A REVIEW OF ORGANIZATIONAL
SILENCE ANTECEDENTS AND ITS IMPACT ON JOB ATTITUDES
Muhammad Jahangir, Federal Urdu University of Arts, Science
& Technology, Islamabad. Email: jahangirawan3@gmail.com
Mehreen Abdullah, Federal Urdu University of Arts, Science
and Technology, Islamabad. Email: meherk245@gmail.com
Abstract. In
order to achieve the objective effectively and efficiently, employees are
viewed as wellsprings of progress, innovation, learning and advancement.
However a large number of them choose silence and not to pass on their
profitable feelings and worries about the issues in their associations. The aim
of the study is to use literature to find out the motives for silence among
employees and factors that cause silence in an organization. The most widely
recognized components bringing about silence are organizational culture, fear and
negative criticism by adminis-tration, absence of trust and lack of support
from management. The literature suggests that silence is a behavioral practice
which is also associated with several job attitudes like satisfaction, turnover
intention and organizational citizenship behavior. When there is a climate of
trust in organization and proper channels of communication are available,
employees will be more willing to speak up about organizational issues.
Key words: Organizational silence, fear, job attitudes,
trust, communication
Introduction
To accomplish the end goal effectively,
nowadays organizations are attempting to take advantage of the intellectual
abilities of their human capital to improve efficiency and productivity.
Organizations are giving increasingly attentiveness to techniques and
applications such as teamwork, democracy and opportunity of expression in
organization and reinforcing the culture of the organization. Organizations now
have turned out to be more knowledge-based than ever (Akram, 2015). As a
result, employees who express their thoughts and share their understandings
prompt to high organization performance. Organizations are supposed to create
such an environment. Notwithstanding, majority of the employees prefer to
remain silent (Meral, 2014).
Morrison and Milliken (2000) were the first to
raise the issue of organizational silence to the level of scholarly discourse
in 2000. Organizational silence is sort of attitude wherein employee's decide to
suppress their opinions, information and concerns about organizational matters
and when most individuals of organizations choose to keep hushed about
organizational affairs, silence becomes a common behavior within the
organization (Dan et al.,2009). Silence is most of the times considered as a
thought which is close to communication; it is really a critical type of
communication (Ali, 2015).
Employees pass on a variety of messages associated to work to colleagues,
supervisors, managers, and the organizations in their business lives. Silence
is more than unimportance (Brinsfield & Greenberg, 2009). Silence doesn’t
necessarily mean individual’s not speaking, it is not only verbal in nature,
but it can be physical too. It likewise includes not writing, not being
available, negative state of mind, not opposing, not being listened and being
disregard. In the context of organization, silence alludes to not speaking,
censorship, limitation, minimization, trivialization, rejection, ghettoization
and other forms of discounting (Hazen, 2006). Such behaviour hurdles
communication channels and negatively effects employee motivation (Vakola &
Boudaras, 2005).
Farrell’s exit–voice–loyalty–neglect (EVLN)
described employees’ reactions to dissatisfactory events in terms of two
dimensions: a constructive–destructive dimension and an active–passive
dimension. In the constructive-active quadrant, voice includes those conducts that
aimed at dealing with the situation in hand such as talking to a supervisor or
senior management about certain problem.
Loyalty refers to those behaviors in the constructive-passive quadrant,
where an employee patiently waits for organization to resolve the issue or deal
with situation. Exit lies in the destructive-active quadrant and it includes
those behaviors where employee avoids dealing with the problem by quitting,
such as looking for a new job somewhere else. Finally, in the destructive
passive quadrant, deviant behavior is followed by the employee, such as using
work hours for personal use, voluntary lateness and absenteeism (Hagedoorn et
al., 1999).
