TEM Journal. Volume 10, Issue 2, Pages 563‐572, ISSN 2217‐8309, DOI: 10.18421/TEM102-11, May 2021.

The Mediating Role of Organizational Cynicism in the Relationship between Incivility and Organizational Silence

Hasan Tutar 1, Ferruh Tuzcuoğlu 2, Teymur Sarkhanov 3,4

1 Bolu Abant Izzet Baysal University, Public Relations Department, Bolu, Turkey 2 Sakarya University, Department of Political Science and Public Administration, Sakarya, Turkey 3 Azerbaijan State University of Economics (UNEC), Department of Economics and Business Administration, Baku, Azerbaijan 4Sakarya University Graduate School of Business, Sakarya, Turkey

Abstract - In this study, the mediating role of 1. Introduction "organizational cynicism" in the relationship between "rudeness in the workplace" and "organizational Problems experienced in are silence" was examined. The research is a quantitative generally expressed as counterproductive work research cross-sectional study. Research data were behaviors in the literature. In business collected using a simple random sampling technique. life, impolite, rude, and disrespectful behavior Data analysis shows a significant and positive relationship between the participants' perceptions of negatively affects the organization and employee’s rudeness in the workplace and organizational silence. psychology. Nonchalant behaviors also cause the It is understood that the perception of organizational organizational climate to be more stressful, and the cynicism also mediates this relationship. It was organizational health deteriorates [1], [2]. Problems understood that the high perception of the workplace experienced in organizations are generally expressed laziness of the participants caused the perception of as counterproductive work behaviors in the organizational silence to be high. organization literature. In business life, impolite, Keywords - Organizational behavior, organizational rude, and disrespectful behavior negatively affects psychology, , organizational silence, the organization and employee’s psychology. organizational cynicism. Nonchalant behaviors also cause the organizational climate to be more stressful and the organizational health to deteriorate. Workplace incivility is all kinds of attitudes and behaviors that violate courtesy rules in the workplace DOI: 10.18421/TEM102-11 and violate organizational norms. However, it should https://doi.org/10.18421/TEM102-11 be noted that incivility is not aggression or conflict; they are rude and disrespectful behavior that is not Corresponding author: Hasan Tutar, expected from civilized people. Workplace incivility, Bolu Abant Izzet Baysal University, Public Relations one of the anti-productive work behaviors, is less Department, Bolu, Turkey. harmful than aggressive behavior [3]. Although the Email: [email protected] intensity of unkind organizational behavior is low, if Received: 13 March 2021. it continues, it may cause loss of motivation, low Revised: 23 April 2021. performance, strengthening of the intention to quit, Accepted: 29 April 2021. and organizational cynicism. Various studies have Published: 27 May 2021. been carried out regarding the fact that in © 2021 Hasan Tutar, Ferruh Tuzcuoğlu & environments with instinctive incivility and Teymur Sarkhanov; published by UIKTEN. This work is incivility, people react to the said impolite sometimes licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution‐ with organizational cynicism and sometimes with NonCommercial‐NoDerivs 4.0 License. organizational silence [4], [5]. Organizational silence is that employees avoid The article is published with Open Access at making and expressing various contributions and www.temjournal.com thoughts in favor of the organization. Employees do

