About

This site was created to bring together clear, research-based information about workplace exclusion.

Exclusion is often silent and ambiguous. Because it is rarely spoken about directly, people who experience it may question themselves. Research shows that these doubts are common — but the behaviors and effects are well documented.

Why talk about exclusion?

Exclusion at work is a serious problem, yet it is not talked about enough. While harassment and bullying are easier to spot and are thankfully widely frowned upon, exclusion is still something that is not always seen as legit.

A common path is that an excluded person who tries to speak up faces retaliation, by being labeled as difficult and a conflict initiator, is further excluded, and is indirectly forced to quit. What makes exclusion so hard to cope with is that it is often hard to notice and define. Furthermore, fact that it was not always intentional, makes it hard to prove, as people, when asked to take accountability, become defensive instead of trying to understand the harm their behaviour is causing.

It turns out the painful experiences of being left out in an almost invisible way have been well-researched. Understanding the patterns can help a person who experience them, identify them early enough and prevent their long-lasting harmful impact. 

The aim is not to point fingers but to make these patterns visible, and to show that research confirms them as real.

Where this site comes from

I created this website as a coping strategy. I intend to add summaries of papers and articles on ostracism, workplace exclusion and performative inclusion, and I want it to become the resource I couldn't find when I needed it so badly. 

The experiences described here are not abstract. They are things I have lived myself, heard from close people, read from others online, and even things I may have done to others.

I hope to see a world where a person who shares their experience of being excluded will be taken as seriously as one reporting harassment and bullying. Where the situation will be considered from the point of view of one being hurt by specific attitude, instead of the person being asked to see a psychologist or "assume positive intent", or their experience dismissed as "misunderstanding".

Because of the popularity of inclusion initiatives, it is no longer easy to identify who really means to be inclusive and who does not. This leads to a lot of cases of performative inclusion, where a person is warmly welcomed with words and on paper, but their presence, input and contributions are not really taken into account and they do not have equal deciding power. I hope that we can show that conflict or direct exclusion is much more respectful for a person, than being kept somewhere as a pose or out of politeness, while not being meaningfully engaged with.

I also hope that we can rethink the used terminology. Currently, when someone is excluded, they are being talked about as "target of exclusion". But this phrasing welcomes defensiveness in the people who have to realize what they are causing. I would suggest the use of a term that describes the effect. Therefore, maybe the term "hurt person" is more accurate, as it does not allow minimization of the experience and the need for accountability only because someone did not have a specific bad intent. 

Purpose of this site

To make research on exclusion accessible in plain language.

To ensure that people who have experienced it do not doubt their perception.

To encourage workplaces and colleagues to recognize exclusion when it happens.

To help prevent these patterns from continuing.

Disclaimer: Information only

This site does not provide legal advice, medical advice, or individual counseling.

It shares research and plain-language explanations only. 

If you feel that you have been excluded, please search for help in your workplace or from professionals.