Employees are considered as internal customers
of the organization and most reliable source for data and information (Ali,
2015). Their input in the form of feedback can be beneficial for the
organization. But it is notice that generally tends not to express their
perspectives, thoughts continuously. (Clapham & Cooper). After reviewing
the management literature it was found that there are some comparable ideas
related to silence, such as the employee’s voice, issue-selling and
whistle-blowing that helps us understand why some people are courageous enough
to speak up in the work place (Ioannis, 2011). Van Dyne et al. (2003) claim
that, although silence and voice are considered polar opposites, but this is
not true. They suggest that “the key feature that differentiates silence and
voice is not the presence or absence of speaking up, but the actor’s motivation
to withhold versus express ideas, information, and opinions about work-related
improvements”. Burris et al. (2010) found that only 51 percent of employees
within Fortune 100 multinational organizations felt safe to speak up most of
the time.
There are two functions of employee voice. One
is that voice which has an objective of changing the situation and the second
is communicating facts, thoughts or information to boost the performance of the
organization (Sean Donovan, 2016). Voice and silence serve as signals used by
employees to show their desire or hesitations to become involved in
organizational actions and decisions (Pinder & Harlos, 2001). Employee
voice is also associated with contextual performance. It means that when
employee feels that he can freely raise his voice, he performs his task better.
At this point management and higher authorities have a role to develop
mechanisms and create a climate of voice in the organization, and employees
also have a choice that whether they are willing enough to use those channels
or they feel it is better to remain silent. Some employees prefer not to use
any channel to break the silence despite potentially having something to
express (Harlos, 2010). Furthermore,
there is a need to understand why employees are not willing to use those
opportunities or mechanisms to raise their voice even when they know that it
could be meaningful for organization (Detert & Edmondson, 2011; Greenberg &
Edwards, 2009).
Research
Objectives
The point of this review is to find out what
are the major motives for employees to remain silent. This study will also shed
light on various forms of silence, impact of silence on different job attitudes
and how to overcome silence.
Literature
on Organizational Silence
Usually employees have purposes behind their
silence as they are having some facts and figures about business between them
(Johannesen, 1974). Çakıcı (2007) defined organizational
silence as a negative phenomenon, as employees do not share their opinions,
ideas or information about issues they face at workplace which inhibit
improvement and development. Employees decide to keep their thoughts, opinions
and criticism purposely when they suspect that it could have influence both
organization and themselves negatively (Ali, 2015). Employee silence is a piece
of a bigger class of practices that incorporates both expressive and
suppressive open decisions of the workers (Hewlin, 2003).
The employees are reluctant to raise their
voice in an organization about some issue or a situation that can be
interpreted wrongly by the managers. However it does not mean that they don’t
talk about it with one another in the absence of their managers or when they
are alone (Morrison, 2000). The just don’t dare to speak up to their
supervisor; they remain silent because they feel compelled to. Organizational
silence is not an individual’s behavior; it is a collective behavior and it is
spread over the whole organization (Sayğan, 2011). Silence can be
associated as general attitude of the employees within an organization that is
present whether an employee is a neophyte or an experienced one. Behaviorally,
voice and silence are considered as polar opposites. The shallow examination of
voice and silence may propose that communicating thoughts (voice) is the opposite
of intentionally suppressing ideas (silence) (Linn, 2003).
Silence of employees is commonly considered as
suppression of concerns and their point of view (Morrison & Milliken,
2000). Exit is the utmost form of suppressive behavior, when employee decides
to leave the organization as opposed to raising voice (Hirschman, 1970). This
suppressive conduct is moderately common at work place (Johannesen, 1974;
Scott, 1993).
Motives
of organizational silence
After reviewing the literature, eight major
motives for employees to remain silent was found. These motives are defensive
motive, acquiescent motive, pro social motive, ineffectual motive,
opportunistic motive, disengagement motive, deviant motive and diffident
motive.
Acquiescent
Motive
Pinder and Harlos (2001) defined acquiescent
silence is referred as withholding of information, opinion or views on the
basis of resignation (Jain, 2014). It can be due to the belief that speaking up
will have no impact and it will be useless or there is personal incapability to
influence the situation in hand. It occurs when employees are quite sure their
opinions will not be valued by supervisors (Hawass, 2015).