TEM Journal – Volume 10 / Number 2 / 2021. 563 TEM Journal. Volume 10, Issue 2, Pages 563‐572, ISSN 2217‐8309, DOI: 10.18421/TEM102‐11, May 2021. not express their suggestions or opinions about the management of not acting by ethical codes. Also, organization because they are afraid of possible problems such as indifference towards the reactions, and they show indifference and organization and the , strengthening intention to unresponsiveness in organizational matters. quit, resignation, despair, distrust of colleagues, However, the silence of the employees in disappointment, low performance, and burnout are organizational silence is not adapting or obeying, but attitudes and behaviors stemming from deliberately they are not showing the reaction they organizational cynicism. should show in favor of the organization [6], [7], [8]. This study is aimed to examine the concepts of Thus, organizational silence is not a "silent" "workplace incivility," "organizational silence," and personality trait but a state of inertia that is shown "organizational cynicism" as anti-productive consciously and deliberately. Employees can behaviors. It is thought that the research can make sometimes be silent because they do not have any significant contributions to those who work on thoughts; this kind of silence is not organizational organizational psychology, practitioners, researchers, silence. and organizational policymakers. The research Organizational silence has the negative side when results have an essential aim to draw attention to the it avoids employees' intellectual capital. Due to positive organizational behaviors that have an organizational silence, organizations lose the essential role in the high performance of the opportunity to benefit from their employees' employees and the counterproductive work behaviors psychological and mental powers. Also, that reduce their motivation and productivity. For this organizational silence harms not only organizations purpose, the central question of whether but also employees who remain silent. Because of organizational cynicism functions as a tool in the organizational silence, employees who feel stressed, relationship between organizational incivility and irritated, indifferent, and excluded may feel employee’s silence is tried to be answered. The resentment towards their managers and other theoretical basis of the research, workplace employees [9]. As the atmosphere of loudness indolence, is based on the frustration-aggression prevails in the organization, people start to increase theory developed by Dollar and Miller [12]. negative feelings, which causes them to show Organizational silence is based on the "Self- attitudes and behaviors towards the organization and Adaptation Theory" developed by Premeaux and its employees. Organizational cynicism is the Bedeian [13] and organizational cynicism is based on employees' general tendency to show opposing the emotional event theory developed by Weiss and attitudes and behaviors in all matters due to these Cropanzano [14]. negativities. Organizational cynicism is that employees take a 2. Theoretical Framework critical attitude towards organizational matters, thinking that their organizations do not act by 2.1. Workplace Incivility honesty, truthfulness, fairness, and general ethical codes or dissatisfaction. It is a constant opposition Workplace incivility is not a situation that happens attitude towards the organization and its employees. instantly, comes and goes, and appears infrequently, Organizational cynicism is a set of attitudes but rude behaviors which show continuity and cause symbolized by disappointment and distrust towards the employees to feel uncomfortable. Unlike other the organization. It is the employees' critical attitude negative behaviors such as bullying, harassment, towards the organization due to violations of the aggression, swearing, and intimidation in the psychological contract, injustice, unbalanced workplace, workplace incivility is rude behavior that distribution of power within the organization, violates business rules for mutual respect in a inability to participate in the decision-making workplace and psychologically batters a person. process, long working hours, and lousy Although there are different opinions about what management, organizational change, and lack of behaviors are unkind in a workplace, any uncivilized communication. Studies on organizational cynicism behavior, rude and free of respect, can be seen as show that cynicism causes many negative behaviors, workplace incivility. Examples of impolite behavior both organizational and individual [10], [11]. While include yelling at people at work, ignoring organizational cynicism causes emotions such as colleagues' thoughts, excluding colleagues, ignoring frustration, hopelessness, disappointment, and them, speaking threateningly and suggestively, and pessimism in the employee, on the other hand, it can snorting people [15], [16]. Also, it includes verbal lead to various criticisms such as the disdainful behaviors such as gossiping, spreading rumors, and attitude of the employees towards their organizations, being hurtful in the workplace; it includes actual not rationalizing the decisions taken by the behaviors such as ignoring coworkers and staring. organization, and accusing the organization

564 TEM Journal – Volume 10 / Number 2 / 2021. TEM Journal. Volume 10, Issue 2, Pages 563‐572, ISSN 2217‐8309, DOI: 10.18421/TEM102‐11, May 2021.

