167
Organizacija, Volume 53 Issue 2, May 2020Research Papers
DOI: 10.2478/orga-2020-0011
Workplace Ostracism as a Mediating 
Variable in the Relationship between 
Paradoxical Leader Behaviours and 
Organizational Inertia
Hussein Hurajah AL HASNAWI, Ali Abdulhassan ABBAS
University of Kerbala, College of Administration and Economics, Kerbala, Iraq, hussein.alhasnawi@uokerbala.edu.iq, 
ali.abd.alhassan@uokerbala.edu.iq
Background and Purpose: Many organizations suffer from an increased in the paradoxical behaviours of leaders, 
leading to followers to feel lonely and the workplace ostracism, which negatively effects the emergence of organiza-
tional inertia. The main purpose of this study is to examine direct and indirect effect of paradoxical leader behaviours 
on organizational inertia through the mediating role of the workplace ostracism.
Design/Methodology/Approach: Using the convenience sampling technique, a self-administered survey was con-
ducted at the level of a sample (n = 564) of employees in the factories of the State Company for Textile and Leather 
Industry in Iraq. Structural equation modelling (SEM) was employed to test the proposed research model using the 
AMOS v.24 software.
Results: The findings revealed that paradoxical leader behaviours have a significant effect on workplace ostracism 
and organizational inertia. Further, workplace ostracism significant effect on organizational inertia. In addition, the 
study empirically supports the mediating effect of workplace ostracism on the relationship between paradoxical 
leader behaviours and organizational inertia.
Conclusion: When paradoxical behaviours arise in the behaviour of an organization’s leaders, it will have an influ-
ence on the emergence of workplace ostracism amongst employees, hence the subsequent emergence of organi-
zational inertia in general in the work environment. Based on these results, this study should be of help to leaders 
in avoiding paradoxical behaviours in terms of maintaining a certain equilibrium in dealing with employees to find a 
positive work environment that reduces staff ostracism, and thus organizational inertia.
Key words: Paradoxical Leader Behaviours, Workplace Ostracism, Organizational Inertia
1 
Received: January 19, 2020; revised: April 9, 2020; accepted: April 23, 2020
1 Introduction
Some forms of behaviour of leaders in organizations may 
negatively affect their performance. One of them is par-
adoxical behaviour, as the paradoxical leader performs 
paradoxical behaviour even against himself or herself by 
changing his or her opinions periodically, but which re-
flects negatively in subordinates’ behaviour towards the 
leader through effectively boycotting him/her (Zhang et 
al., 2015). However, paradoxical leader behaviour can en-
hance the role of the work of subordinates, and leaders can 
set an example by showing employees how to accept and 
embrace paradoxes in complex environments (Pearce et 
al., 2019). One of the reasons why a leader is paradoxical 
is related to environmental changes, that is, the process of 
change and different cultures, which result in him facing a 
multitude of options that may themselves appear or be par-
adoxical, increasing tension and adding to the difficulties 
of leadership (Jia et al., 2018).
However, there may be obstacles to the leader making 
other decisions which in turn results in negative feelings 
and duplication of work among subordinates, thus de-
creasing their confidence in their leader (Luscher, 2019). 
168
Organizacija, Volume 53 Issue 2, May 2020Research Papers
Even where paradoxes are not directly created because of 
a leader’s behaviour but rather due to conflicting pressures, 
this can still lead to a state of ostracism of that leader by 
their subordinates, as they are generally not aware of all 
the variables related to leadership (Aggestam & Hyde-
Price, 2019). Such ostracism by the subordinates in the 
work environment towards their leader can be particularly 
significant, and indeed dangerous, when it leads to them 
ignoring administrative decisions, which can lead the or-
ganization into a state of inertia, that is, without any actual 
growth (William & Nida, 2016). This in turn can result in 
increased antipathy towards the leader, in this case due to 
loss of communication (of some form) between the lead-
er and the subordinates as a result of the initial ostracism 
resulting from the leader’s paradoxical decisions (Li & 
Tian, 2016). Workplace ostracism occurs in all organiza-
tions, cultures and nations; it reduces the number of op-
portunities for social interaction and negatively affects the 
health and psychological behaviour of employees in terms 
of their attitudes towards work, leading to high levels of 
stress, emotional exhaustion, and increased levels of de-
viation in the workplace (Lane, 2017). Therefore, the or-
ganization, over time, will move into a state of stagnation 
and inactivity, such that its response to its business envi-
ronment will become weak and it will also become unable 
to implement its strategic plans; ultimately, organizations 
can and will fail in the face of such organizational inertia. 
If this situation persists, it will certainly lead to the death 
of the organization from within (Chung & Kim, 2017). 
Consequently, the purpose of this study is to investi-
gate the mediating role of workplace ostracism on the re-
lationship between the leader’s contradictory behaviours 
and organizational Inertia in the General Company for 
Textile and Leather Industries in Iraq. Consequently, our 
study will try to address the gap represented by the lack of 
clarity of the relationship between the paradoxical leader 
behaviours, workplace ostracism and the organizational 
Inertia in the literature in order to reduce its negative ef-
fects by proposing an empirical model that includes testing 
four main hypotheses that explain the nature of the rela-
tionship between these variables. In addition, it will meet 
the needs of the industrial sector in Iraq for such studies 
due to the role of this sector affecting in Iraqi society. Ac-
cording to the discussion above, the following questions 
have guided the study design:
• How does paradoxical leader behaviour influence 
workplace ostracism?
• How does workplace ostracism influence organi-
zational inertia? 
• How does paradoxical leader behaviour influence 
organizational inertia?
• How does workplace ostracism mediate the re-
lationship between paradoxical leader behaviour 
and organizational inertia?
2 Theoretical background
2.1 Paradoxical Leader Behaviour and 
Workplace Ostracism
Vocabulary Dictionary 2019 defines a paradox as anything 
that has two apparently contradictory meanings, where 
there is no logic by which these two meanings can coex-
ist. The roots of this word (paradoxical) go back to Greek 
and translate as “dissenting opinion” and which represent 
the collision of two different views in a single statement 
or work. In this paper we take the view that paradox and 
dialectics provide for understanding leaders paradoxes dif-
ferent yet equally and simultaneously valid. Paradoxes are 
defined as dynamic tensions between opposite elements 
that together form a unity and logically presuppose each 
other for their very existence and meanings (Hargrave & 
Van de Ven, 2016). In this case, Alfes & Langner (2017) 
pointed out that the “paradoxical leadership style”, which 
can be described as competing but interrelated leadership 
behaviour, is used to simultaneously meet the demands of 
competing subordinates. According to Zhang et al. (2015) 
and Wilkinson (2019), organizations are increasingly fac-
ing complex, volatile and uncertain environments, which 
are in themselves tense because of the contradiction be-
tween individual and organizational needs. Such circum-
stances require leaders to engage in managing dialectical 
tension and conflicting demands. Bolden et al. (2016) 
pointed out that paradox is absurd, and, although it has 
powerful foundations, self-paradoxical or absurdity can be 
used to describe a person or object that contradicts pre-
conceived notions of what is moderate or possible. Cronin 
& Genovese (2015), Yang et al. (2019), and Osland & 
Wang (2014) all noted that differences between cultures, 
challenges within industry, long- and short-term periods 
of time, and different measures of success affect leaders’ 
paradoxical behaviour.
