Does workplace loneliness influence employees’ voice and silence? Mediating role of relational job crafting and moderating role of inclusive leadership
Vaishali Jadon et al.
Abstract
Purpose The study aims to examine how workplace loneliness (WL) influences two specific employee behaviors: engaging in prosocial voice and displaying acquiescent silence. Additionally, it examines the mediating role of relational job crafting (RJC) and the moderating effect of inclusive leadership (IL) in these relationships. Design/methodology/approach The research was conducted using a sample of 179 professionals from the manufacturing and service sectors. Grounded in the conservation of resources theory, we explore how WL influences prosocial voice and acquiescent silence behavior, with IL as a moderator. Drawing on the need to belong theory, we also examine the mediating role of RJC. Findings The results showed that WL decreases prosocial voice behavior and increases acquiescent silence. RJC mediates the relationship between loneliness and acquiescent silence, but not prosocial voice. IL moderates the relationship between WL and RJC. Practical implications This study recommends that practitioners adopt IL and encourage employees to engage in RJC to foster meaningful social connections in the workplace. Social implications This study aligns with United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 3 (Good Health and Well-being), addressing workplace well-being as a key factor in achieving global health objectives. Originality/value This study provides valuable theoretical and practical insights into the relatively underexplored issue of WL and its impact on employee behavior. It enriches management literature by exploring the mediating role of RJC and the moderating influence of IL in the link between WL and employee behavior.
Evidence weight
Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40
| F · citation impact | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
| M · momentum | 0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07 |
| V · venue signal | 0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03 |
| R · text relevance † | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.