r Academy of Management Journal 2018, Vol. 61, No. 6, 2343–2366. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.1066 NO EMPLOYEE AN ISLAND: WORKPLACE LONELINESS AND JOB PERFORMANCE HAKAN OZCELIK California State University, Sacramento SIGAL G. BARSADE University of Pennsylvania This research investigates the link between workplace loneliness and job performance. Integrating the regulatory loop model of loneliness and the affect theory of social ex- change, we develop a model of workplace loneliness. We focus on the central role of affiliation in explaining the loneliness–performance relationship, predicting that de- spite lonelier employees’ desire to connect with others, being lonelier is associated with lower job performance because of a lack of affiliation at work. Through a time-lagged field study of 672 employees and their 114 supervisors in two organizations, we find support that greater workplace loneliness is related to lower job performance; the me- diators of this relationship are lonelier employees’ lower approachability and lesser affective commitment to their organizations. We also examine the moderating roles of the emotional cultures of companionate love and anger, as well as of the loneliness of other coworkers in the work group. Features of this affective affiliative context moderate some of the relationships between loneliness and the mediating variables; we also find support for the full moderated mediation model. This study highlights the importance of recognizing the pernicious power of workplace loneliness over both lonelier employees and their organizations. We offer implications for future research and practice. “No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is & Patrick, 2008; Hawkley & Cacioppo, 2010; a piece of the continent, a part of the main.” Heinrich & Gullone, 2006; Masi, Chen, Hawkley, & John Donne, 2012 [1624] Cacioppo, 2011). These negative outcomes occur Loneliness—“a complex set of feelings that occurs because people have an innate, primary drive to when intimate and social needs are not adequately form social bonds and mutual caring commitments met” (Cacioppo et al., 2006: 1055)—is an aversive (Murray, 1938; Schachter, 1959), and they suffer psychological state. Psychologists have long studied when these social bonds do not meet their expecta- the painful experience of loneliness and its outcomes tions or their need to belong (Baumeister & Leary, ’ (see Cacioppo & Patrick, 2008; Heinrich & Gullone, 1995), including at work (Barsade & O Neill, 2014; 2006 for reviews). Surprisingly, though, there has Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008; Dutton & Heaphy, 2003; been very little examination of the processes and Wright, 2012). outcomes of loneliness in the workplace, even This inquiry into the processes and outcomes of though most people spend a large part of their lives loneliness in the workplace is also important as loneli- at work. Better understanding loneliness at work is ness has been characterized by scholars, as well as by “ important given the myriad pernicious emotional, the U.S. Surgeon General (Murthy, 2017), as amodern ” cognitive, attitudinal, and behavioral outcomes that epidemic in need of treatment (Killeen, 1998). Lone- have been found as a result of being lonely (Cacioppo liness is experienced by adults of all ages (Masi et al., 2011), with no sign that loneliness levels are abating (see Qualter et al., 2015 for a review). Thank you to Paul Dickey, Lauren Rhodewalt, and Because loneliness is a relational construct (Weiss, Kevin Sweeney for research assistance. We also thank the CSUS Research and Creative Activity Grant Program at the 1973), it influences not only how lonelier people feel California State University, Sacramento, the Robert Katz about themselves, but also how they feel about and Fund for Emotion Research at the Wharton School, and the behave toward others (Cacioppo & Hawkley, 2009; Wharton Center for Leadership and Change Management Jones, 1982; Jones & Hebb, 2003), and, importantly, for their support of this study. how others feel about and behave toward them 2343 Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only. 2344 Academy of Management Journal December (Heinrich & Gullone, 2006). That broader impact & Anderson, 1982). According to affective prototype makes loneliness particularly relevant to examine at theory, each type of discrete affect is determined by work, since connection with others has been found to a cluster, or prototype, of features that distinguish it. be an inherent part of employee motivation and sat- These features include all aspects of the affective isfaction (Dutton & Heaphy, 2003). Indeed, we know