Workplace ostracism occurs when an individual or 
group ignores actions that involve other organizational 
members when this would otherwise have been socially 
appropriate (Lane, 2017). There is value in having a defi-
nition that also captures and clarifies the core characteristic 
shared by a set of behaviours; that is, what do exclusion, 
shunning, ignoring, and rejecting share in common that 
justifies placing them under a general construct labelled 
“ostracism”? Identifying the core feature will help us to 
understand their shared antecedents and impact as well as 
provide the conceptual boundaries around the construct 
of ostracism, providing guidance about which behaviours 
it can include (beyond those listed) and distinguishing it 
from other related phenomena (Robinson et al., 2013). 
Some researchers identified six benefits of workplace os-
tracism: self-protection, restoring justice, protecting the 
group, promoting constructive behaviour, and group cohe-
sion and identity (Eickholt & Goodboy, 2017; Chang et al., 
169
Organizacija, Volume 53 Issue 2, May 2020Research Papers
2019). Lane’s (2017) definition above combines specific 
forms of behaviour with different terms such as ostracism 
and exclusion, ignoring and avoiding the participation of 
an essential element and failure to engage socially with 
the other in the work. William & Nida (2016) found that 
ostracism is negatively associated with psychological and 
physical well-being, and that workplace ostracism leads to 
increased emotional exhaustion and feelings of anxiety.
Paradoxical leader behaviour is one of the more signif-
icant precursors to the emergence of workplace ostracism 
by subordinates, as the leader’s behaviour is paradoxical 
even to himself through the inconsistencies in his actions 
with time, which ultimately reflects negatively on perfor-
mance (Zhang et al., 2015). There are obstacles that ap-
pear before the leader in terms of being able to make other 
decisions which are paradoxical, and which generates a 
sense of frustration and duplication amongst subordinates, 
reducing their confidence in their leader regardless of the 
factors that caused the behaviour that led to that individual 
to undertake paradoxical decision making in the first place, 
and is the reason for the emergence of a state of ostracism 
by subordinates towards their leader (Bolden et al., 2016). 
This reflects the perceived organizational support role that 
strengthens the relationship between the leader and em-
ployee and maximizes his level of satisfaction and com-
mitment (Albalawi et al., 2019).
Based on the above discussion, the following hypothe-
sis can be proposed:
H1: Paradoxical leader behaviour has a positive effect 
on workplace ostracism.
2.2 Workplace Ostracism and 
Organizational Inertia
Workplace ostracism can be meaningful when individuals 
are aware of their unwillingness to engage with another 
person socially and do so with intentions that could harm 
the organization’s goals or further their exclusion (Chung, 
2018). Fiset et al. (2017) argue that workplace ostracism 
negatively affects organizations’ goals and leads to re-
duced productivity, high turnover and high costs related to 
re-employment and training. It thus embodies the common 
element of a wide range of behaviour between members 
and organizational groups including collective exclusion, 
rejection, avoidance, disregard, and the treatment of anoth-
er element as invisible at work (Rudert et al., 2019).
The word ‘inertia’ is of Latin origin, “Iners”, which 
means “inactivity and laziness”. Newton defined inertia as 
“every object remains in a state of rest or uniform move-
ment unless acted upon by an unbalanced, external force.” 
Therefore, organizational inertia is a phenomenon of 
stagnant organizations and an essential element of organ-
izational behaviour and save the capacity when inertia is 
gradually integrated with organizational practices (Huang 
et al., 2013). According to Clegg & Bailey (2007), organ-
izational inertia hinders organizational adaptation, reduc-
es the effectiveness of administrative activities and at the 
same time acts as a primary source of resistance to change. 
Carroll & Hannan (2004) added that organizational inertia 
makes organizations’ responses to change of all kinds slow 
or almost impossible, and organizational flexibility is lost 
because of it. Puhan (2008) added that organizational in-
ertia leads to tensions and paradoxes between exploration 
and exploitation. Chauvel (2011) added that organization-
al inertia places restrictions on experiential education and 
structural change within an organization.
Workplace ostracism also leads to high levels of anx-
iety, emotional attrition, increased pressure and deviation 
in the workplace, due to which the organization will move 
into a state of deterioration and inertia over time and which 
will be reflected in lower overall performance and resist-
ance to the change sought by leaders from the outset, weak-
ening the organization and leaving it unable to implement 
its strategies and failing in its general activities, ultimately 
suffering from the inertia to its major plans and structures 
(Chung & Kim, 2017). As such, it is a fundamental reason 
for the weakening of the relationship between a leader and 
their subordinates, the loss of confidence, the hostility, and 
the weakness at work which results in many of the more 
serious workplace problems (Aggestam et al., 2017).
Based on the above discussion, the following hypothe-
sis can be proposed:
H2: Workplace ostracism has a positive effect on emer-
gence of organizational inertia.
2.3 Paradoxical Leader Behaviour and 
Organizational Inertia
Laureir-Martinez (2017) argues that paradoxical leader-
ship behaviour refers to the behaviours of leaders compet-
ing with each other so as to meet competing workplace 
requirements simultaneously and over time. Mammassis 
& Schmid (2018) added that paradoxical leader behaviour 
leads to a kind of duplication among developers. Zhu et 
al. (2017) added that paradoxical leader behaviour seems 
to be that of a competing leader to allow them to meet the 
requirements of the workplace simultaneously and over 
time. Luscher (2019) pointed out a number of character-
istics of paradoxical leadership: showing confidence in 
subordinates, being open, fighting for their unity, planning 
their time, promising to express their opinions, foresight, 
ability to analyse opinions, possessing a certain dynamic 
and patience, and having confidence in themselves.
Jia et al. (2018) & Pearce et al. (2019) emphasized a set 
of characteristics that define paradoxical leader behaviour 
(total thinking, integrative complexity, organic versus me-
chanical structure, creative behaviour, adaptive behaviour, 
proactive behaviour). Zhang et al. (2015) identified dimen-
sions of the paradoxical leader behaviours in a realistic 
way at the level of business organizations : equal treat-
170
Organizacija, Volume 53 Issue 2, May 2020Research Papers
ment of subordinates while allowing individualization, 
combining self-centeredness with others centeredness, 
maintaining control of decisions while allowing for inde-
pendence, strengthening work requirements while allow-
ing for flexibility, and maintaining distance and closeness. 
According to Grams & Farrell (2008), organizational in-
ertia is a spontaneous and deep change whose presence is 
difficult to detect. Steady long-term leadership is required 
in order to withstand setbacks, survive and overcome or-
ganizational inertia. Barnett & Pontikes (2008) noted that 
organizations suffer from organizational inertia when the 
speed at which they reorganize is less than the rate of 
change in their environmental conditions, and organiza-
tional inertia and resistance to change increases with age. 
Naslund & Pemerm (2012) added that organizational iner-
tia is the inability to change stories and tone because the 
organizational approach requires organizational change 
and transformation. Godkin & Allcom (2008) further add-
ed that organizational inertia takes two forms: the inertia 
of foresight and the inertia of work. Hung (2015) argued 
that organizational inertia occurs when organizations seek 
to build specific knowledge which is contrary to the theory 
of organizational adaptation. Organizational inertia may 
occur as a result of the totality of tensions and paradoxes 
between a leader and their subordinates, as well as a result 
of the discrepancies between exploratory and exploitative 
activities (Puhan, 2008).
