In Geneva, when exclusion becomes a psychosocial risk
Within a team, exclusion sometimes takes the form of omissions: information not passed on, a request ignored, a discussion from which someone is left out. The managerial question is specific: how can legitimate limits on participation be distinguished from exclusion that calls for preventive action?
What the literature establishes
Kipling D. Williams (2007, Annual Review of Psychology) reviews research on ostracism, understood as being ignored or excluded. These studies show that exclusion can threaten belonging, self-esteem, control and a sense of meaningful existence. The absence of insults is therefore not enough to rule out a risk to well-being.
Exclusion without confrontation
Kipling D. Williams, Christopher K. T. Cheung and Wilma Choi (2000, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology) studied exclusion in an online ball-tossing game. Being ignored in this minimal interaction affected participants’ sense of belonging, among other outcomes. The experiment illustrates a possible mechanism: exclusion can have an effect even when no conflict is explicitly expressed.
The premature conclusion
One might conclude that everyone should be included in every exchange. These studies do not justify that rule: confidentiality, specialisation and the allocation of responsibilities require differentiated access. The useful distinction concerns people’s ability to contribute to their work and obtain necessary information, not an obligation to socialise constantly. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What the evidence cannot determine
A brief experiment involving exclusion cannot, on its own, establish the health consequences of sustained exclusion at work. Nor can it automatically classify an omission as bullying or establish hostile intent. In practice, the absence of complaints is not proof of inclusion, and simply counting invitations says little about the actual quality of participation.
A practical check in Genève
As part of SHR’s “Psychosocial Risks” programme, one possible check is to monitor a work process for two weeks in a private bank, an international organisation, a luxury watch manufacturer or a commodity trading company in Geneva. For each critical information handover, record which function needed the information, whether it received access before the deadline and the justification for any restriction, without recording confidential content. Then calculate the proportion of handovers reaching the relevant functions on time, examine repeated omissions and repeat the measurement after correcting the information flow. This indicator checks operational access; it is neither a diagnosis of ostracism nor a sufficient measure of psychological health. To go further: explore the Psychosocial Risks training in Geneva in the canton of Geneva, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Psychosocial Risks in Geneva
- psychosocial risks
- Geneva
- research
- training geneva