Defensive
Motive
In defensive motive to remain silent, employees
refrain from sharing information due to fear and for self-protection (Van Dyne
et al., 2003). Employees are afraid of being punished, fired from the job or
being labeled as whistle blower and trouble maker tends to protect themselves
from negative outcomes of voice by becoming reluctant to communicate issues or
problems of organization (Alisher, 2015). Employees use silence as shield for
their protection.
Pro-social
Motive
An employee may remain silent and withhold his
opinions, ideas or information in order to provide benefit to some other
employee or organization (Dyne et al., 2003: 1368). It occurs in two ways.
Either the employee stays noiseless to ensure the advantages of association or
he stays quiet with a thought process to secure some other worker's advantages.
It is positive dimension of silence as compared to acquiescent and defensive
motive to remain silent (Ali, 2015). The employee is motivated to remain silent
for concern of others like his social circle rather than by the fear of negative
outcomes that could harm him.
Ineffectual
Motive
According to ineffectual motive to remain
silent, the employee has a belief that speaking up or raising the voice would
not positively affect the situation (Brinsfield, 2013). It would be ineffective
in changing the situation. It reflects an employee’s feeling that his voice will
not make any difference (Ali, 2015).
Opportunistic
Motive
An employee can withhold opinions or
information to promote his self-interest by misguiding or misleading others
(Ali, 2015). This is called opportunistic motive to remain silent. Employee
uses his silence as an “opportunity” to place his egoistic and personal goals
above organizational goals. Opportunistic motive leads to more informal ties to
promote self-centered hidden agendas (Ferris and Judge, 1991).
Disengagement
motive
Disengagement is a form of disconnection of an
individual from his organization or work situation demonstrating behaviors like
not caring what happens, not caring about the organization, not willing to get
involved and holding a belief that someone else should speak up (Brinsfield,
2013). The employee has a feeling of
disengagement from the workplace and he doesn’t care to raise his voice for the
benefit of organization.
Deviant
motive
Deviant motive to remain silent represent an
intentional counterproductive work behavior where one does not convey necessary
information or share opinion with the goal of revenge or harming some other
individual or organization (Shih Yung Chou, 2017). It includes an individual’s
desire to purposefully harm others, to seek revenge or distort management’s
image (Brinsfield, 2013).
Diffident
motive
Brinsfield (2013) defined diffident motive to
remain silent as being hesitant to speak up due to lack of self-confidence. An
individual may feel not confident enough to raise his voice or speak up. He
feels that if he speaks up, it will draw attention toward him. Employees remain
silent when they have no idea or being unsure of right path for complaints
(Pirie, 2016).
Factors
of organizational silence
There are numerous perspectives about the
factors leading to organizational silence (Schechtman, 2008), as a result
of its wide range of determinants and
causes, some of these are : (1) top management’s support to silence (2) lack of communication opportunities, (3)
supervisor’s support for silence, (4) official authority, and (5) the
subordinate’s fear of negative reactions (Brinsfield, 2009).
Top
management’s support to silence
In the accomplishment of the business organizations
top Management plays instrumental role. The accessibility of high level of
trust in the organizations decreases worries of speaking freely about the
issues of labor. Atmosphere of trust in the top management minimize the
feelings of instability (Weber & 2001). The perspectives and values of the
top administration may contribute significantly to develop an atmosphere of
silence, as few organizations do not allow employees to share what they know or
feel (Argyris, 1997).
Different exercises perform by top management
may cause increment in the level of silence within the organization. These
exercises are illustrated in two factors (Morrission & Milliken, 2000).
Manager’s
Fear of Negative Feedback.
The top management may fear getting negative
comments from the subordinate, as it may feel threatened due to this
information and by the involvement of individuals or their work. Due to this,
those members will deny that information or question the believability of that
source, they will assume that this information may be not exact or real (Vakola
& Bouradas, 2005).
Manager’s
Implicit Beliefs.
When the top management unable to know about
the reality due to lack of access to information or due to less appreciation to
information beneficial for the organization rather than the negative it will
cause increase in Silence (Van, Dyne et
al., 2003).As a result, the employees will not share work issues with the top
management. Moreover the administration may name the employees as problem
makers who share work problem (Milliken et al., 2003).