Barnett & Pontikes (2008) noted that high organiza-
tional inertia negatively affects organizations’ perfor-
mance and occurs when a leader’s actions are paradoxical 
and the process of internal change is much slower than the 
rate of change of the organization’s environmental con-
ditions, and leads to a sense of loneliness and frustration 
within the workplace because of being ignored or due to 
problems with a leader or co-workers. Inertia, poor admin-
istrative activities, and difficulty with work result in the 
internal pressures and negative climates that may arise due 
to weak relations between co-workers and poor relation-
ships with leaders (Sakuraki, 2016). This can negatively 
affect the employees ’awareness of the importance of the 
relationship with the leader and thus their reduced capabil-
ities, level of satisfaction, and organizational commitment 
to them (Gorenak et al., 2019).
Based on the above discussion, the following hypothe-
sis can be proposed:
H3: Paradoxical leader behaviour has a positive effect 
on emergence of organizational inertia.
2.4 Paradoxical Leader Behaviour, 
Workplace Ostracism, Organizational 
Inertia
Aggestam & Hyde-Price (2019) pointed out that paradox-
ical leader behaviour is a set of informal practices used by 
leadership in managing its affairs rather than relying on 
the traditional institutional structures and procedures with-
in its programme. Uljens (2015) added that leadership’s 
paradoxical behaviour represents a deviation from ethics; 
for example, the deviations in educational leadership in 
pursuing extraneous Western traditions of organizational 
citizenship and social transformation. According to Ag-
gestam et al. (2017), this leads to a weakened relationship 
between the leader and his subordinates, and a consequent 
loss of confidence and inability to behave autonomously 
and, ultimately, workplace ostracism.
Shao et al. (2019) argued that when employees face 
paradoxical and diverse demands and challenges within 
complex dynamic work environments, they suffer from 
low motivation and organizational inertia. Zheng et al. 
(2016) and Zhao et al. (2016) both argue that workplace 
ostracism leads to the depletion of personal resources 
and psychological capital. They added that the nature of 
workplace ostracism is to withhold required information, 
avoid conversations, and turn a blind eye when seeing the 
one who has been ostracized. Fatima (2017) pointed out 
that workplace ostracism causes non-adaptive responses, 
where people who are ostracized from the workplace are 
more likely to be aggressive towards those who have ex-
cluded them. Qian et al. (2017) pointed out that workplace 
ostracism takes many forms, such as silent communica-
tion, or avoiding contact, exile, and deportation. Criscuolo 
& Narula (2007) emphasized that organizational inertia 
increases when there is a high level of operational com-
plexity, making reorganization more difficult.
Tsai (2007) pointed out five determinants of organi-
zational inertia: distorted perception, reduced motivation, 
failure of the creative response, political inertia, and cut-
offs (leadership inaction). Sakuraki (2016) described the 
extent to which organizational inertia can affect the weak-
ness in the management of the production line and the dif-
ficulties with implementing strategic change. Oyadomari 
et al. (2018) added that organizational inertia is positively 
related to organizational size and thus administrative con-
trol can be linked with organizational inertia. The more 
aware of subject to the exposure of such paradoxical be-
haviours by its leader whenever follower felt abandoned 
and, in many cases, may ignore co-workers, which is one 
aspect of workplace ostracism that in turn results in silence 
and lack of participation and inertia in terms of thinking 
and initiative (Osland & Wang, 2014).
A leader’s paradoxical actions can result in workplace 
ostracism which includes certain forms of negative behav-
iour, for example, ostracism and exclusion, i.e., reduced 
171
Organizacija, Volume 53 Issue 2, May 2020Research Papers
participation, failure to cooperate and a lack of social en-
gagement with others at work, which affects the psycho-
logical state of employees and results in a certain inertia 
in terms of their vision and providing solutions and sug-
gestions to problems (Lane 2017). Also, strong leaders are 
needed to work, and the leader must keep his subordinates 
aware of all the variables that have resulted in his behav-
ioural paradox to avoid being ostracized and the previous-
ly noted consequences (Zhang et al., 2015).
Based on the above discussion, the following hypothe-
sis can be proposed:
H4: Workplace ostracism is mediator of the relation-
ship between paradoxical leader behaviour and organiza-
tional inertia. 
Based on the above-mentioned hypotheses, this study 
proposes the conceptual model shown in Figure 1, which 
shows the relationship between the variables.
Figure 1: Conceptual Model
TSUIA = Treating subordinates uniformly while allowing individualization; CSCOC = Combine self-centeredness with other cen-
teredness; MDCAA = Maintaining decision control while allowing independency; EWRAF = Enhance work requirements while 
allowing flexibility; MDC = Maintain distance and closeness.
3 Methodology
3.1 Measures
Paradoxical leader behaviour: this is measured based on a 
scale (Zhang et al., 2015) which includes five dimensions: 
equal treatment of subordinates while allowing individual-
ization (5 items), combining self-centeredness with others’ 
centeredness (5 items), maintaining control of decisions 
while allowing for independence (4 items), strengthening 
work requirements while allowing for flexibility (4 items), 
and maintaining distance and closeness (4 items).
Workplace ostracism: this is measured based on a 
scale proposed by Ferris (2008) and Steinbauer et al. 
(2018). It is a one-dimensional measure that includes 15 
items. This measure has seen various amendments and ad-
ditions to adapt some of its formulae to the nature of the 
work of employees and the environments in which they 
deal with their data.
Organizational inertia: this measured based on a scale 
(Huang et al., 2012) which includes three dimensions: in-
sight inertia (4 items), action inertia (5 items), and psycho-
logical inertia (4 items).
For all measures, variables were measured at the indi-
vidual level, and a five-point Likert scale was used for an 
incomplete agreed phrase, which gave weight (1) to the 
complete agreed phrase, which gave weight (5). Question-
naire items are shown in the Appendix.
3.2 Sampling and data collection
The State Company for Textile and Leather Industry, 
which is based in the capital Baghdad, was chosen to study 
application, due to the importance of the company in the 
Iraqi economy and the possibility of conducting the study 
in its various factories. The data was collected in July 2019 
through the selection of a random sample consisting of a 
group of employees working in the company’s various fac-
172
Organizacija, Volume 53 Issue 2, May 2020Research Papers
Table 1: Distribution of questionnaires across the company’s factories.
tories in the production, marketing, sales, planning, human 
resources, engineering, informatics and computer depart-
ments. The questionnaire was distributed in two ways. 
First, 244 questionnaires were distributed via e-mail to po-
tential respondents in departments of Kut Textile & Knit-
ting Factory, Garments Factory – Nineveh, Dhi Qar Tex-
tiles Factory and Diwaniya Textile Factory,  which could 
not be visited in person  because of their distant geograph-
ic location. Second 320 questionnaires were distributed in 
departments of Leather Industries Factory, Cotton Indus-
tries Factory, Wool Industries Factory, Handmade Carpet 
Factory and Hilla Textile Factory, which were reached by 
the researchers personally. Employees were given 30 days 
to complete the questionnaire. Table 1 shows distribution 
of the sample across the company’s factories. 
The questionnaires were clarified, scientific content 
was explained, and response to all inquiries about how to 
answer items through personal communication with mem-
bers of sample and via internet communication.