Impolite behavior can be less harmful than deviant, they are forced to remain silent due to the anti-social, aggressive, or anti-productive work organizational climate, culture, and management behavior in the workplace but it can be devastating style. when it persists. Violating respect rules and not There can be many reasons for organizational silence. The silent situation may be mostly caused by obeying the minimum courtesy rules have an psychological reasons such as the absence of a essential role in the emergence of workplace psychological contract between the person and the incivility. Workplace incivility between the parties organization, the employee's lack of organizational can be experienced in two different ways. First, low- commitment, and the lack of organizational level rude behaviors are mutually perpetuated, and citizenship. Lack of a democratic management over time, incivility can lead to conflicts. The person approach in organizations feeds organizational perceives impudence as a threat to himself. insecurity. In an unsafe environment, employees may Depending on this perception's severity, the turn to silence for protection and protection. The individual may turn to various destructive behaviors dislike of some managers to express the problems in the organization may also cause organizational such as aggression, violence, and variety [17], [18]. silence. Also, seeing the conversation as risky is an If superiors behave unkindly towards subordinates, important reason for organizational silence. workplace incivility may turn into organizational Employees may not express their opinions openly conflict. Thus, workplace incivility is one of the main due to fear of isolation, inability to be promoted, and reasons for the emergence of a hostile climate in exclusion. When employees talk about a negative organizations. Many studies have shown that situation with their colleagues, they may think that workplace indolence is associated with burnout their relationships will deteriorate. In such cases, syndrome, low organizational commitment, employees may prefer silence because they believe , and intention to quit [4], [5]. Workplace that a solution will not be produced even if they express their problems [23], [24], especially indolence also increases the disagreement between employees who cannot afford to confront the other organizational employees and organizational norms. side may inadvertently remain silent. Employees can remain silent in order to protect themselves against 2.2. Organizational Silence possible damages. In cases where they do not feel safe enough, they may prefer silence for protection. Organizational silence is the fear of employees expressing their opinions on organizational problems. 2.3. Organizational Cynicism Employees who can provide organizational benefits do not express their opinions and do not take any Based on ancient Greek philosophy, the concept of initiative in favor of the organization. Organizational cynicism means a general opposing attitude to events silence is divided into two parts: "acquiescent by activating negative feelings such as humiliation, silence" and "quiescent silence". Submissive silence anger, and shame. Generally, cynicism means is when the individual keeps his thoughts to himself based on the acceptance of something unpleasant. On skepticism, distrust, disbelief, and pessimism. It is the other hand, calm silence is the individual's silence an attitude that continually seeks fault, criticizes, to protect himself, based on fear of the harmful does not like others, and does not trust. consequences he may face in the event of his speech Organizational cynicism is a general opposition and [19], [20]. Although there are things that the negative attitude of the employee towards his/her employee can do about organizational problems, they organization. Organizational cynicism means that the refrain from doing them and do not say their thoughts individual has a negative and oppositional attitude deliberately. Being passive, ineffective, and and behavior towards everything in the organization. unresponsive is the basis of silence. Organizational People who show cynicism think that people are silence is purposeful, active, and conscious action. Organizational silence can be considered in two insecure and insincere [25], [26]. These people are basic dimensions. The first is that employees remain people who are frequently critical, hardy and silent, and the second is that employees are forced pursuing faults. It is an expected situation that the into silence. Organizational silence is that employees cynicism tendencies will increase when the do not react, do not speak, express an opinion and act employees think that their organizations are far from intentionally, although they have the words to say honesty and justice. and their contributions to offer. In organizations According to cynicisms, nothing is going well in where organizational silence is experienced, the organization, a general state of corruption and organizations lose the opportunity to benefit from decay is experienced. It is controversial whether their mental labor and intellectual capital. On the other hand, employees cannot find the opportunity to organizational cynicism is a personality trait or an realize themselves because they are below their attitude stemming from its situation because of his potential, and their intention to quit is strengthened experiences. Some argue that cynicism is a judgment by losing job satisfaction and motivation [21], [22]. acquired because of a person's experience and that it In the case of being left silent, employees are forced is a learned attitude rather than a personality trait. into silence not because they want to, but because Organizational cynicism for them can be person-

TEM Journal – Volume 10 / Number 2 / 2021. 565 TEM Journal. Volume 10, Issue 2, Pages 563‐572, ISSN 2217‐8309, DOI: 10.18421/TEM102‐11, May 2021. oriented, professional-oriented, organization oriented chosen because each unit of the target population and managerial-oriented. Unlike feature-based trends could be represented in the sample with equal such as personal cynicism, organizational cynicism is probability. The remaining 455 questionnaires were often a situation factor. They argue that people do not evaluated after eliminating the erroneous and decide to be cynical and that organizational cynicism deficient data among the collected data. Expressions stems from bad experiences [27], [28]. In in the scales are in 5-point Likert format, and the organizational cynicism, there is a strong sense of grading is "strongly disagree" (1) and "strongly insecurity towards the organization. According to agree" (5). them, the organization is the place where all kinds of injustice are institutionalized. 3.3. Process and Analysis Organizational cynicism, which is described as a negative attitude towards the organization, has three IBM SPSS 22 and IBM AMOS 25 package dimensions: cognitive, affective, and behavioral. programs were used to analyze the collected data. Cognitive dimension comprises a cognitive Cronbach's Alpha values were calculated to judgment that the organization lacks honesty, which determine the scales' reliability and validity, and emerges with negative emotions such as anger, confirmatory factor analysis was applied. Structural contempt, and condemnation. In this respect, equation modeling (SEM) was used to test the cynicism tends to rise disbelief about the goodness hypotheses. Analyzes have been made with the and sincerity of actions and human motives. maximum likelihood method in SEM. The theoretical According to cynicism, they believe that their model suggested by SEM was tested. organizations are doing them wrong due to the lack of principles such as justice, honesty, and sincerity in 3.4. Data Collection Instruments organizations. The emotional dimension of organizational cynicism includes strong emotional In order to collect research data; Dyne et al. [30] 7- responses such as disrespect, anger, distress, and item "Workplace Indolence Scale" developed by Gök shame. In addition to negative thoughts and beliefs, et al. [31] and the "Organizational Silence Scale" this type of cynicism also has strong emotional consisting of 15 items and the "Organizational responses such as contempt and anger. Individuals Cynicism Scale" with 14 items developed by Brandes with high organizational cynicism levels may feel [32] were used. boredom and shame when they think about their organization [29]. The behavioral dimension includes 3.5. Measurement Model and Hypotheses the behaviors of making robust, disparaging, and disparaging criticisms of the organization. In the study, the following theoretical model and hypotheses were developed to assume that workplace 3. Methodology and Procedures indolence will strengthen organizational silence perception and that there will be a positive 3.1. Research Design relationship between these two variables. The model assumes that workplace incivility will positively The research is a cross-sectional study conducted affect organizational silence, and organizational according to the relational survey design, one of the cynicism will function as a mediator. In the model, quantitative research designs. Research data were "workplace indolence" is considered as the collected according to the simple random sampling independent variable, "organizational silence" as the technique, and the collected data were analyzed dependent variable, and "organizational cynicism" as according to descriptive and statistical techniques. the mediating variable (Figure 1). IBM SPSS 22 and IBM AMOS 25 package programs H1: Workplace incivility positively affects were used in the analysis of the data. In the study, the organizational silence. mediating effect of "organizational cynicism" in the H2: Organizational silence affects organizational relationship between "workplace incivility" and cynicism positively. "organizational silence" was examined. H3: Workplace incivility positively affects organizational cynicism. 3.2. Participants and Sampling H4: Organizational cynicism plays a mediating