Lack of
Communication Opportunities
For the effectiveness of any organization it is
important to communicate information with individual for the purpose of
decision-making, as it a way to express feelings, ideas and developments. The purpose
of sharing this information is to encourage and impel the behavior of others.
Through these social needs of individual are fulfilled (Robbins & Judge,
2013). When an organization could not create a proper climate for voice,
employees will have to suffer from silence. They will feel that their opinion
is not valuable. The freedom of expressing opinion and participation of
employees increase the career belongings and job involvement of employees
(Smidts et al., 2001).
Supervisor’s
support for silence
The supervisor has some character in him that
make the employees keep relationship with him according to the professional
features he possesses. There are two ways to analysis the association between
supervisor’s strength and importance of silence or talking: if the superior is
more influential, then the employees may be willing to talk as the employees
have idea about the strength of the superior in problem solving or any other
important task. At this point, an employee feels more confident to talk with the
supervisor who has the ability to solve work issues inside the organization
(Morrison & Milliken, 2000).
On the other side, sharing ideas and suggestion
with a supervisor having respect and command may be prohibited, since the
subordinate has fear of adverse effect of conveying the disobedient opinion
(Turner & Pratkanis, 1998).
There is a microcosm atmosphere of silence due
to manager’s behavior at the place where he works. For that reason, employees
incline to silence (Spreitzer, 1996; Sugarman, 2001).
The silence of subordinates is affected by the
supervisor’s inclinations and tendencies to silence not by the top management.
Consequently, when the superior pay attention to his subordinates and the
issues faced by them, they will consider him as exemplar (Sparrowe & Liden,
2005). However, authority and prestige of the supervisor can affect the silence
of subordinates, but many researchers emphasize that subordinates are more
delicate to the threats of talking more than the benefits, in the presence of a
strong supervisor (Edmondson, 1996).
Official
Authority
Officialdom is a way for which the activities
done by employees are planned inside the association, by actualizing few
measures (Moorhead & Criffin, 2004). Officialdom relies on upon the nature
of the position or zone in the authoritative structure. Managing takes after
Managing takes after particular orders and a public servant approach through
decision making centralization, and the use of directions to manage the issues
of work. At this moment, there is no proper system of getting feedback. Due to
lack of communication channels as the supervisor think that the opinions of
employees are insignificant which tends to silence (Ashford et al., 1998).
Subordinate's
Fear of Negative Reactions
Due to fear of the reactions employees think
that sharing work issues might take away their job or promotion within the
organization (Milliken et al, 2003). Employee’s perception that his voice can
cause loss of his job or fear of losing a status often becomes a major reason
for organizational silence.
The
impact of organizational silence on job attitudes
It is commonly perceived that “silence is
golden” but when it comes to organizational perspective, silence has many
restraining effects toward organizational performance. Organization would not
be able to get benefit from intellectual contributions of employees if they
chose not to communicate with their supervisor or managers. It will hinder
effective decision making and performance enhancement (Morrison & Milliken
2000). Bowen and Blackmon (2003) affirms that silence restricts knowledge
sharing, collective brainstorm-ming, problem recognition, and probable
solutions to organizational issues, as well as it generates new problems
depending how common and recurring this phenomenon is. Previously it was
assumed that silent only effects the organization, but recent studies has shown
that this behavior has negative consequences for employees as well (Karaca,
2012). For instance when employee silence leads to dissatisfaction among
employees, disregards for security issues and they will feel more social
irresponsibility (Milliken, Morrison, & Hewlin, 2003).
Organizational
Silence and Turnover Intention
Turnover intention refers to the likelihood
that employees may leave their job or switch the association (Kuvaas, 2006).
Turnover intentions are often associated with employee job attitudes like level
of satisfaction, commitment and motivation etc. Silence is a behavioral issue
and if persisted, it can cause turnover intentions among employees in an
organization (MeralElçi, 2014).
