Workplace ostracism can be subtle and easy to overlook, but failing to address it could put employers in breach of their psychosocial safety obligations. Use these tips to identify and control exclusionary behaviours before they cause harm.

HR practitioners and PCBUs in Australia have had to follow safety rules for a long time that put a lot of emphasis on clear physical threats. But research shows that injuries that aren’t obvious at work are often the most expensive and persist the longest. 

Psychosocial hazards, which might come from the workplace environment, management decisions or relationships between coworkers, are becoming more of a legal and ethical threat. Ostracism in the workplace is one of these hazards. It happens when someone is purposely left out, ignored or isolated. It is an insidious hazard, yet people still don’t know much about it. 

According to Safe Work Australia’s Code of Practice for managing psychosocial hazards, “conflict or poor relationships and interactions in the workplace” can meet the legal definition of harassment. It’s therefore both morally right and required by law to recognise and manage the risks that come with workplace ostracism. 

This is also in employers’ interests from an operational perspective, given that it usually takes a significant amount of effort, money and time away from work to recover from a mental health problem that started at work.

Recognising and quantifying ostracism as a threat

Ostracism was a mechanism that emerged in Ancient Athens in the 5th century BC, and allowed citizens to vote to exclude anyone they considered too dangerous or too powerful for the city’s democracy, without the need to prove a specific crime.  If enough votes were cast, the nominated person was required to leave Athens for ten years. The purpose was to remove people from society and politics.

Today, people still use ostracism in the workplace. It is fundamentally different from overt aggression, which arguably makes it even more dangerous. But what does this mean in practice? 

At first, it may seem harmless – for example, being excluded from meetings, being ignored in group discussions or being deliberately denied the information needed to complete one’s work. However, ostracism often causes more harm than direct bullying, because the victim is deprived of the opportunity to confront the perpetrator or defend themselves.

The Code of Practice defines “conflict or poor relationships and interactions in the workplace” as “inappropriate exclusion of an employee from work-related activities”. Even a single serious incident can be hazardous, but frequent, prolonged or severe exposure inevitably causes psychological and physical harm. 

Ostracism, which represents a direct failure to meet the basic human need for belonging, manifests in various ways that HR practitioners need to recognise:

• Burnout: Employees report feeling exhausted or emotionally drained because they have to work longer than usual to compensate for the lack of communication and resources.
• Role ambiguity: Victims often express confusion, stating that they are “not sure what is being asked of them” or “simply do not know what they are supposed to do” as a result of being cut off from critical communication channels.
• Stress and cognitive impairment: Prolonged exposure can lead to symptoms such as anxiety, depression and insomnia. The perceived threat of social exclusion triggers a stress response that diverts cognitive resources away from task execution.

“Ostracism often causes more harm than direct bullying, because the victim is deprived of the opportunity to confront the perpetrator or defend themselves.”

Strategic control measures by HR

HR should take steps to control risks that are proportionate to the level of risk itself.

Control level 1: Elimination by changing the way work is done

The best controls target the source of the hazard, which is often the way work and work systems are structured.

• Systematic inclusion (work design): Change the way work is done so that it is impossible to “hide” communication. Use IT tools that automatically add all team members to the project or conversation, ensuring that no one is “forgotten”.
• Clear role boundaries: Eliminate overlapping responsibilities as well as unclear reporting lines. When people do not know who is responsible for what, and who should be involved in processes, ostracism often emerges. Job descriptions should clearly specify the tasks of employees and their direct supervisors.

Control level 2: Mitigation through administrative controls

Since it is often impossible to eliminate all forms of poor behaviour, the next step is to focus on effective organisational and administrative procedures.

• Mandatory consultation (Section 47 of the WHS Act): You must communicate with employees about hazards and how to control them. Excluded employees are the most reliable source of information about how and when isolation occurs.
• Practical application: Use anonymous surveys or Health and Safety Representatives (HSRs) to gather feedback on sensitive topics. Employees may worry about repercussions if they report psychosocial hazards.
• Policies and training: Establish clear rules stating that excluding or ignoring someone is an unacceptable form of harassment. Management must serve as a model by adhering to and upholding these regulations. Supervisors must develop the ability to conduct difficult conversations and address poor performance in a manner that emphasises improvement rather than assigning blame.

Addressing organisational drivers with fairness and support

Ostracism can thrive in environments where basic organisational protections such as fairness and support are lacking.

When policies are not administered in an honest, consistent, or unbiased manner, it results in low organisational fairness. When people think that resources or chances are being given out unfairly, they can get angry. As a result, it is “acceptable” to punish people by keeping them apart from other people. 

Leaders should make sure that tasks, promotions and pay are all done in a fair and open way. Look over policies and expectations on a frequent basis, and be careful with people’s sensitive information to preserve their trust.

Weak support is always risky because it shows that managers and colleagues do not provide adequate practical or emotional assistance. On the other hand, when strong leadership models are applied and positive relationships, ostracism is less likely to take root. 

The following practices might help leaders stop ostracism before it starts: 

• Make sure supervisors have a reasonable amount of control over their work. This will let them keep an eye on things and help them out. 
• Set up ways to give regular, helpful feedback that helps you reach your goals. This continual conversation might quickly show if someone feels alone. 
• Give employees incentives and praise for helping each other out. This will create a culture of working together instead of competing.

Leadership must move from a reactive stance to a proactive approach. Ostracism remains a significant yet often overlooked psychosocial hazard, negatively impacting both individual well-being and organisational performance. 

To effectively address this risk, HR practitioners should go beyond investigating incidents after they occur and focus on designing organisational structures that prevent such issues from arising in the first place. The goal is to eliminate or minimise these risks to an acceptable level. 

By implementing systems that discourage exclusion and fostering a strong culture of support, employers not only build a more resilient and psychologically safe workforce, but also fulfil their legal responsibilities. HR leaders should continuously assess and, when necessary, update control measures to ensure a healthy and supportive work environment.

Martina Georgieva is the Group Human Resources Director at Bulmarket Group.

Explore how to effectively identify, manage and resolve team-based and interpersonal conflict in the workplace with this course from AHRI.