The data used within the study's scope were role in the effect of workplace indolence on obtained from full-time employees operating in organizational silence. service enterprises in Ankara. The research sample was determined according to the random sampling technique. The random sampling technique was

566 TEM Journal – Volume 10 / Number 2 / 2021. TEM Journal. Volume 10, Issue 2, Pages 563‐572, ISSN 2217‐8309, DOI: 10.18421/TEM102‐11, May 2021.

Organizational Cynicism

H1 (+) H2 (+)

H4

Organizational Workplace Silences

Incivility H3 (+)

Figure 1. Research Model

3.6. Validity and Reliability of Research Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was applied to the measurement model to determine the reliability Within the scope of the research, firstly, reliability and validity of the scales of workplace incivility, analyzes of the scales were made. The values of α = organizational silence, and organizational cynicism. 0.958 for the workplace indolence scale, α = 0.842 According to the CFA result, the fit indices χ2/DF, for the organizational silence scale, and α = 0.947 for GFI, NFI, CFI, TLI, RMSEA values, good fit the organizational cynicism scale were obtained. indices, and validity values are shown in Table 1. These values show that the scales are reliable.

Table 1. Model-Data Fit Values

Data-Model Fit Indices Acceptable Indices Single Factor Model Indices Chi-Square (χ2) = 748,64 Chi-Square (χ2) = 4246,49

DF= 452, p<0.01 DF= 594 GFI= 0.891 GFI>0.90 GFI= 0.384 NFI= 0.901 NFI>0.90 NFI= 0.475 CFI= 0.952 CFI>0.90 CFI= 0.510 TLI= 0.948 TLI>0.90 TLI= 0.480 RMSEA= 0.052 RMSEA<0.08 RMSEA= 0.160 χ2/DF= 1.656 χ2/DF<5 χ2/DF= 7.149

Source: [33], [34], [35], [36].

According to the 3-factor model specified in Table method deviation in the data. According to this 2, χ2 value is seen to be significant (p <0.01). Also, finding, it was concluded that the data were χ2/DF value (1.656) below 5 indicates that the model compatible according to the 3-factor model. meets the fit criteria. It is seen that the data are The organizational cynicism scale was excluded from consistent in terms of GFI = 0.891, CFI = 0.952, NFI the analysis because factor loads of the 6th, 10th, 13th, = 0.901, TLI = 0.948 and RMSEA = 0.052. The and 14th questions among the scale questions comparative harmony table between the single-factor considered within the analysis scope were less than model and the multi-factor model is shown in Table 0.5. In the study, divergence and convergence 1. As a result of CFA, the "Chi-Square Difference differential validity analyses were performed to Test" was applied to determine the difference determine the variables' values by measuring the between the three-factor model (workplace scale expressions. In this framework, it was seen that indolence, organizational silence, and organizational all variables of the validity-oriented structure of a cynicism) and the one-factor model in terms of model that was investigated showed low correlation compliance, and it was found that the difference with other variables, providing convergent validity, between χ2 values was significant. According to this which showed a high correlation with the result, it was determined that there was no common discriminant validity (Table 2).

TEM Journal – Volume 10 / Number 2 / 2021. 567 TEM Journal. Volume 10, Issue 2, Pages 563‐572, ISSN 2217‐8309, DOI: 10.18421/TEM102‐11, May 2021.