experience: feeling states, physiological markers, from some of the earliest field studies in management and cognitive and behavioral categories (Shaver, that employees are driven not only by economic Schwartz, Kirson, & O’Connor, 1987). The affective needs but also by the need to establish relationships prototype model is broad enough to encompass af- and social attachments (Gouldner, 1954; Mayo, 1949). fect as a state (including emotions and moods), a trait Given the pervasive and pernicious influence of (dispositional affect), or a sentiment (evaluative af- loneliness in other life domains, and given how much fective responses to social objects)—all depending time employees spend at work with each other, the on the specific affect’s intensity, duration, specific- investigation of workplace loneliness is important. ity, and evaluative focus (Barsade & Gibson, 2007). To better understand the relationship between Loneliness, similar to other types of affect,1 has been workplace loneliness and employee attitudes, be- characterized as a state and a sentiment, but is gen- havior, and performance, and to build our model of erally not thought of as a trait (although it can be workplace loneliness, we draw from two theoretical chronic) (Peplau & Perlman, 1982; Spitzberg & Hurt, traditions. The first comes from the nearly 40 years of 1989). The prototype model of loneliness also com- psychological research tying greater loneliness to ports with the most cited definition of loneliness, lowered affiliation (e.g., Cacioppo & Patrick, 2008; which requires three key components: (1) an un- Heinrich & Gullone, 2006 for reviews), specifically pleasant and aversive feeling, (2) generated from a Cacioppo and Hawkley’s (2009) regulatory loop subjective negative assessment of one’s overall re- model of loneliness, which describes the psycho- lationships in a particular social domain, and (3) logical mechanisms within lonelier people. The a belief that these social relationships are deficient second is the affect theory of social exchange (Peplau & Perlman, 1982). Defining loneliness (Lawler, 2001, 2006; Lawler & Thye, 2007), a socio- through this affective prototype lens, we take into logical theory that takes into account the role of other consideration the feelings loneliness arouses, the people’s thoughts about the lonely person. We in- cognitions that comprise it, and the behaviors it tegrate these theories to build and empirically test evokes. a model of workplace loneliness that helps explain Because loneliness is a subjective experience, an why lonelier employees are less affiliative—and why employee does not have to be alone to feel lonely, that lack of affiliation relates to poorer job performance. and lonely employees can be lonely even when Through this process, we aim to extend our knowledge interacting frequently with many others if these in- in three domains. First, by improving our knowledge teractions do not provide lonelier employees with about loneliness in organizational settings, we aim to their desired level of closeness (Fischer & Phillips, contribute to a more nuanced understanding of how 1982). Whether employees feel lonely depends on affect is related to job performance (Elfenbein, 2007), the level of closeness, security, and support they seek and address the call for greater study of the outcomes of in their interpersonal relationships (Jones & Hebb, discrete affect at work (Barsade & Gibson, 2007). Sec- 2003). Thus, the same work environment could ful- ond, because of the relational nature of loneliness, we fill the interpersonal needs of some employees while add to the emerging theorizing about relational sys- leaving other employees lonely. tems at work (Dutton & Heaphy, 2003; Grant & Parker, 2009) by better understanding how an employee’sre- Distinguishing Loneliness from Related Constructs lational environments can include feelings of lack of affiliation and disconnection. Last, we contribute to the We differentiate workplace loneliness from re- loneliness literatures in psychology and sociology by lated constructs such as workplace ostracism, which expanding our understanding of this powerful social is an employee’s perception that she or he is being emotion to the workplace context. intentionally excluded or ignored by others at work 1 “ ” “ THE NATURE OF LONELINESS We intentionally use the term affect as an umbrella term encompassing a broad range of feelings that in- We take an affective prototype approach to lone- dividuals experience,” including discrete emotions and liness (Heinrich & Gullone, 2006; Horowitz, French, generalized mood (Barsade & Gibson, 2007: 37). 2018 Ozcelik and Barsade 2345 (Ferris, Brown, Berry, &