Organizational
Silence and Job satisfaction
Job satisfaction is also known as employee
satisfaction. It is defined as positive pleasant state of emotion a person
receives while performing his job (Locke, 1976). While some researchers believe
that it is not as simple as this definition suggests because of the involvement
of many psychological responses of an employee toward his job. An employee’s
behavior is closely associated with his level of satisfaction in the
organization.
On the exploration of relationship between
organizational silence and job satisfaction, it is evident that job
satisfaction is negatively related to organizational silence (Aktaş &
Şimşek, 2015; Amah & Okafor, 2008; Vakola & Bouradas, 2005;
Van Dyne, Ang & Botero, 2003). It means that whenever an employee
experiences silence, his satisfaction toward job tends to decrease. Researchers
have also found that employees who are willing to speak-up and do not remain
silent against an organizational issue are more satisfied from their job than
those who prefer to remain silent.
Organizational
Silence and Organizational citizenship behavior
Organ (1988) defined organizational citizenship
behavior as "individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or
explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate
promotes the effective functioning of the organization". It is voluntary
commitment of an employee with his organization which is not part of his job
agreement. Researchers have shown that organizational citizenship behavior is
negatively associated with employee silence (Çınar et al., 2013;
Şehitoğlu, 2010; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002; Corporanzo et al.,
1997). It means that greater the climate of silence in an organization has,
lesser will be the citizenship behavior among its employees.
How to
overcome organizational silence
An organization can take several measures to
overcome silence. One way to break the barriers of silence is through
organizational justice (Harlos, 2001; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008).
Procedural justice can be used as a tool to eliminate silence. It creates a
climate of trust between an employee and organization. Once an individual gains
trust in his organization or supervisor, he tends to speak up and starts
communicating opinion and information. Trust will also increase the level of
participation of employees.
Fear is one of the major reasons why employees
remain silent. Employee feels fear of negative outcomes, fear of losing his job
or status once he speaks up. Job instability and job insecurity must be
reduced. Those who are courageous enough to speak up for the betterment of
organization should be openly welcomed rather than threatened.
The role of supervisor and manager is also very
important in this context. Top management has a responsibility to create a
climate in an organization where every employee will feel free and fearless to
communicate his opinion and information. If employees feel that their voice
will fall on deaf ears and supervisor or manager will not be interested in
hearing their voice, they will prefer to remain silent (Vacola & Bouradas,
2005).
Conclusions
Review of the facts expounded that silence
cannot be equated to the absence of speaking up, but must be seen as an active
state where a negative work environment and hierarchal order makes it extremely
unfavorable for an employee to voice his opinions, views and concerns which
serve to nurture the vitality of any organization.
A negative work environment makes it unlikely
for an employee to voice his opinions on sensitive issues or on any issue,
whatsoever. The most often cited reason for not speaking up is the perceived
threat of jeopardizing one’s valued relationships and threat of being labeled a
troublemaker. This hesitance to speak up and withholding the information
undermines organizational decision making and efficiency.
Communication is vital to the growth and
functioning of any organization. Workplace politics can lead to a culture of
silence and lack of communication. It is responsibility of higher level
management to build open channels of communication in the workplace to ensure
smooth and efficient performance of the organization.
The phenomena of silence can’t be ignored at
any level. It is expected from the employees that they will contribute for the
development of organization by sharing their views, opinions, knowledge, and
actively participating with their suggestion. Sometimes lack of confidence and
personal inability becomes a reason for not speaking up. If the silence becomes
the general practice in an organization, it hinders the way toward creativity
and innovation.
References
Akram, A.
M. E. A., Ali, S. N. K. (2015). Review organizational silence factors. Journal of Scientific Research and
Development, 2(1), 178-181.
Aktaş, H., & Şimşek, E. (2015). Bireylerin örgütsel
sessizlik tutumlarinda iş doyumuve duygusal tükenmişlik algilarinin rolü.
International Journal of Management Economics & Business, 11(24),
219-219.
Ali, A.