The sample was 74% male and 26% female. 34% of 
the respondents were less than 35 years old, 49% were 
between 35-45 years old, and the remaining 17% of the 
respondents were over 45 years old. As for the nature of 
the activities they performed, 58% of the administrators 
worked in different sections of each factory whilst the re-
maining 42% were technicians with various titles and job 
qualifications. While the educational level of the respond-
ents was 27% held diplomas, 65% of them were bachelors, 
and 8% of them had higher degrees.
Factory name Number of distrib-uted question.
Number of re-
trieved question.
Number of valid 
question.
Number of invalid 
question.
Leather Industries Factory 65 63 61 2
Cotton Industries Factory 55 53 53 0
Kut Textile & Knitting Factory 40 39 37 2
Garments Factory - Nineveh 70 68 64 4
Wool Industries Factory 75 72 71 1
Handmade Carpet Factory 55 54 52 2
Dhi Qar Textiles Factory 65 65 65 0
Hilla Textile Factory 90 86 83 3
Diwaniya Textile Factory 85 81 78 3
Total 600 581 564 17
4 Data analysis and results
4.1 Confirmatory factor analysis
The researchers used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) 
to confirm the structural validity of the research criteria as 
this test ensures the consistency of the theoretical structure 
prepared by the scales according to the responses given by 
the sample.
When conducting CFA analysis of paradoxical leader 
behaviour, it was clear that the standard parameter esti-
mates were all acceptable and significant, and the structur-
al model was highly matched because the model matching 
indicators were themselves acceptable (χ2 = 416.663, GFI 
= .909, CFI =. 916, IFI = .917, TLI = .901, RMSEA = .055) 
as shown in Figure 2. 
The CFA analysis of workplace ostracism shows that 
the standard parameter estimates were all acceptable and 
were all significant, and that the structural model was 
highly matched since the model matching indicators were 
themselves acceptable (χ2 = 271.105, GFI = .905, CFI = 
.929, IFI = .930 TLI = .910, RMSEA = .079), as shown in 
Figure 3. 
Similarly, the CFA analysis of the organizational iner-
tia variable shows that the standard parameter estimates 
were all acceptable and were all significant. The structur-
al model indicated a high degree of conformity since the 
model matching indicators were themselves acceptable (χ2 
= 140.755, GFI = .947, CFI = .934, IFI = .935, TLI = .910, 
RMSEA = .063), as shown in Figure 4.
173
Organizacija, Volume 53 Issue 2, May 2020Research Papers
Figure 2: Confirmatory Factor Analysis of paradoxical leader behaviours
TSUIA = Treating subordinates uniformly while allowing individualization; CSCOC = Combine self-centeredness with other cen-
teredness; MDCAA = Maintaining decision control while allowing independency; EWRAF = Enhance work requirements while 
allowing flexibility; MDC = Maintain distance and closeness.
Figure 3: Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the workplace ostracism.
174
Organizacija, Volume 53 Issue 2, May 2020Research Papers
4.2 Descriptive statistics and correlation
Table (2) shows the Cronbach’s Alpha and descriptive sta-
tistics (M = mean, SD = standard deviation) and the corre-
lation between variables at the level of the State Company 
for Textile and Leather Industry.
4.3 Hypotheses Test
Research hypotheses have been tested based on Structural 
Equation Modelling (SEM) for Direct Impact Hypothesis 
and Path Analysis to test the Indirect Impact Hypotheses, 
as follows:
Figure (5) shows the results of the structural equation 
modelling outputs to test the tracks of the effect of para-
doxical leadership behaviour on workplace ostracism. The 
standard parameter estimates show that effect of paradox-
ical leader behaviour on workplace ostracism as follows: 
MDC = .32, TSUAI = .30, MDCAA = .22, CSCOC = .20, 
EWRAF = .10. It is also clear that the value of the coeffi-
cient of determination (R2 = .73) indicates the emergence 
of cases of exclusion and indifference to employees, and 
the poor communication with them, is due to leaders fol-
lowing modes of paradoxical behaviour. 
Figure (6) shows the results of the structural equation 
modelling outputs to test the effect of workplace ostracism 
on organizational inertia. The standard parameter estimate 
Figure 4: Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the organizational inertia variable.
7654321SDMαVar.
11.092.97.771.TSUAI
1.48**1.112.98.812.CSCOC
1.59**.50**1.072.98.833.MDCAA
1.40**.31**.25**.993.14.734.EWRAF
1.33**.48**.40**.49**1.072.81.795.MDC
1.72**.43**.62**.59**.64**1.052.93.866.WO
1.60**.52**.36**.52**.52**.49**1.123.11.907.OrgIne
Table 2: Cronbach’s Alpha, descriptive statistics and correlation results.
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level, n = 564.
TSUIA = Treating subordinates uniformly while allowing individualization; CSCOC = Combine self-centeredness with other 
centeredness; MDCAA = Maintaining decision control while allowing independency; EWRAF = Enhance work requirements 
while allowing flexibility; MDC = Maintain distance and closeness, WO = Workplace Ostracism.
175
Organizacija, Volume 53 Issue 2, May 2020Research Papers
was .49, It is also clear that the value of the coefficient of 
determination (R2 = .24) indicates that workers’ responses 
to work and their low contribution to problem solving are 
due to workplace ostracism and neglect. 
Figure (7) shows results of structural equation mod-
elling outputs to test of effects of paradoxical leader be-
haviours on organizational inertia. It is evident from the 
standard parameter estimates that the effect of paradoxical 
leader behaviour on organizational inertia was as follows: 
CSCOC = .18, TSUAI = .17, MDC = .16, MDCAA = .152, 
EWRAF = .150. It is also clear that the value of the coeffi-
cient of determination (R2 = .34) indicates the emergence 
of high cases of psychological inertia and work-related in-
ertia and the thinking that appears amongst the staff due to 
the leaders following paradoxical behaviour. 
As for the indirect effects by which we determine 
whether the type of model is a partial or complete media-
tor, this is shown in Figure (8), which includes the struc-
tural model of the indirect effects of paradoxical leadership 
behaviour on organizational inertia through the mediating 
role of workplace ostracism. The five paradoxical lead-
ership behaviours have a direct impact on organizational 
inertia (TSUAI = .11, CSCOC = .19, MDCAA = .19, EW-
RAF = .12, MDC = .16), as shown in Table (3), which also 
shows that there is an indirect effect of paradoxical leader 
behaviour on organizational inertia through the mediating 
effects of workplace ostracism, which were TSUAI = .047, 
CSCOC = .034, MDCAA = .026, EWRAF = .027, MDC 
= .079, as shown in Table (4). The value of the coefficient 
of determination (R2 = .45) indicates that workplace ostra-
cism only mediates the relationship between paradoxical 
leader behaviour and organizational inertia.
Figure 5: The effect of paradoxical leadership behaviours on the workplace ostracism.
Figure 6: Effect of the workplace ostracism on organizational inertia.
176
Organizacija, Volume 53 Issue 2, May 2020Research Papers
Figure 7: The effect of paradoxical leader behaviours on organizational inertia.
Figure 8: The effect of paradoxical leadership behaviors on organizational inertia through the mediating role of workplace 
ostracism.