Table 2. Average, Standard Deviation, Reliability and Correlation Values of the Variables

Variables Mean SD CR AVE 1 2 3 1. Workplace incivility 2.08 .829 .946 .717 - 2. Organizational 2.01 .687 .933 .584 .719** - cynicism 3. Organizational 2.95 .991 .956 .597 .359** 25* - silences

Note: SD, Standard Deviation; *Significant at 0.05 level (bi-directional), ** Significant at 0.01 level (bi-directional)

In Table 2, the convergence validity of the data between 7.23 and 10.48 show that the research model obtained in the research scales according to the AVE is compatible. (Average explained variance) values is indicated. For Table 2 shows a positive correlation between a research model to provide convergent validity, the organizational cynicism and workplace indolence correlation level between scales has to be found according to Pearson Correlation analysis (r = .719 [37]. The fact that the AVE values of the research p<.001). It is seen that there is a positive relationship model are higher than 0.5 indicates that the relevant between organizational cynicism and organizational items are valid in the implicit variable. As can be silence (r = .325, p<.001). There is a positive seen in Table 2, convergence validity is provided correlation between workplace indolence and with AVE values higher than 0.5. Also, the organizational silence (r = .359, p<.001). When the correlation value between scales should be less than correlation values are examined, it is seen that there 0.80 to determine discriminative validity [37]. The are significant relationships between variables. correlation values between the study variables are lower than 0.80, and the significant relationship 4. Results shows that the divergence discriminant validity is provided. However, according to, the standardized 4.1. Demographic Findings factor loadings has to be higher than 0.5 in order for the research model to be compatible [38]. The The study participants' demographic information standardized factor loads of the research scale such as gender, education level, age, and seniority expressions range from 0.66 to 0.89. Also, the are explained in Table 3. parametric test t values of these factor values

Table 3. Demographic Findings

Gender Frequency (n) Percent (%) Marital Status Frequency (n) Percent (%) Female 184 40,40 Single 146 32,09 Male 271 59,60 Married 309 67,91 Total 455 100,00 Total 455 100,00 Age Frequency (n) Percent (%) Education Status Frequency (n) Percent (%) 18–25 78 17,14 High school 55 12,09 26–35 142 31,21 License 170 37,36 36–45 114 25,05 Master 169 37,14 46–55 97 21,32 Doctorate 61 13,41 56 above 24 5,28 Total 455 100,00 Total 455 100,00

40.4% of the participants are women, and 59.6% are 4.2. Testing Research Hypotheses men. 32% of the participants are single, and 67.9% are married. Participants are mostly between the ages The structural equation model was applied to the of 26-35 (31.2%). 37.3% of the participants are research data with the AMOS program to test undergraduate, and 37.1% graduate. research hypotheses. Table 4 shows the direct impact results as a result of the Structural Equation Model analysis.

568 TEM Journal – Volume 10 / Number 2 / 2021. TEM Journal. Volume 10, Issue 2, Pages 563‐572, ISSN 2217‐8309, DOI: 10.18421/TEM102‐11, May 2021.

Table 4. Direct Impact

Variables ß t SE P Workplace Incivility – Organizational Cynicism 0,719 16,033 0,037 *** Organizational Cynicism – Organizational Silences 0,139 2,610 0,124 .002 Workplace Incivility – Organizational Cynicism 0,259 3,005 0,103 .003

Note: SE, standard error; * 0.05 ** 0.01 *** Significant at 0.001 level (bi-directional)

According to Table 4, workplace incivility These values show that the H2 hypothesis that positively affects organizational cynicism (β = .719, t organizational silence positively affects = 16.033, p <0.001). These values mean that people organizational cynicism is supported. This finding have a critical attitude towards the organization to the means that all attitudes and behaviors that disrupt the extent that they are exposed to incivility in their organizational climate and health are processes that organizations. These results also show that the H1 feed each other. hypothesis that workplace indolence positively It is understood that the workplace indolence affects organizational silence is confirmed. independent variable has a significant positive effect According to the research findings, it is seen that on the organizational cynicism tool variable (β = organizational cynicism has a positive and significant .259, t = 3.005, p <0.01). These values show that the effect on organizational silence (β = .139, t = 2.610, H3 hypothesis, which was established as workplace p <0.01). indolence affects organizational cynicism positively, is supported (Figure 2).