A. A. (2015). The relationship between organizational citizenship behaviour and
organizational silence. Procedia - Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 207, 472–482.
Alisher,
T. D. J. R. (2015). Examining the relationships among trust, silence and
organizational commitment. Management
Decision, 53(8), 1843-1857.
Andrew, R.
T. S. J. (2015). Employee silence and the authoritarian personality: A
political psychology of workplace democracy. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 23(1), 154 - 171.
Argyris, C. (1997). Double loop learning in
organizations. Harvard Business Review, 55(5), 11-128.
Ashford, S. J., Rothbard, N. P.,
Piderit, S. K., & Dutton, J. E. (1998). Out on a limb:
The role of context and impression management in selling gender-equity
issues. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(1), 23-57.
Bowen, F., & Blackmon, K. (2003). Spirals of
silence: the dynamic effects of diversity on organizational voice. Journal
of Management Studies, 40(6), 1393-1417.
Brinsfield, C. (2009). Employee Silence:
Investigation of Dimentionality, Development of Measures and Examination of
Related Factors (Unpublished master's thesis). The Ohio State
University.
Brinsfield, C. T. (2012). Employee silence motives:
Investigation of dimensionality and development of measures. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 34(5), 671-697.
Çakici, & Ayşehan. (2007). Örgütlerde sessizlik:
Sessizliğin teorik temellerive dinamikleri. .Ç.Ü. SB
Dergisi, 16(1), 145-162.
Çınar, O., Karcıoğlu, F., & Alioğulları, Z. D.
(2013). The relationship between organizational silence and organizational
citizenship behavior: A survey study in the province of Erzurum, Turkey. Procedia
- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 99, 314-321.
Clapham, Stephen E.ve Robert W. Cooper (2005). Factors of
employees’ effective voice in corporate governance.Journal of Management and Governance, 9(3-4), 287-313.
Cropanzano, R., Howes, J. C.,
Grandey, A. A., & Toth, P. (1997). The relationship of
organizational politics and support to work behaviors, attitudes, and
stress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(2),
159-180.
Currall, S. C., & Organ, D. W. (1988).
Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 33(2), 331.
Detert, J. R., & Edmondson, A. C. (2011).
Implicit voice theories: Taken-for-granted rules of self-censorship at
work. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 461-488.
Dyne, L. V., Ang, S., & Botero, I. C. (2003).Conceptualizing
employee silence and employee voice as multidimensional constructs. Journal
of Management Studies, 40(6), 1359-1392.
E. Amah, O., & A. Okafor, C. (2008). The interactive effect of
organizational politics in the justice, organizational support and job
satisfaction relationships. Asian Journal of Scientific Research, 1(5),
492-501.
Edmondson, A. C. (1996). Learning from mistakes is
easier said than done: Group and organizational influences on the detection and
correction of human error. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32(1),
5-28.
Ferris, G. R., & Judge, T. A. (1991).
Personnel/human resources management: a political influence perspective. Journal
of Management, 17(2), 447-488.
Greenberg, J., & Edwards, M. (2009). Employee Voice
and Silence in Organizations. , Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley.
Hagedoorn, M., Van Yperen, N. W., Van De
Vliert, E., &Buunk, B. P. (1999). Employees' reactions to
problematic events: a circumplex structure of five categories of responses, and
the role of job satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(3),
309-321.
Harlos, K. (2010). If you build a remedial voice mechanism,
will they come? Determinants of voicing interpersonal mistreatment at
work. Human Relations, 63(3), 311-329.
Hawass,
H. H. (2015). Examining the antecedents of prosocial silence: a relational
perspective. EuroMed Journal of Business,
11(2), 248-271.
Hulin, C. L., & Judge, T. A. (2003).Job Attitudes.Handbook of
Psychology.
Ioannis
Nikolaou, M. V., Dimitris Bourantas. (2011). The role of silence on employees'
attitudes “the day after” a merger. Personnel
Review, 40 (6), 723-741.
Jain, A.
K. (2014). An interpersonal perspective to study silence in Indian
organizations, Investigation of dimensionality and development of measures. Personnel Review, 44(6), 1010-1036.
