Journal of
Economic Psychology, Journal of Environmental Psychology, International Journal of Consumer
Studies, Management Communication Quarterly and Journal of Brand Management.