R2= 0.517 Organizational Cynicism

.719*** .139** .100*

Workplace .259* Organizational Incivility Silences *

Figure 2. Structural Equation Model Results

In the study, workplace incivility on organizational Bootstrap method was used to test the role of silence was examined without including mediator variables in the relationship between organizational cynicism in the model. According to independent and dependent variables. Bootstrap the findings, workplace incivility positively and technique creates a larger sample than the existing significantly affects organizational silence (β = .259, data set but with the same feature. This technique is p<0.001). When organizational cynicism is included used in mediation analysis to calculate indirect in the model as a mediating variable, workplace effects [39]. When Bootstrap estimates were indolence positively and significantly affects analyzed at 95% confidence interval regarding the organizational silence (β = .359, p<0.05). When this mediator effect of organizational cynicism, it was value is included in the organizational cynicism found that there was an increase in the positive effect model, which is the mediator variable, the effect of of workplace indolence on organizational silence (β the independent variable (organizational indolence) = 0.10; 95% CI [0.08 to 0.20]; R2 = 0.517). Since this on the dependent variable (organizational silence) effect differs significantly, it can be said that decreases (ć

TEM Journal – Volume 10 / Number 2 / 2021. 569 TEM Journal. Volume 10, Issue 2, Pages 563‐572, ISSN 2217‐8309, DOI: 10.18421/TEM102‐11, May 2021.

5. Discussion and Conclusion organization. A study conducted in Jordan concluded that workplace incivility reinforces organizational This study aims to examine some variables that are cynicism [40]. Another study on nurses in Canada considered anti-productive work behaviors in a found a strong relationship between workplace different sample. The research, it is tried to answer incivility and organizational cynicism. In another the question of whether organizational cynicism study conducted in Jordan, it was found that functions as a tool in the relationship between workplace incivility increased perceptions of organizational incivility and employee’s silence. The organizational cynicism [41]. These findings could research results show that there is a direct and be a consensus between this study's results and the mediating effect among the variables in question. literature, increasing its external validity. The study's According to the analysis findings, workplace second hypothesis determined that organizational incivility affects organizational cynicism positively cynicism positively affected organizational silence (p<0.001). Organizational cynicism, the mediator (p=0.002<0.01). Organizational silence of variable, positively affects organizational silence organizational cynicism in a survey of nurses in (p=0.002<0.01). The research results show that Turkey has been affected in a positive direction [42]. workplace incivility, an independent variable, Research on organizational cynicism with a high positively affects organizational silence perception of nurses that organizational silence (p=0.003<0.01). Thus, it was understood that the perception made in South Korea was high [43]. In a research's theoretical model was a valid model and workplace survey on the nurses working in Turkey, it all hypotheses put forward for the research were was determined to strengthen organizational confirmed. Analysis findings and the literature show incivility silence perception [44]. that any counterproductive attitude and behavior that . Practical Implications arise in the organization are not limited to itself; it turns into an organizational problem affecting many As in this study, which determines the partial other factors. Research findings have to show that mediator role of organizational cynicism in the effect this is once again confirmed. of organizational silence of workplace indolence, no In this study, in which the role of organizational research has been found in the literature that silence "mediator" in workplace indolence and examines three variables together. There are studies organizational cynicism was examined, it was in which organizational cynicism plays a mediating concluded that employees' perceptions of "workplace role. For example, in a study, it was determined that incivility" increased their perception of organizational cynicism played a mediating role in organizational cynicism, another anti-productive the relationship between workplace incivility and work behavior. On the other hand, it is seen that the information retention behavior [45]. However, it is perception of workplace incivility reinforces the seen that different variables are examined together in organizational silence behavior of the employees. the study in question. In another study, it was This situation shows that counterproductive attitudes determined that organizational cynicism played a and behaviors that disrupt the organizational climate mediating role in the relationship between workplace and threaten organizational health in organizations incivility and intention to quit [46]. Within this are processes that feed each other. Also, the research framework, it is understood once again that conclusion that the perception of organizational any negative attitude and behavior in organizations cynicism has a catalytic effect on the perception of affects many other negative behaviors; therefore, organizational silence in the relationship between the eliminating all kinds of counterproductive work dependent and the independent variable, it is behavior regardless of its size and effect is an understood that any counterproductive work behavior essential organizational and managerial task. has a contagious effect and activates other . Limitations and Avenues for Future Research counterproductive work behaviors. The study sample consists of a limited number of . of Findings and Theoretical people, and the research results are limited to the Implications mentioned sample. Therefore, researching with In the literature, researches on workplace different samples may yield different results. The indolence, organizational cynicism, and research has been conducted in public institutions, organizational silence show that there is a consensus and it is possible to reach different results in private that these variables affect employees negatively. It is sector organizations. The research is also quantitative expected that workplace incivility positively affects correlational research; repeating the subject with organizational cynicism; people with a high qualitative and mixed research may increase its perception of the workplace rude are expected to validity. In future studies, it may be useful to adopt a critical and negative attitude towards the establish and test the model with different variables.

570 TEM Journal – Volume 10 / Number 2 / 2021. TEM Journal. Volume 10, Issue 2, Pages 563‐572, ISSN 2217‐8309, DOI: 10.18421/TEM102‐11, May 2021.