177
Organizacija, Volume 53 Issue 2, May 2020Research Papers
5 Discussion
The results of our study show that paradoxical leader be-
haviour plays a significant role in the emergence of cases 
of organizational inertia in all its forms, namely psycho-
logical inertia, insight inertia and work inertia, with an 
intermediary role played by workplace ostracism, which 
leads us to the basic fact that paradoxical behaviour in 
leaders may be a realistic proposition due to the unsupport-
ive environmental factors and negative climates that may 
come to exist for various reasons that may be outside the 
control of management. This is consistent with the opinion 
of Laureir-Martinez (2017), who stressed that paradoxical 
leadership behaviour may lead to the exploitation of the 
performance of individuals and affect the way they manage 
their assigned tasks, leading to errors and poor compliance 
with work requirements and mechanisms. It is also clear 
that paradoxical leader behaviour may make subordinates 
reluctant to provide ideas and suggestions or contribute to 
problem solving. This has also been confirmed by Behne 
(2018), namely that the paradoxical style of leadership is 
characterized by an exaggerated selfishness. The paradoxi-
cal leader knows nothing about humility and empathy, and 
always criticizes people for their actions and treats them as 
if they have been working for long periods.
Also, workers sense of workplace ostracism has a sig-
nificant impact on the emergence of organizational inertia 
amongst them, and this confirms the impact of disregard 
and exclusionary behaviour and poor social interaction 
between subordinates and leaders with regard to their 
performance and reactions to work and the nature of their 
interactions with colleagues, resulting in dissatisfaction 
with their jobs in general. This is consistent with the as-
sertion Steinbauer et al (2018) that workplace ostracism 
is positively associated with employee depression and the 
deviation of personality and social undermining and at the 
same time lead to unfavourable positions related to the job 
including low Satisfaction and commitment, untouchable 
employees feel low personal justice towards them, record 
high turnover and suffer from low levels of organizational 
citizenship.
The results also showed the importance of the role of 
workplace ostracism as a partial mediator between para-
doxical leadership behaviour and organizational inertia. 
This is evidenced by leaders following certain paradoxi-
cal behaviour in their dealings with subordinates, such as 
regarding some as a group and some as individuals, and 
Table 3: Direct effect parameters between variables.
*** The probability of getting a large critical ratio is less than 0.001.
TSUIA = Treating subordinates uniformly while allowing individualization; CSCOC = Combine self-centeredness with other 
centeredness; MDCAA = Maintaining decision control while allowing independency; EWRAF = Enhance work requirements 
while allowing flexibility; MDC = Maintain distance and closeness.
Table 4: Indirect effect parameters between variables.
178
Organizacija, Volume 53 Issue 2, May 2020Research Papers
a lack of clarity of focus in dealing with subordinates in 
terms of leadership and empowerment, poor visibility of 
leaders on a consistent view of granting independence 
and addressing problems by subordinates, and a lack of 
flexibility in dealing with and not adopting them both with 
subordinates would create a sense of ostracism within the 
subordinates. Exclusion, lack of interest and lack of sat-
isfaction with their performance and present them efforts 
and this in turn establishes a state of frustration and suffer-
ing at work, killing the spirit of creativity and ultimately 
resulting in organizational inertia.
5.1 Conclusions
Paradoxical leader behaviours was found an important 
variable that must be studied at the level of business organ-
izations, especially with regard to the treatment of subordi-
nates in terms of allowing for individualization, combining 
self-centeredness with others’ centeredness, maintaining 
control of decision making while allowing independence, 
strengthening work requirements while allowing flexibili-
ty, and maintaining distance and closeness, Which causes 
the appearance of negative effects on subordinates, and 
their sense of workplace ostracism and their neglect of 
others and leaders, weak social relations and negative psy-
chological effects on their presence in the workplace.
Workplace ostracism is one of the most negative vari-
ables on the performance of employees, especially if em-
ployees become disappointed and dissatisfied as well as 
showing an inability to achieve professional standards and 
having weak social relations with leaders and co-workers. 
This in turn leads to the work-related and psychological 
inertias that result in reduced participation and lack of 
commitment to organizational goals, avoidance of respon-
sibility, psychological anxiety and fear of work.
It is clear from the results of the hypothesis test that 
there is a direct impact of a leadership’s paradoxical be-
haviour on the employees’ sense of workplace ostracism. It 
is noticeable that the leaders that give priority to a specific 
goal that may be close to their personal interests whilst 
sacrificing others in which the interest of the company may 
be realized, will in turn lead to a state of tension in the 
prevailing climate. This will contribute to the emergence 
of certain negative factors, and the problems realized from 
differences in culture and the incompatibility of attitudes 
and reactions to work-related issues. In response to such 
behaviour, staff delay the completion of tasks or prolong 
the completion of their work due to indifference and an-
tipathy. It is also evident that the feeling of workplace os-
tracism has a significant impact on organizational inertia 
as well as feelings of fatigue, psychological suffering and 
emotional exhaustion.
The hypothesis test shows the clear role of leaders’ 
paradoxical behaviour in the emergence of organizational 
inertia, which makes the leadership role is unclear and par-
adoxical in front of the subordinates, which in turn increas-
es their sense Unacceptability and poor attention to them, 
therefore, the Paradoxical behaviours for leaders, it will be 
an incentive and motivation for the workplace ostracism, 
hence the emergence of organizational inertia in general in 
the work environment.
5.2 Theoretical and Practical 
implications
Regarding the theoretical contribution, this study provides 
a new research model in the field of paradoxical leader-
ship behaviour, workplace ostracism and organizational 
inertia. However, only relatively limited attention has been 
paid to the combinatory and underlying process through 
which they increase or decrease workplace ostracism and 
organizational inertia. To fill this gap, this study has devel-
oped a model to examine the mediating role of workplace 
ostracism on the relationship between paradoxical leader 
behaviour and organizational inertia. The theoretical con-
tributions to this study stem from the unveiling of a sig-
nificant impact of the leader’s paradoxical behaviour on 
the emergence of workplace ostracism and organizational 
inertia, as the study demonstrated that employees’ sense of 
workplace ostracism has a significant impact on the emer-
gence of organizational inertia in their overall daily behav-
iour. In particular, the study demonstrated that one of the 
main reasons that leads the employee into organizational 
inertia is workplace ostracism, the effects of which are due 
to the many paradoxical behaviours that the leader adopts 
in his various interactions.
Practically speaking, this study should be of help to the 
leaders of the State Company for the Textile and Leather 
Industry in avoiding paradoxical behaviour and in terms 
of maintaining a certain equilibrium in dealing with sub-
ordinates by promoting ethical behaviour and practices as 
based on honesty, integrity, honesty and sincerity at work, 
and that embody the spirit of commitment, sportsmanship, 
assistance and cooperation and continuous communication 
between leaders and subordinates. Leaders away from the 
paradox in the words, deeds, behaviour and overall be-
haviour with the subordinates and seek to achieve their 
interests and concern for their affairs in order to strengthen 
the relationship with them and delegate some powers to 
them and allow participation and provide Proposals and 
solutions to existing and future problems. Moreover, this 
research confirms on importance of self-control for subor-
dinates, as this is the best guide for individual behaviour 
within the internal environment and harmony with col-
leagues and cooperation and unify efforts in the accom-
plishment of tasks, which in turn lends to find A positive 
work environment reduces staff ostracism in workplace.
