From excitement to exclusion

When leaders cease to seek input, a project's trajectory can shift from enthusiasm to isolation. Initially, an initiative might receive acclaim and resources. However, once a question arises about the data's fate beyond its planned lifespan, that inquiry can lead to the exclusion of the questioner from future meetings. The removal is typically unannounced, with no formal discussion or indication of the absence.

Subsequent actions proceed smoothly, with no clear sign of the earlier dissent. Leaders may perceive the question as an issue of tone rather than content, but it is, in fact, a scheduling problem. By quietly omitting the questioner from the next invitation, they can manage the project's costs without raising any controversy. This method is effective because it lacks overt confrontation.

While a direct reprimand may create a record and signal an incident, quietly excluding someone does not leave an obvious trace. Workers may perceive these two actions differently. A 2015 study in Organisation Science found that workplace ostracism was viewed more favorably than harassment, being less harmful psychologically and less likely to be prohibited by the organization.

However, ostracism was found to predict actual turnover three years later, while harassment did not. Leaders who exclude voices may benefit in the short term, with meetings running on schedule and consensus arriving without issue. However, this strategy is only temporary. Eventually, the absence of certain perspectives can lead to a diminished sense of belonging and lower well-being and work-related attitudes.

Workers may feel quietly victimized, and current strategies for addressing workplace injustice often fail to provide them with a platform to express their concerns. Leaders who silence dissent can create an environment where alignment is the only visible outcome, but this exclusivity can backfire, leading to costly mistakes and turnover.