References [15]. Alshehry, A. S., Alquwez, N., Almazan, J., Namis, I. M., & Cruz, J. P. (2019). Influence of workplace [1]. Kapusuz, A. G., & Biçer, M. (2018). Psikolojik incivility on the quality of nursing care. Journal of sermayenin üretkenlik karşıtı iş davranışları clinical nursing, 28(23-24), 4582-4594. üzerindeki olumlayıcı etkileri. Toros Üniversitesi [16]. Shi, Y., Guo, H., Zhang, S., Xie, F., Wang, J., Sun, İİSBF Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 5(9), 229-249. Z., ... & Fan, L. (2018). Impact of workplace incivility [2]. Yuan, Z., Barnes, C., & Li, Y. (2018). Bad Behavior against new nurses on job burn-out: a cross-sectional Keeps You Up at Night: Counterproductive Work study in China. BMJ open, 8(4). Behaviors and Insomnia. Journal of Applied [17]. Hershcovis, M. S., Ogunfowora, B., Reich, T. C., & Psychology, 103(4), 383-398. Christie, A. M. (2017). Targeted workplace incivility: [3]. Demsky, C. A., Fritz, C., Hammer, L. B., & Black, A. The roles of belongingness, embarrassment, and E. (2019). Workplace Incivility and Employee Sleep: power. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(7), The Role of Rumination and Recovery 1057-1075. Experiences. Journal of Occupational Health [18]. Armstrong, N. (2018). Management of nursing Psychology, 24(2), 228-240. workplace incivility in the health care settings: A [4]. Hershcovis, M., Cameron, A. F., Gervais, L., & systematic review. Workplace health & safety, 66(8), Bozeman, J. (2018). The Effects of Confrontation and 403-410. Avoidance Coping in Response to Workplace [19]. Yalçın, B., & Baykal, Ü. (2019). Development and Incivility. Journal of Occupational Health psychometric testing of the Organizational Silence Psychology, 23(2), 163-174. Behavior Scale for healthcare professionals. Nursing [5]. Kutlu, A., & Bilgin, N. Turkish Reliability and & health sciences, 21(4), 454-460. Validity on Nurses of Workplace Incivility [20]. Okeke-James, N. J., Igbokwe, I. C., Anyanwu, A. N., Scale. Journal of Health and Nursing & Obineme, O. P. (2020). Gender influence on school Management, 4(2), 56-62. climate and organizational silence amongst teachers in [6]. Doo, E. Y., & Kim, M. (2020). Effects of hospital Anambra State. European Scientific Journal, 16(10), nurses' internalized dominant values, organizational 223-237. silence, horizontal violence, and organizational [21]. Parcham, E., & Ghasemizad, A. (2017). The impact communication on patient safety. Research in Nursing of organizational culture on employees’ & Health, 43(5), 499-510. organizational silence In Shiraz University of Medical [7]. Demirtas, Z. (2018). The Relationships between Sciences. Journal of Health Management & Organizational Values, Job Satisfaction, Informatics, 4(1), 25-30. Organizational Silence and Affective [22]. Hozouri, M., Yaghmaei, M., & Bordbar, H. (2018). Commitment. Online Submission, 4(11), 108-125. Clarifying the impacts of organizational silence on [8]. Gündüz, Ş., & Pekçetaş, T. (2018). Kuşaklar ve organizational commitment with controlling the örgütsel sessizlik/seslilik. İşletme Bilimi Dergisi, 6(1), effects of organizational rumors. Management Science 89-115. Letters, 8(6), 533-542. [9]. Erdogdu, M. (2018). Effect of Organizational Justice [23]. Bordbar, G., Shad, F. S., Rahimi, E., & Rostami, N. Behaviors on Organizational Silence and Cynicism: A A. (2019). Effect of Organizational Silence on Research on Academics from Schools of Physical Employees Productivity. International Journal of Education and Sports. Universal Journal of Management, Accounting and Economics, 6(3), 198- Educational Research, 6(4), 733-741. 207. [10]. Kim, S., Jung, K., Noh, G., & Kang, L. K. (2019). [24]. Hossein Amirkhani, A., & Ghaleh Agha Babaei, F. What makes employees cynical in public (2017). The impact of organizational silence on organizations? Antecedents of organizational organizational citizenship behavior. Management cynicism. Social Behavior and Personality: an Studies in Development and Evolution, 26(85), 109- international journal, 47(6), 1-10. 124. [11]. Rehan, M.; Iqbal, M.; Fatima, A.; Nawabl, S., [25]. Sirin, Y. E., Aydin, Ö., & Bilir, F. P. (2018). (2017). Organizational cynicism and its relationship Transformational-Transactional Leadership and with employee’s performance in teaching hospitals of Organizational Cynicism Perception: Physical Pakistan. Int. J. Econ. Manag. Sci., 6, 1–6. Education and Sport Teachers Sample. Universal [12]. Breuer, J., & Elson, M. (2017). Frustration– Journal of Educational Research, 6(9), 2008-2018. aggression theory. The Wiley handbook of violence [26]. Tuna, R., Bacaksız, F. E., & Seren, A. K. H. (2018). and aggression, 1-12. The effects of organizational identification and [13]. Premeaux, S. F., & Bedeian, A. G. (2003). Breaking organizational cynicism on employee performance the silence: The moderating effects of self‐monitoring among nurses. International Journal of Caring in predicting speaking up in the workplace. Journal of Sciences, 11(3), 1707-1714. management studies, 40(6), 1537-1562. [27]. Ozdem, G., & Sezer, S. (2019). The relationship [14]. Weiss, H. M., Cropanzano, R., (1996). “Affective between solution-focused school leadership and events theory: A theoretical discussion of the organizational cynicism, organizational commitment structure, causes and consequences of affective and teachers' job satisfaction. International Journal of experiences at work”. In Staw, B. M., Cummings, L. Progressive Education, 15(1), 167-183. L. (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 18: 1– 74. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