179
Organizacija, Volume 53 Issue 2, May 2020Research Papers
5.3 Limitations and future research 
This paper has several limitations. First, this study focus-
es on the factories of the State Company for Textile and 
Leather Industry, which may not be generalizable to other 
sectors; hence, future research may investigate this phe-
nomenon in other industrial and service sectors. Second, 
this study adopts a cross-sectional research method for 
data collection, which inhibits the ability to draw concrete 
conclusions on causal inference to test of the relationship 
between the variables in greater depth. Therefore, future 
research should aim to examine how the study variables 
measure out along a timeline. Third, the sample size in this 
study was acceptable  at the level of the General Company 
for Textile and Leather Industry. However, at the level of 
industrial sector, future research may benefit from using 
a larger sample that is more suitable for industrial com-
panies. Fourth, this study focuses on five dimensions of 
paradoxical leader behaviour, one dimension of workplace 
ostracism and three dimensions of organizational inertia; 
therefore, future research might include other potential di-
mensions. Five, the study adopted the self-report method 
in the sample responses, which has a significant impact on 
the estimates due to personal biases, and therefore future 
studies may choose to collect data from multiple sources.
As for the future implications of more in-depth re-
search, it is proposed that the same model is replicated but 
in different settings to benefit from the positive relation-
ship between the leader and subordinates in reducing the 
effects of paradoxical behaviours of leaders and organiza-
tional inertia, and indeed the negative consequences that 
result in weak performance. The study of positive factors 
such as the behavioural integrity of the leader and enabling 
leadership as moderating variables would reduce the sense 
of workplace ostracism and isolation from colleagues, and 
thus strengthen the foundations of participation and coop-
eration and reduce factors of organizational inertia; hence, 
combining these factors in the future with the ideas of the 
current research will help in the development of a more 
comprehensive framework for analysis.
Literature
Albalawi, A. S., Naugton, S., Elayan, M. B., & Sleimi, M. 
T. (2019). Perceived Organizational Support, Alter-
native Job Opportunity, Organizational Commitment, 
Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intention: A Moderat-
ed-mediated Model. Organizacija, 52(4), 310-324.‏ 
https://doi.org/10.2478/orga-2019-0019 
Aggestam, L., & Hyde-Price, A. (2019). Learning to Lead? 
Germany and the Leadership Paradox in EU Foreign 
Policy.  German Politics, 1-17. 
 https://doi.org/10.1080/09644008.2019.1601177
Aggestam, L., & Johansson, M. (2017). The leadership 
paradox in EU foreign policy.  JCMS: Journal of Com-
mon Market Studies,  55(6), 1203-1220. 
 https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12558
Alfes, K., & Langner, N. (2017). Paradoxical leader-
ship. Organizational Dynamics, 2(46), 96-103. 
 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2017.04.005
Barnett, W. P., & Pontikes, E. G. (2008). The Red Queen, 
success bias, and organizational inertia. Management 
Science, 54(7), 1237-1251. 
 https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1070.0808
Behne, Vincent. (2018). Identifying Paradoxical Leader-
ship & How to Avoid it, Available at: https://medium.
com/@VincentBehne/identifying-paradoxical-lead-
ership-how-to-avoid-it-582061c24ed, Accessed: 
1/6/2019.
Bolden, R., Witzel, M., & Linacre, N. (Eds.). (2016). Lead-
ership Paradoxes: Rethinking Leadership for an Un-
certain World. Routledge.
Carroll, G. R., & Hannan, M. T. (2004). The Demography 
of Corporations and Industries. Princeton University 
Press.
Chang, K., Kuo, C. C., Quinton, S., Lee, I., Cheng, T. C., 
& Huang, S. K. (2019). Subordinates’ competence: a 
potential trigger for workplace ostracism. The Interna-
tional Journal of Human Resource Management, 1-27. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2019.1579246
Chauvel, D. (2011). Leading Issues in Innovation Re-
search. Academic Conferences Limited.
Chung, Y. W. (2018). Workplace ostracism and workplace 
behaviors: A moderated mediation model of perceived 
stress and psychological empowerment. Anxiety, 
Stress, & Coping, 31(3), 304-317. 
 https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2018.1424835
Chung, Y. W., & Kim, T. (2017). Impact of using social 
network services on workplace ostracism, job satisfac-
tion, and innovative. Behaviour & Information Tech-
nology, 36(12), 1235-1243. 
 https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2017.1369568
Clegg, S., & Bailey, J. R. (Eds.). (2007). International En-
cyclopedia of Organization Studies. Sage Publications.
Criscuolo, P., & Narula, R. (2007). Using multi-hub struc-
tures for international R&D: organisational inertia and 
the challenges of implementation. Management Inter-
national Review, 47(5), 639-660. 
 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-007-0038-9 
Cronin, T. E., & Genovese, M. A. (2015). Leadership mat-
ters: Unleashing the power of paradox. Routledge.
Eickholt, M. S., & Goodboy, A. K. (2017). Investment 
model predictions of workplace ostracism on K–12 
teachers’ commitment to their schools and the profes-
sion of teaching.  Journal of Workplace Behavioral 
Health,  32(2), 139-157. 
 https://doi.org/10.1080/15555240.2017.1332483
Ferris, D. L., Brown, D. J., Berry, J. W., & Lian, H. (2008). 
The development and validation of the Workplace Os-
tracism Scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 
1348–1366. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012743 
180
Organizacija, Volume 53 Issue 2, May 2020Research Papers
Fiset, J., Al Hajj, R., & Vongas, J. G. (2017). Workplace 
ostracism seen through the lens of power. Frontiers in 
psychology, 8, 1528. 
 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01528
Geiger, D., & Antonacopoulou, E. (2009). Narratives and 
organizational dynamics: Exploring blind spots and 
organizational inertia. The Journal of Applied Behav-
ioral Science, 45(3), 411-436. 
 https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886309336402
Godkin, L., & Allcorn, S. (2008). Overcoming organiza-
tional inertia: A tripartite model for achieving strategic 
organizational change. The Journal of Applied Busi-
ness and Economics, 8(1), 82. 
 http://m.www.na-businesspress.com/Godkin.pdf 
Gorenak, M., Špindler, T., & Brumen, B. (2019). The In-
fluence of Competencies of Managers on Job Satisfac-
tion of Employees in the Hotel Industry. Organizacija, 
 https://doi.org/10.2478/orga-2019-0006 ‏.81-94 ,(2)52
Grams, D., & Farrell, B. (2008). Entering cultural com-
munities: Diversity and change in the nonprofit arts. 
Rutgers University Press.
Hargrave, T. J., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2017). Integrating 
dialectical and paradox perspectives on managing 
contradictions in organizations. Organization Stud-
ies, 38(3-4), 319-339.   
 https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840616640843 
Huang, H. C., Lai, M. C., Lin, L. H., & Chen, C. T. (2013). 
Overcoming organizational inertia to strengthen busi-
ness model innovation: An open innovation perspec-
tive. Journal of Organizational Change Manage-
ment, 26(6), 977-1002. 
 https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-04-2012-0047
Hung, D., (2015). Sustained Competitive advantage and 
organizational inertia: the cost perspective of knowl-
edge management. Journal of the Knowledge Econo-
my, 6(4), 769-789. 