Klaas, B. S., Olson-Buchanan, J. B., & Ward, A. (2012). The
determinants of alternative forms of workplace voice: An integrative
perspective. Journal of Management, 38(1), 314-345.
Linn Van
Dyne, S. A., Isabel C. Botero. (2003). Conceptualizing employee silence and
employee voice as multi-dimensional constructs. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1359-1392.
Liu, D., Wu, J., &Jiu-cheng Ma. (2009).
Organizational silence: A survey on employees working in a telecommunication
company. 2009 International Conference on Computers & Industrial
Engineering.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction.In
M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology
(pp. 1297–1349). New York, NY: Hold, Reinhart & Winston.
Maria, V.
D. B. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of organisational silence: an
empirical investigation. Employee
Relations, 27(5), 441 - 458.
Meral, E.
M. K. E., Lütfihak, A. İ. (2014). The mediating role of mobbing on the
relationship between organizational silence and turnover intention. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,
150, 455 – 464.
Milliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W.,
&Hewlin, P. F. (2003). An exploratory study of employee silence:
issues that employees don’t communicate upward and why. Journal of
Management Studies, 40(6), 1453-1476.
Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000).
Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic
world. The Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 706.
Nikolaou, I., Vakola, M., & Bourantas, D. (2008). Who speaks
up at work? Dispositional influences on employees' voice behavior. Personnel
Review, 37(6), 666-679.
Pirie,
W. J. (2016). Key determinants of organisational silence for non-standard
workers. Management Decision, 54(6),
1522-1538.
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived
organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87(4), 698-714.
Robbin, S., & Judge, T. (2013). Organizational
Behavior. Paper presented at Pears Education, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Sayğan,
F. N. (2011). Relationship between affective commitment and organizational
silence: a conceptual discussion. International
journal of social sciences and humanity studies, 3(2), 219-227.
Schechtman, J. (2008). When Silence speaks louder
than words: Computer-mediated communications and perceived ostracism (Doctoral
dissertation, Washington State University).
Sean
Donovan, M. O. S., Elaine Doyle, John Garvey. (2016). Employee voice and
silence in auditing firms. Employee
Relations 38(5), 563 - 577.
Sehitoglu, Y. (2010). “Örgütsel sessizlik, örgütsel
vatandaslik davranisive algilanan çalisan performansi iliskisi. YayinlanmamisDoktoraTezi,
GYTE, Kocaeli.
Shih, Y.
C. T. C. (2017). Employee silence and silence antecedents: a theoretical
classification. International Journal of
Business Communication, 00(0), 1-26.
Smidts, A., Pruyn, A. T., & Van
Riel, C. B. (2001).The Impact of Employee Communication and Perceived
External Prestige on Organizational Identification. Academy of
Management Journal, 44(5), 1051-1062.
Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (2005).
Two routes to influence: integrating leader-member exchange and social network
perspectives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(4),
505-535.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). Social structural
characteristics of psychological empowerment. Academy of Management
Journal, 39(2), 483-504.
Sugarman, B. (2001). A learning-based approach to organizational
change. Organizational Dynamics, 30(1), 62-76.
Tangirala, S.,
& Ramanujam, R. (2008). Exploring nonlinearity in employee voice: the
effects of personal control and organizational identification. Academy
of Management Journal, 51(6), 1189-1203.
Turner, M. E., & Pratkanis, A. R. (1998).A
social identity maintenance model of groupthink. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73(2-3), 210-235
Ulkemen, S., Karaca, H., &Tasdoven, H. (2012).
Promoting bureaucratic professionalism in policing: Analyzing the Turkish
Police Field Training Program (PFTO) in the light of the US.
Vakola, M., & Bouradas, D. (2005). Antecedents and
consequences of organizational silence: An empirical investigation. Employee
Relations, 27(5), 441-458.
Weber, P. S., & Weber, J. E.
(2001).Changes in employee perceptions during organizational change. Leadership
& Organization Development Journal, 22(6), 291-300.