TEM Journal – Volume 10 / Number 2 / 2021. 571 TEM Journal. Volume 10, Issue 2, Pages 563‐572, ISSN 2217‐8309, DOI: 10.18421/TEM102‐11, May 2021.

[28]. Schmitz, M. A., Froese, F. J., & Bader, A. K. (2018). [38]. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. Organizational cynicism in multinational E., & Tatham, R. (2006). Multivariate data analysis. in China. Asia Pacific Business Review, 24(5), 620- Uppersaddle River. 637. [39]. Sacchi, M. D. (1998). A bootstrap procedure for [29]. Miller, T. (2018). Effects of transformational high-resolution velocity analysis. Geophysics, 63(5), leadership on employee's organizational cynicism in 1716-1725. an educational organization. [Doctoral dissertation]. [40]. Abubakar, A. M., Megeirhi, H. A., & Shneikat, B. Retrieved from: (2018). Tolerance for workplace incivility, employee https://scholarworks.calstate.edu/concern/theses/jh343 cynicism and job search behavior. The Service t105. [accessed: 28 February 2021]. Industries Journal, 38(9-10), 629-643. [30]. Dyne, L. V., Ang, S., & Botero, I. C. (2003). [41]. Megeirhi, H. A., Ribeiro, M. A., & Woosnam, K. M. Conceptualizing employee silence and employee (2020). Job search behavior explained through voice as multidimensional constructs. Journal of perceived tolerance for workplace incivility, cynicism management studies, 40(6), 1359-1392. and income level: A moderated mediation [31]. Gök, S., Karatuna, I., & Başol, O. (2019). Reliability model. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism and Validity of the Turkish Version of the Workplace Management, 44, 88-97. Incivility Scale. Turk Psikoloji Yazilari, 22(44), 116- [42]. Çaylak, E., & Altuntas, S. (2017). Organizational 118. silence among nurses: The impact on organizational [32]. Brandes, P. M. (1997). Organizational cynicism: Its cynicism and intention to leave work. Journal of nature, antecedents, and consequences. University of Nursing Research, 25(2), 90-98. Cincinnati. [43]. Kim, H. J., Jo, Y. G., & Lee, J. W. (2018). The [33]. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). effects of trust in supervisor, work intensity and Equation modelling: Guidelines for determining organizational cynicism on organizational silence in model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research clinical nurses. Journal of the Korea Academia- Methods, 6(1), 53-60. Industrial cooperation Society, 19(12), 627-635. [34]. Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2010). A [44]. Kumral, T. (2017). İşyeri Nezaketsizliği ve Örgütsel Beginner’s Guide to. Structural Equation Modeling Sessizlik İlişkisinde Örgütsel Dışlanmanın Aracı (3rd Edition), New York: Taylor & Francis Group. Rolü. (Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Marmara [35]. Waltz, C. F., Strickland, O. L., & Lenz, E. R. (Eds.). Üniversitesi, İstanbul.. (2010). Measurement in nursing and health research. [45]. Aljawarneh, N. M. S., & Atan, T. (2018). Linking Springer publishing company. tolerance to workplace incivility, service innovative, [36]. Wang, J., & Wang, X. (2019). Structural equation knowledge hiding, and job search behavior: The modeling: Applications using Mplus. John Wiley & mediating role of employee cynicism. Negotiation Sons. and Conflict Management Research, 11(4), 298-320. [37]. Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of [46]. Manzoor, M. T., Manzoor, T., & Khan, M. (2020). structural equation modeling. Guilford publications. Workplace incivility: a cynicism booster leading to intentions. Decision, 1-9.

572 TEM Journal – Volume 10 / Number 2 / 2021.