 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-012-0144-1
Jia, J., Yan, J., Cai, Y., & Liu, Y. (2018). Paradoxical lead-
ership incongruence and Chinese individuals’ follow-
ership behaviors: moderation effects of hierarchical 
culture and perceived strength of human resource 
management system.  Asian Business & Manage-
ment, 17(5), 313-338. 
 https://doi.org/10.1057/s41291-018-0043-9 
Khair, Q., & Fatima, T. (2017). Interactive effects of work-
place ostracism and belief in reciprocity on fear of neg-
ative evaluation. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and 
Social Sciences (PJCSS), 11(3), 911-933. 
 http://hdl.handle.net/10419/188322
Khajepour, N., Beshlideh, K., & Baharlo, M. (2017). Re-
lationship of Workplace Ostracism with Job Perfor-
mance, Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Turnover 
Intention: Mediating Role of Job Satisfaction. Journal 
of Psychological Achievements, 24 (2). 137-160. 
 http://psychac.scu.ac.ir/article_13424_en.html 
Lane, Shelley D. (2017). Understanding Everyday Incivil-
ity: Why Are They So Rude?, Published by Rowman 
& Littlefield.
Larsen, E., & Lomi, A. (2002). Representing change: a 
system model of organizational inertia and capabilities 
as dynamic accumulation processes. Simulation mod-
elling practice and theory, 10(5-7), 271-296. 
 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1569-190X(02)00085-0 
Laureiro-Martinez, D. (2017). How do managers really 
think? Using think aloud and fMRI to take a closer 
look at managerial cognition. In Methodological Chal-
lenges and Advances in Managerial and Organiza-
tional Cognition (pp. 279-314). Emerald Publishing 
Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2397-52102017011
Li, C. F., & Tian, Y. Z. (2016). Influence of workplace os-
tracism on employee voice behavior. American Jour-
nal of Mathematical and Management Sciences, 35(4), 
281-296. 
 https://doi.org/10.1080/01966324.2016.1201444
Luscher, Lotte S. (2019). Managing Leadership Paradox-
es, Routledge.
Mammassis, C. S., & Schmid, P. C. (2018). The role of 
power asymmetry and paradoxical leadership in soft-
ware development team agility. In Cognition and In-
novation (pp. 125-139). Emerald Publishing Limited. 
https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-78769-431-620181006
Näslund, L., & Pemer, F. (2012). The appropriated lan-
guage: Dominant stories as a source of organizational 
inertia.  Human Relations,  65(1), 89-110. 
 https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726711424322
Osland, J., Li, M., & Wang, Y. L. (2012), “About the Con-
tributors”, (Ed.) Advances in Global Leadership (Ad-
vances in Global Leadership, Vol. 7), Emerald Group 
Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. 401-418. https://doi.
org/10.1108/S1535-1203(2012)0000007023
Oyadomari, J. C. T., Afonso, P. S. L. P., Dultra-de-Lima, 
R. G., Mendonça Neto, O. R. R., & Righetti, M. C. G. 
(2018). Flexible budgeting influence on organizational 
inertia and flexibility. International Journal of Pro-
ductivity and Performance Management, 67(9), 1640-
1656. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-06-2017-0153
Pearce, C. L., Wassenaar, C. L., Berson, Y., & Tuval-Mashi-
ach, R. (2019). Toward a theory of meta-paradoxical 
leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human De-
cision Processes. 155 (November 2019), 31-41. 
 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.03.003 
Puhan, T. X. (2008). Balancing exploration and exploita-
tion by creating organizational think tanks. Springer 
Science & Business Media. 
 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-8349-9755-5 
Qian, J., Yang, F., Wang, B., Huang, C., & Song, B. (2017). 
When workplace ostracism leads to burnout: The roles 
of job self-determination and future time orienta-
tion. The International Journal of Human Resource 
Management, 1-17. 
 https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1326395 
Robinson, S. L., O’Reilly, J., & Wang, W. (2013). Invisi-
ble at work: An integrated model of workplace ostra-
cism.  Journal of Management, 39(1), 203-231. 
 https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0149206312466141 
181
Organizacija, Volume 53 Issue 2, May 2020Research Papers
Rudert, S., Greifeneder, R., & Williams, K. (Eds.). 
(2019). Current Directions in Ostracism, Social Exclu-
sion and Rejection Research. Routledge.
Sakuraki, R. (2016). Organizational Inertia and Excessive 
Product Proliferation. Asiatische Studien-Études Asiat-
iques, 70(1), 119-131.  
 https://doi.org/10.1515/asia-2015-0055
Shao, Y., Nijstad, B. A., & Täuber, S. (2019). Creativity 
under workload pressure and integrative complexity: 
The double-edged sword of paradoxical leadership. 
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-
cesses, 155(November 2019), 7-19. 
 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.01.008 
Steinbauer, R., Renn, R. W., Chen, H. S., & Rhew, N. 
(2018). Workplace ostracism, self-regulation, and job 
performance: Moderating role of intrinsic work moti-
vation. The Journal of Social Psychology, 158(6), 767-
783. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2018.1424110
Tsai, C. Y. (2007). Organizational change and organiza-
tional inertia. Graduate School of Management. I-Shou 
University. Taiwan. Available from: https://pdfs.se-
manticscholar.org/fd99/238b51c3d370a775c1ca69e-
5f4143a2f58ac.pdf 
Uljens, M. (2015). Curriculum work as educational lead-
ership–Paradoxes and theoretical foundations. Nordic 
Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 2015(1), 
27010. https://doi.org/10.3402/nstep.v1.27010
Vocabulary. (2019). Vocabulary.com Dictionary. Available 
at: https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/paradoxi-
cal.
Wilkinson, David. (2015). Paradoxical leader behaviours 
– New podcast – Episode 9. Available at: https://www.
oxford-review.com/blog-podcast-paradoxical-leader-
ship/.
Williams, K. D., & Nida, S. A. (Eds.). (2016). Ostracism, 
exclusion, and rejection. Taylor & Francis.
Yang, Y., Li, Z., Liang, L., & Zhang, X. (2019). Why and 
when paradoxical leader behavior impact employee 
creativity: Thriving at work and psychological safe-
ty. Current Psychology (2019), 1-12. 
 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-0095-1 
Zhang, Y., Waldman, D. A., Han, Y. L., & Li, X. B. (2015). 
Paradoxical leader behaviors in people management: 
Antecedents and consequences. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 58(2), 538-566. 
 https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0995 
Zhao, H., Xia, Q., He, P., Sheard, G., & Wan, P. (2016). 
Workplace ostracism and knowledge hiding in service 
organizations.  International Journal of Hospitality 
Management, 59, 84-94. 
 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2016.09.009
Zheng, X., Yang, J., Ngo, H. Y., Liu, X. Y., & Jiao, W. 
(2016). Workplace ostracism and its negative out-
comes.  Journal of Personnel Psychology, 15, 143-151 
https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000147
Zhu, Y., Ren, S., Collins, N., & Warner, M. (2017). Busi-
ness leaders and leadership in Asia. Routledge.
Hussein Hurajah Al Hasnawi, I have obtained a Ph.D. 
from the University of Kerbala / College of Administration 
and Economics in the field of Organizational Behavior 
and Human Resources Management in 2015. I 
currently work at the University of Kerbala / College 
of Administration and Economics in the Business 
Administration Department. I have taught many 
subjects in my specialty, as well as in other specialties. 
I also have taught Human Resources Management, 
Knowledge Management, Strategic Information 
Systems, and Quality Management in postgraduate 
studies (Masters and Ph.D.). I have numerous research 
papers published in local and international journals.
Ali Abdulhassan Abbas, I have also obtained a Ph.D. 
from Karbala University / College of Administration 
and Economics in Organizational Behavior and Human 
Resources Management in 2014.  I currently work at 
Karbala University / College of Administration and 
Economics in the Accounting Department. I have 
taught many subjects in my specific area, as well as in 
other areas. I have also taught financial management 
for postgraduate studies. I have translated 4 books on 
business administration into Arabic. I have numerous 
research papers published in local and international 
journals.
182
Organizacija, Volume 53 Issue 2, May 2020Research Papers
Ostrakizem na delovnem mestu kot posredna spremenljivka v odnosu med paradoksalnim vedenjem vodi-
teljev in organizacijsko inertnostjo 
Ozadnje in namen: Mnoge organizacije se soočajo s povečanim paradoksalnim vedenjem vodilnih, kar vodi v 
ostrakizem na delovnem mestu in posledično negativno vpliva na pojav organizacijske inertnostoi. Glavni namen te 
študije je preučiti neposreden in posreden vpliv paradoksalnega vedenja voditeljev na organizacijsko na inertnost 
prek posredniškega vpliva ostrakizma na delovnem mestu.
Zasnova / metodologija / pristop: S tehniko naključnega vzorčenja je bila na ravni vzorca (n = 564) zaposlenih v 
tovarnah Državnega podjetja za tekstilno in usnjarsko industrijo v Iraku izvedena anketa. Za testiranje predlaganega 
raziskovalnega modela smo uporabili programsko opremo AMOS v.24 pri  modeliranju strukturnih enačb (SEM).
Rezultati: Pokazalo se je, da paradoksalno vedenje vodilnih pomembno vpliva na ostrakizem na delovnem mestu 
in na organizacijsko vztrajnost. Nadalje, ostrakizem na delovnem mestu pomembno vpliva na organizacijsko vztraj-
nost. Poleg tega raziskava empirično podpira posredni učinek ostrakizma na delovnem mestu na odnos med para-
doksalnim vedenjem vodje in organizacijsko inertnostjo.
Zaključek: Ko se pri vodilnih v organizaciji pojavi paradoksalno vedenje, bo to vplivalo na nastanek ostrakizma na 
delovnem mestu med zaposlenimi, s tem pa tudi na pojav organizacijske inertnosti na splošno v delovnem okolju. 
Na podlagi teh rezultatov naj bi ta študija pomagala voditeljem pri izogibanju paradoksalnega vedenja v smislu ohra-
njanja določenega ravnovesja pri ravnanju z zaposlenimi, da bi vzpostavili pozitivno delovno okolje, ki zmanjšuje 
ostrakizem osebja in s tem organizacijsko vztrajnost.
Ključne besede: paradoksalno vedenje voditeljev, ostrakizem na delovnem mestu, organizacijska inertnost.
183
Organizacija, Volume 53 Issue 2, May 2020Research Papers
Appendix: List of Measurement Items
Paradoxical Leader Behaviours
1. TSUAI: Treating subordinates uniformly while allowing individualization
TSUAI1. It uses a fair approach to treat all subordinates equally, but also treats them as individuals.
TSUAI2. Treat all subordinates equally, but looks at individual traits or personalities.
TSUAI3. Communicates with subordinates uniformly without distinction, but changes their   communication styles accord-
ing to their individual characteristics or needs.
TSUAI4. Determines equal workloads, but takes into account individual strengths and abilities to handle different tasks.
TSUAI5. Manages subordinates equally, but takes into account their individual needs.
2. CSCOC: Combine self-centeredness with other centeredness
CSCOC1. Demonstrates a desire to lead, but allows others to share the leadership role.
CSCOC2. Likes to be the centre of attention, but allows others to participate and to highlight them as well.
CSCOC3. Insists on getting respect, but also shows respect to others.
CSCOC4. Has a high opinion of themselves, but shows awareness of personal lack and the value of others.
CSCOC5. Confident of personal thoughts, but admits that they are able to learn from others.
3. MDCAA: Maintaining decision control while allowing autonomy
MDCAA1. Controls important business problems, but allows subordinates to process details.
MDCAA2. Makes final decisions for subordinates, but allows subordinates to control specific business processes.
MDCAA3. Decisions on major issues are taken, but lower-level delegates handle lower issues.
MDCAA4. Maintains total control, but gives subordinates appropriate autonomy.
4. EWRAF: Enforcing work requirements while allowing flexibility
EWRAF1. Emphasizes compatibility in the performance of tasks, but allows exceptions.
EWRAF2. Demonstrates work requirements, but does not manage the work accurately.
EWRAF3. Very demanding in terms of work performance, but not very important.
EWRAF4. Has high requirements, but it allows subordinates to make mistakes.
5. MDC: Maintain distance and closeness
MDC1. Recognizes the distinction between supervisors and subordinates, but does not excel in the role of leadership.
MDC2. Maintains distance to subordinates, but does not remain in isolation from them.
MDC3. Maintains differences in attitudes, but supports the dignity of subordinates.
MDC4. Maintains distance to subordinates at work, but is friendly to them as well.
The workplace ostracism  
WO1. Others ignore you in the workplace.
WO2. Others leave the workplace when you enter.
WO3. They do not return greetings when I enter the workplace and greet them.
WO4. I sit alone when I have lunch at work, and no one shares with me.
WO5. Workers avoid me.
WO6. I noticed that others don’t look at me in the workplace.
WO7. The workers keep me out of their discussions at work.
WO8. Others refuse to talk to me in the workplace.
WO9. Workers in the workplace treat me as if I do not exist.
WO10. My employees in the workplace did not invite me to tea or ask me about my needs.
WO11. I’ve been invited into conversations and discussions at work (reverse coding)
WO12. Workers stopped talking to me. (Reverse coding)
WO13. It was better for me to be the person who starts the conversation so that I can be social at work. (Reverse coding)
WO14. Co-workers interact with me only when asked to do so.
WO15. I feel ostracized by top officials.
184
Organizacija, Volume 53 Issue 2, May 2020Research Papers
Organizational inertia:
1. INI: Insight inertia
INI1. Our organization has difficulty in determining how other organizations can solve the problems they face.
INI2. Our organization rarely observes changes in the external environment.
INI3. Our organization will use past information and knowledge to solve problems.
INI4. I rarely try to observe or learn new concepts to change my thinking and behaviour.
2. ACI: Action inertia
ACI1. Our organization has a deeply rooted organizational culture.
ACI2. The values of our organization are sacred, and we will never change them.
ACI3. I will follow the suggestions and requirements of others to change my ways of solving problems.
ACI4. Previous knowledge and experience can increase the efficiency of my work.
ACI5. When we change our behaviour, it’s hard to convince others to do the same.
3. PSI: Psychological inertia
PSI1. We feel threatened by any organizational changes.
PSI2. We feel defensive when there are any organizational changes.
PSI3. I am concerned when I remember painful past experiences arising from change.
PSI4. Organization’s staff likes current processes and don’t like to change.